Fifteen prominent civil rights groups are taking a conspicuous swing at Federal

Communications Commission Chair Kevin Martin's proposals for a wholesale based à la carte cable system. The idea, if implemented, would deliver

"a crushing blow to channels targeting minority communities," they

charge in a May 29th FCC filing. The groups include the National Congress of

Black Women, the League of Latin American

Citizens, the

National Council of Women's Organization, and the National Gay & Lesbian

Chamber of Commerce.

Ironically, some of these protesters have signed on to the à la carte idea in another context. Read on:

We are baffled

For months, Martin has been talking up reforms that would allow cable operators to dump a channel from expanded basic cable service if it charges more than the monthly rate of 75¢ for each subscriber. The ejected channels would then be made available to subscribers on a pick and choose, or "à la carte" basis. "I believe that if a cable operator only wants to carry one channel, it should not be required to buy 10 or 20 channels in order to do so," Martin told the American Cable Association's 15th Annual Summit in early April. "I believe this is a particularly important issue for those of you who are small operators or serve rural communities."

But the fifteen civil rights groups see things differently, and they include the executive director of the League of Rural Voters. Their statement says that Martin's plan will leave niche minority channels, which often depend on being bundled in big packages, in the lurch. "Wholesale à la carte would strike a deadly blow..." they write, "by eradicating the benefits of bundling. Viewers of minority programming would suffer as a result. It is difficult enough to launch and earn carriage of these channels. We are baffled by the Commission's interest in throwing obstacles in the way of distributing this programming."

This is a bad blow to Martin's à la carte ideas. It's not like these groups are the first to make this point. Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), who represents part of Los Angeles, argued against it last year in an op-ed piece. But most of the anti-à la carte flack has come from the mega cable programming providers, whose protests some observers will dismiss as the usual big media rhetoric.

Martin's 75¢ plan probably stems from his impatience with glacially moving Congressional efforts to encourage a retail based à la carte system, such as Senator John McCain's Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment Act—the CHOICE Act. McCain launched the bill with great fanfare in late May of 2006; it provided incentives for cable to offer pick and choose plans. McCain and Martin promoted CHOICE in a series of widely distributed newspaper op-ed columns. But the bill went nowhere very slowly and seems to have sunk into the background auto flow of the Federal lawmaking landscape.

A thorn is a thorn

The civil rights group protesters see Martin's wholesale plan as a back door version of the CHOICE plan. "The thorn of a rose by any other name would still cut deep," they poetically conclude. "Whether one calls it 'unbundling' or 'wholesale' or 'retail', à la carte is harmful to consumers and diversity of programming. We urge you to continue opposing this and other versions of an idea that has virtually no support among civic groups or lawmakers."

But that last claim is not quite true. In fact, some of these groups have endorsed the proposed merger of XM/Sirius satellite radio, whose principals have promised to offer à la carte packages to subscribers of the merged entity. These will include a "Pick Your Own 50" package at $6.99 and a "Pick Your Own 100" at $14.99.

The merged XM/Sirius boosters include Lillian Rodriguez-Lopez, who signed onto today's petition, but also voiced support for the XM/Sirius deal last November. Same for the Niel Ritchie's League of Rural Voters. "Most important," Ritchie wrote to the Commission last April, "XM and Sirius contend, if allowed to merge, that they will offer more channels for a lower price than the current cost of both services combined." Ditto for the National Black Chamber of Commerce. "Further, XM and Sirius have committed to offering both opportunities for programmers and more choice for consumers at a lower per-unit cost," the group told the FCC in May of 2007.

To be fair, these organizations commented on behalf of XM/Sirius because they appreciate the niche channels the two services have sponsored over the years. And XM/Sirius stepped up their à la carte rhetoric after some of these parties filed. But they might have wanted to double check what they signed onto then, giving what they're telling the FCC now.

Further reading: