Quid Pro Quo: Relax ownership but end retransmission fees?

[Mediafrog+]

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.

Gads, my point is simply not getting across.😖

All I am saying is that anyone subscribing to cable should have the option of NOT including local channels as part of the overall subscription package. Locals would simply not be available to those subscribers that don’t want them, just as any premium channel(s) not paid for wouldn’t be available as well.

Yes, that would financially clobber a lot of stations. Is that the cable company’s problem? Or perhaps OTA television has a failing business model that needs to be revamped?

 

[TheBigA]

Is that the cable company’s problem? Or perhaps OTA television has a failing business model that needs to be revamped?

Do cable companies make money by carrying local channels? If so, why shouldn't the local stations be compensated in the same way that cable channels are compensated?

 

[ted chittenden]

Do cable companies make money by carrying local channels? If so, why shouldn't the local stations be compensated in the same way that cable channels are compensated?

I'm reading this thread and my initial reaction is "What the hell?" Cable started off as a means to allow viewers to receive local TV stations in places where it was hard to receive them. Growing up in Tujunga, California, I distinctly remember that we were served by Beverly Hills Cable for that very reason. Cable was forced to carry its own programming after the courts required it and now some don't wish to carry local TV channels anymore because their other programming (that which they were forced to develop) is drawing bigger audiences. Also, I seem to remember that there was a time when cable systems had to carry local over-the-air TV whether they wanted to or not, and I didn't realize that that had ended until I began reading this thread.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Do cable companies make money by carrying local channels? If so, why shouldn't the local stations be compensated in the same way that cable channels are compensated?

I have no problem with broadcast stations being compensated for cable carriage, just like any other program creator. But once again, my argument is that a local channel tier should be an option for subscribers, not forced upon them.

 

[TheBigA]

I have no problem with broadcast stations being compensated for cable carriage, just like any other program creator. But once again, my argument is that a local channel tier should be an option for subscribers, not forced upon them.

However, it will require congress to either repeal or amend the Cable TV act, which is different from the FCC loosening ownership rules. Which is why the "quid pro quo" proposed in the article you posted is wrong. They want things addressed that don't fall under the FCC's purview.

 

[newsmark]

I have no problem with broadcast stations being compensated for cable carriage, just like any other program creator. But once again, my argument is that a local channel tier should be an option for subscribers, not forced upon them.

But you don’t have the choice to get cable without ESPN or Nickelodeon. What would locals be handled differently?

 

[KeithE4]

But you don’t have the choice to get cable without ESPN or Nickelodeon. What would locals be handled differently?

Cable is obsolete in many areas. Satellite dishes will be gone in the next decade, as the birds fail. Streaming is the future, and things are already changing. ESPN, the 800-pound gorilla, is offering its own package now (not just ESPN+, which has been available for years), and the others will follow soon if they haven't already. The major pro sports have been doing so for years. I don't see NFL Sunday Ticket, for example, hanging onto YouTube TV for very long. MLB is already commandeering all of their teams' broadcasting contracts, effective in 2028 at the latest. The NHL is still tied to ESPN+ for out-of-market games, but how long will that last?

 

[IM42A]

Cable started off as a means to allow viewers to receive local TV stations in places where it was hard to receive them.

Perhaps this is included in what you say about "local" TV stations (bad reception areas and so on), but in many areas, one of cable's drawing cards was being able to bring in stations from distant markets that were too far away to be received with normal rooftop antennas. Different markets' TV stations provided more variety than nowadays, with various syndicated shows being available in some markets but not others, and pre-emption of network offerings for non-network fare, as well as time-shifting of network shows, was more common than it is today. In-state news and sports could also be brought to far corners of a state where only out-of-state stations were otherwise available (what are today called "orphan counties"), and of course there were the wildly popular independents that were often brought to viewers hundreds of miles from their home cities.

 

[davideduardo]

Perhaps this is included in what you say about "local" TV stations (bad reception areas and so on), but in many areas, one of cable's drawing cards was being able to bring in stations from distant markets that were too far away to be received with normal rooftop antennas.

When it was called Community Antenna TV, cable was ONLY intended to provide TV service to areas that had no local TV or were in ultra-fringe areas.

