-
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
CABLEVISION: WE WANT TO CHANGE THE CABLE TV RULES
- Thread starter gregg75
- Start date
F
FreddyE1977
Guest
They are really swimming against the tide on that one. The whole direction of the FCC right now
is to tell the people they regulate a whole lot MORE of what they must do, not less.
is to tell the people they regulate a whole lot MORE of what they must do, not less.
gregg75 said:
I actually like the idea.I don't think local affiliates should be charging cable or Satellite company's to air a local station.If the FCC allows local stations to charge a cable company to re broadcast they should be able to air another affiliate within x miles to broaden the competition.Must carry with a the price that the local affiliate wants to charge is baloney
kenwood101 said:
If a station claims must-carry, they can't charge the cable/satellite operator.
With the disclaimer that I work for a local TV station... I think local stations are indeed justified to expect compensation from cable/satellite operators, at least on par with what they pay other channels with the same viewership.
Cable exists as a business today only because, until very recently, broadcasters were FORCED to allow cable to carry broadcasters' copyrighted programs without compensation.
A cable system without OTA stations forty years ago would not have survived to 39 years ago. Broadcasters were required by law to offer their programming to cable without charge -- required to subsidize the growth of a retransmission industry that would swamp local stations with additional competitors. Most of whom weren't subject to the same rules for public service, EBS(then), or indecency as applied to broadcasters.
So here's my alternative proposal.
We calculate the total fee each OTA station pays for syndicated programming. Add what they pay their networks in reverse compensation. And their expenditures for producing local programs -- newscasts etc.. Pro-rate the total for the proportion of the audience that's watching each station on cable. (as opposed to OTA)
The pro-rated sum is the value of the free programming the cable operator is receiving from OTA. Let the cable operators pay for *that*.
(and let's watch them rapidly withdraw their complaints about the current system...)
I don't have any skin in this game but that "solution" doesn't seem logical to me.
The local broadcaster is ad-supported and putting a signal out for anyone with a receiver. Whether the end-viewer gets it direct OTA or through the services of cable or sat seems irrelevant. It is a not-for-fee signal.
The cable/sat provider is allowing the broadcaster's signal to reach more of an audience and with an improved quality that otherwise might not be possible. It costs the broadcaster nothing (that I am aware of).
The cable/sat provider is the one coughing up funds to carry the broadcaster, not the other way around.
The local broadcaster is ad-supported and putting a signal out for anyone with a receiver. Whether the end-viewer gets it direct OTA or through the services of cable or sat seems irrelevant. It is a not-for-fee signal.
The cable/sat provider is allowing the broadcaster's signal to reach more of an audience and with an improved quality that otherwise might not be possible. It costs the broadcaster nothing (that I am aware of).
The cable/sat provider is the one coughing up funds to carry the broadcaster, not the other way around.
That's a formula for ensuring that the migration of certain high dollar programming (especially sports) continues to migrate over to cable networks.
The problem is that the competitors to the broadcast TV networks all collect revenue from both subscribers and advertisers, which allows them to outbid the broadcast counterparts. Look at the situation with Monday Night Football, which Disney moved from ABC to ESPN -- in the process, the cost of the rights from the NFL has doubled twice (from $500 million/year at the end of it's run on ABC, to $1 billion when it first moved to ESPN, and now up to $2 billion).
My preference would be to see an a la carte system in place for any network or station that charges a fee. That way, viewers could vote with their wallets on whether they wanted to pay for ESPN...or ABC, for that matter, if the local affiliate was seeking retransmission fees. Networks would be forced to choose between universal coverage and those retrans fees...and everyone would be on an equal footing.
The problem is that the competitors to the broadcast TV networks all collect revenue from both subscribers and advertisers, which allows them to outbid the broadcast counterparts. Look at the situation with Monday Night Football, which Disney moved from ABC to ESPN -- in the process, the cost of the rights from the NFL has doubled twice (from $500 million/year at the end of it's run on ABC, to $1 billion when it first moved to ESPN, and now up to $2 billion).
My preference would be to see an a la carte system in place for any network or station that charges a fee. That way, viewers could vote with their wallets on whether they wanted to pay for ESPN...or ABC, for that matter, if the local affiliate was seeking retransmission fees. Networks would be forced to choose between universal coverage and those retrans fees...and everyone would be on an equal footing.
- Status