• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Quid Pro Quo: Relax ownership but end retransmission fees?

Not sure they understand the purpose of retransmission fees. Cable companies make money retransmitting broadcast stations. The fee is to compensate the stations for the money the cable companies make. That fee is passed on to the subscribers. Subscribers can opt out of local channels.

Streaming services have the ability to charge consumers directly. Broadcasters can't do that. If they want to eliminate retransmission fees, the logical thing to do is allow broadcasters to charge viewers directly the way done by streaming companies.
 
TheBigA said:
Not sure they understand the purpose of retransmission fees. Cable companies make money retransmitting broadcast stations. The fee is to compensate the stations for the money the cable companies make. That fee is passed on to the subscribers.
Click to expand...
You could also make the argument that cable companies extend the reach of broadcast stations, providing extra value and adding viewers that might not otherwise watch the station OTA due to reception issues and other factors.
TheBigA said:
Subscribers can opt out of local channels.
Click to expand...
They can? Since when? On what systems? Local broadcast stations are always part of the cable base packages. I’m not aware of any system that allows subscribers to opt out of a local station lineup.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
You could also make the argument that cable companies extend the reach of broadcast stations, providing extra value and adding viewers that might not otherwise watch the station OTA due to reception issues and other factors.
Click to expand...

That discussion took place in the 1992 Cable Act. That was the basis for retransmission fees.

Mediafrog+ said:
They can? Since when? On what systems? Local broadcast stations are always part of the cable base packages. I’m not aware of any system that allows subscribers to opt out of a local station lineup.
Click to expand...

It's a separate charge that appears on your bill.
 
TheBigA said:
It's a separate charge that appears on your bill.
Click to expand...
In my past experience the “broadcast TV fee” appears as a line item on cable TV bills, but there is no way to opt out of local channels with any cable package combination AFAIK.

Ideally cable subscribers would have the option of receiving local channels OTA for free while paying the cable company for everything else. Same for satellite. I recall the original Orby satellite service would receive local channels OTA and combine them in the receiver with the national satellite signals.

I ditched cable in favor of YTTV and other streamers a few years ago, but I don’t think the local channel situation on cable has changed.
 
I understand why retransmission fees are not popular.

But… cable/satellite customers pay $10/month for ESPN whether they watch it or not. That’s probably the highest, but most channels get substantial subscriber fees.

Without retrans, TV stations and networks are at a competitive disadvantage. They’d need significantly higher ratings to make the same amount of money from the same program.
 
In today's broadcasting environment, where`the only thing that really varies between stations in different markets is local news, and sports in some cases, I have a hard time understanding why cable carriage of out-of-market stations still has the limitations imposed on it that it does, unless it is the retransmission fees that are enough of a limitation all by themselves. Even in smaller markets adjacent to major ones, people still want their local news, and would seek it out even if distant markets were available.

Ending retransmission fees, and having multiple affiliates of major networks, probably wouldn't draw significant numbers of viewers away from in-market stations, unless it were a case of viewers being forced to rely upon stations that don't serve their local interests, such as the various counties in southeastern Kentucky that are forced into the Knoxville and Tri-Cities markets when they'd probably rather get Lexington stations, most of all WYMT Hazard. That is just one example. Carriage of OOM stations could be quite a shot in the arm to struggling cable providers, some of whom are closing shop entirely. With the capabilities of digital cable, surely lack of open channel slots isn't an issue anymore, and in-market stations could still be assigned to lower channel numbers.
 
PTBoardOp93 said:
I have never heard of that being possible with any cable company. It certainly is not possible with Spectrum/Charter.
Click to expand...
IIRC, when I first signed up with DirecTV in 2013, local channels were optional at $5 and month. I took that offer and kept it for the entire 7 years I had it, so I have no idea when locals became mandatory.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
Ideally cable subscribers would have the option of receiving local channels OTA for free while paying the cable company for everything else. Same for satellite. I recall the original Orby satellite service would receive local channels OTA and combine them in the receiver with the national satellite signals.
Click to expand...
The "Must Carry" fees are a "no choice" part of cable.

