If you have cable or satellite TV, then you are probably paying for channels that you either never watch or did not even know that you had. This is because cable and satellite TV providers sell “bundles” of packages in their different subscription packages. You buy a package, and those are the channels you get. If you want a specific channel, then you better buy a package that includes it. Wouldn’t it be nice to order and pay for only the channels that you want? Well, new legislation introduced in the Senate would force cable companies to do just that.
The bill is known as the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013 and was sponsored by Senator John McCain. The bill would require cable and satellite TV providers to offer “a la carte” channel ordering for consumers. Basically, you could pick the channels that you want out of your provider’s “channel menu” and order only the channels that you wish to pay for. McCain argues that the current practice of bundling the channels forces consumers to pay money for content that they do not want.
Critics of the “a la carte” approach argue that if a person is willing to pay to have access to the channels that they want to watch, then what they are really paying for is access to those channels and any extra channels received are just a bonus. Additionally, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association opposes the “a la carte” approach on the grounds that bundling channels offers better channel diversity and encourages development of specially targeted programming. This argument has arguably lost some weight with the advent of original programming by Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and other streaming platforms.
The bill also addressed two other areas: (1) the threat of major networks, such as Fox and CBS, to move to paid channels and (2) blackouts of local sports broadcasts.
First, major broadcast networks began their threats to move to paid programming in the wake of the Aereo decision in the Second Circuit. The bill would punish major networks if they decide to move their programming to cable by denying them access to broadcast airwaves that they currently receive for free.
Additionally, the NFL and several other major sports leagues have a blackout policy for locally broadcast games if they do not sell a required number of tickets to the game. The bill would outlaw that practice in situations where public funds are used to build the team’s stadium. Many teams require public assistance in funding their new stadiums, and the bill argued that denying local citizens the ability to watch a team that their tax dollars help fund is unconscionable.
The debate over a la carte cable is fundamentally a debate about federal regulation of media markets. Cable and satellite TV providers are regulated under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and subsequent amendments, including the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has jurisdiction over cable rates, must-carry obligations, and the retransmission consent framework that governs the relationship between broadcast networks and cable operators.
The must-carry rules under 47 U.S.C. § 534 require cable operators to carry local broadcast stations, and the retransmission consent regime under 47 U.S.C. § 325 allows broadcasters to negotiate compensation from cable operators for carriage of their signals. It is the retransmission consent negotiations that create the periodic disputes — and threatened blackouts — that cable subscribers experience when a broadcaster and a cable operator fail to agree on terms. The Television Consumer Freedom Act sought to address these market failures legislatively.
The decade since Senator McCain introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act has seen a dramatic market response to the bundling problem — not through legislation, but through competition. The rise of streaming services has effectively delivered the a la carte experience through market forces: consumers can now subscribe to Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max, ESPN+, Paramount+, Peacock, and dozens of other services individually, paying only for the content they value. Cord-cutting — the practice of canceling traditional cable or satellite subscriptions — has accelerated consistently since 2015, with millions of American households abandoning the bundle entirely.
The irony is that many consumers who abandoned the cable bundle to escape paying for unwanted channels have now accumulated multiple streaming subscriptions that, taken together, approach or exceed their old cable bill. The fragmentation of content rights across dozens of platforms has created a new version of the bundling problem: consumers must subscribe to multiple services to access the content they want, and the total cost rivals what they previously paid for the bundle.
The debate over a la carte cable is, at its core, a debate about how intellectual property rights should be packaged and sold. The retransmission consent regime is essentially a licensing framework: broadcasters license their content to cable operators in exchange for carriage fees and, increasingly, channel placement guarantees. The streaming era has created an entirely new set of licensing relationships, as content owners — studios, sports leagues, news organizations — decide whether to distribute through third-party platforms or to build their own direct-to-consumer services.
Revision Legal’s communications attorneys monitor these developments closely and advise clients in the media and entertainment industries on licensing, distribution agreements, and content protection strategies. Revision Legal’s communications lawyers will keep you abreast of any significant legal developments in this space. Contact us today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
The communications and media industries operate under a dense regulatory framework that spans FCC licensing, copyright law, contract law, and emerging digital regulation. For content creators, distributors, and technology companies navigating this landscape, legal counsel with specific expertise in communications law is essential. The intersection of intellectual property rights — particularly in music licensing, sports broadcast rights, and original programming — with the contractual frameworks governing distribution creates a complex environment where general practitioners frequently lack the specialized knowledge needed to advise effectively.
Revision Legal monitors legislative and regulatory developments in communications law closely. From the retransmission consent disputes that periodically black out broadcast channels to the ongoing evolution of digital rights management and streaming licensing, the communications law landscape continues to change in ways that affect how content is created, distributed, and monetized. Our attorneys advise clients in the media and entertainment industries on the legal issues at the forefront of these changes.
For legal assistance with media and communications law issues, contact Revision Legal at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Revision Legal is a national intellectual property and internet law firm that represents clients across the United States in trademark, copyright, trade secret, and internet law matters. We are a firm of specialists — not general practitioners who handle IP work as one component of a broad practice, but attorneys whose entire professional focus is on the intersection of technology, creativity, and commerce.
Our attorneys have handled cases at every level of the federal court system, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. We manage trademark portfolios for hundreds of clients, ranging from individual entrepreneurs registering their first mark to publicly traded companies maintaining global trademark portfolios across dozens of countries.
We believe that access to expert legal counsel should not depend on the size of your organization. Revision Legal’s flat-fee service model for routine IP matters — trademark registration, copyright registration, DMCA notices, and standard licensing agreements — allows small businesses, startups, and individual creators to access the same quality of legal representation that larger companies receive, at a price that is predictable and fair. For complex litigation and contested proceedings, we work efficiently to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients while managing costs responsibly.
Whatever your intellectual property or internet law need — whether you are protecting a new brand, enforcing your rights against an infringer, defending against a legal demand, or navigating a complex licensing transaction — Revision Legal has the expertise to help. Contact us today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form to discuss your matter.
A federal court upheld the FCC’s net neutrality rules, requiring ISPs to treat all internet traffic equally. Here’s what the ruling means for consumers and online businesses.
Read more about DC Court Protects Net Neutrality: What It Means
Business communications may be protected from court discovery by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. Here’s when your emails and messages are legally protected.
Read more about Are Business Communications Protected from Discovery?
Anti-SLAPP laws protect defendants from meritless defamation lawsuits designed to silence them. Here’s how anti-SLAPP statutes apply to internet defamation cases.
Read more about Internet Defamation and Anti-SLAPP Laws