"Under U.S. law, local broadcast TV stations have a choice every three years between two options: Must-Carry Status: The station can require the local cable provider to carry its signal for free. The cable provider cannot charge the station for this carriage, nor does the station receive compensation.Retransmission Consent: The station can choose to negotiate with the cable provider for carriage fees (compensation) in exchange for permission to retransmit its signal. " Google AI

Those fees go to the stations, and in many markets represent more than half of revenue. If they were eliminated, many local stations would make big cuts, particularly in their local news departments.
 
KeithE4 said:
IIRC, when I first signed up with DirecTV in 2013, local channels were optional at $5 and month. I took that offer and kept it for the entire 7 years I had it, so I have no idea when locals became mandatory.
Click to expand...
Different rules for cable.
 
IM42A said:
In today's broadcasting environment, where`the only thing that really varies between stations in different markets is local news, and sports in some cases, I have a hard time understanding why cable carriage of out-of-market stations still has the limitations imposed on it that it does, unless it is the retransmission fees that are enough of a limitation all by themselves. Even in smaller markets adjacent to major ones, people still want their local news, and would seek it out even if distant markets were available.

Ending retransmission fees, and having multiple affiliates of major networks, probably wouldn't draw significant numbers of viewers away from in-market stations, unless it were a case of viewers being forced to rely upon stations that don't serve their local interests, such as the various counties in southeastern Kentucky that are forced into the Knoxville and Tri-Cities markets when they'd probably rather get Lexington stations, most of all WYMT Hazard. That is just one example. Carriage of OOM stations could be quite a shot in the arm to struggling cable providers, some of whom are closing shop entirely. With the capabilities of digital cable, surely lack of open channel slots isn't an issue anymore, and in-market stations could still be assigned to lower channel numbers.
Click to expand...
Much of the issue here is related to network affiliations and syndicated show contracts. These content providers pretty much "guarantee" exclusivity to local market stations for their content, so a cable system in a different defined market can not carry an out of market station's network or syndicated shows.
 
davideduardo said:
The "Must Carry" fees are a "no choice" part of cable.
Click to expand...
The argument is whether cable customers should be forced to subscribe to and pay for inclusion of local channels as part of their overall subscription, or whether a local channels package should be an option like everything else on offer.

If you can get local channels for free with an antenna, why be forced to pay for them redundantly as part of a cable subscription?

Yes, I am aware that “those are the rules” but perhaps that should be changed. Otherwise you should turn all OTA television into a subscription model, as many are accusing the ATSC 3.0 standard as trying to do.

Yes, I worked in broadcast television for most of my career so I know I’m biting the hand that fed me.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
The argument is whether cable customers should be forced to subscribe to and pay for inclusion of local channels as part of their overall subscription, or whether a local channels package should be an option like everything else on offer.

If you can get local channels for free with an antenna, why be forced to pay for them redundantly as part of a cable subscription?

Yes, I am aware that “those are the rules” but perhaps that should be changed. Otherwise you should turn all OTA television into a subscription model, as many are accusing the ATSC 3.0 standard as trying to do.
Click to expand...
The cable systems model is to grab content and distribute it. If they take local or national content, someone seems to have too give (as in "sell") them the right to do it.

The key issue here is that those local stations that provide news and other services would, in a high percentage of cases, no longer be profitable.

In many situations, installing an antenna is not a viable option. For example, my HOA prohibits outside TV antennas, but they provide "free" cable as part of our monthly dues. So I have no choice but to use cable... or streaming services.
 
davideduardo said:
In many situations, installing an antenna is not a viable option. For example, my HOA prohibits outside TV antennas, but they provide "free" cable as part of our monthly dues. So I have no choice but to use cable... or streaming services.
Click to expand...
I didn't think HOAs could prohibit outdoor TV antennas, per OTARD.
 
IM42A said:
I didn't think HOAs could prohibit outdoor TV antennas, per OTARD.
Click to expand...
They can make the rules so difficult that they achieve the same goal, In our case, the exterior maintenance (roof, etc) is HOA responsibility, so they require an approved contractor and have extreme visibility restrictions. The end cost is high and the antenna is less than optimum.
 


Back
Top Bottom