Different markets' TV stations provided more variety than nowadays, with various syndicated shows being available in some markets but not others, and pre-emption of network offerings for non-network fare, as well as time-shifting of network shows, was more common than it is today.

But even back a half a century, both networks and syndicated shows protected local affiliates and subscribers from the presence of out of market sources of the same content.

In-state news and sports could also be brought to far corners of a state where only out-of-state stations were otherwise available (what are today called "orphan counties"), and of course there were the wildly popular independents that were often brought to viewers hundreds of miles from their home cities.

But those "independents" had to protect local station content, which is why much of the original Turner and WGN content was, well, kinda' third rate.

 

[IM42A]

When it was called Community Antenna TV, cable was ONLY intended to provide TV service to areas that had no local TV or were in ultra-fringe areas.

But even back a half a century, both networks and syndicated shows protected local affiliates and subscribers from the presence of out of market sources of the same content.

But those "independents" had to protect local station content, which is why much of the original Turner and WGN content was, well, kinda' third rate.

I don't recall when this kind of protection (either overlay by in-market network affiliates, or blacking out of duplicated content) started being done, but I do recall that at least in the mid-1970s, distant stations, at least on the systems with which I was familiar, were just carried in a linear fashion, with no such substitution/blacking out. It probably started about that time. Or perhaps the systems I have in mind just didn't follow the rules.

 

[IM42A]

Here is a very lengthy treatment of the subject, as well as other issues:

What’s on Television? The Intersection of Communications and Copyright Policies

 

[ted chittenden]

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.

Beyond @davideduardo's reply above, I believe (going from memory) that at the time the "must-carry" rule came out, most households owned one, maybe two, TV sets. So the choice was to go to cable (which didn't want to carry the local TV channels) or just use the antenna and/or rabbit ears on top of your own TV set.

 

[ted chittenden]

Gads, my point is simply not getting across.😖

All I am saying is that anyone subscribing to cable should have the option of NOT including local channels as part of the overall subscription package. Locals would simply not be available to those subscribers that don’t want them, just as any premium channel(s) not paid for wouldn’t be available as well.

Beyond the historical point I made above, the primary reason that cable customers should not have the capability to opt out of receiving local market stations through their cable company is access to local news. Whether or not they want it, cable customers need to have that local news access presumably in order to make decisions on their ballots come Election Day.

Look. The cable TV business treats (as do all businesses) the people who purchase it as customers or consumers. But customers aren't just consumers. They/we are also citizens who need information on which to make valid choices for their/our lives and the lives of others as well. In other words, if, as you recommend, we remove the "must carry" for local channels from TV cable systems, then it becomes absolutely necessary that cable companies be required to carry local news for the markets that they serve.

 

[TheBigA]

In other words, if, as you recommend, we remove the "must carry" for local channels from TV cable systems, then it becomes absolutely necessary that cable companies be required to carry local news for the markets that they serve.

The problem is those must carry rules don't apply to the internet. So I can drop cable, only subscribe to the channels I want, and avoid the local news that I don't want to watch. Nothing anyone can do about it. Meanwhile cable companies continue to raise prices to keep up with retransmission fees.

 

[Larry]

Meanwhile cable companies continue to raise prices to keep up with retransmission fees.

But we are starting to see streamers raise prices and they will continue to do so as they acquire more rights to sporting events which are expensive. Under the cable model I had to pay for ESPN even if I didn’t watch sports. Now I will have to start paying an extra dollar or two or five or ten monthly because the streamer I subscribe to obtained costly rights to air (fill in the name of the sports league).

 

[Mediafrog+]

Beyond the historical point I made above, the primary reason that cable customers should not have the capability to opt out of receiving local market stations through their cable company is access to local news. Whether or not they want it, cable customers need to have that local news access presumably in order to make decisions on their ballots come Election Day.

That’s like saying people should be forced to subscribe to their local newspaper.

In other words, if, as you recommend, we remove the "must carry" for local channels from TV cable systems, then it becomes absolutely necessary that cable companies be required to carry local news for the markets that they serve.

I did not say cable companies should “remove” local channels. I am saying that subscribing to them should be an option, not a requirement.

 

[radiofan2023]

But we are starting to see streamers raise prices and they will continue to do so as they acquire more rights to sporting events which are expensive. Under the cable model I had to pay for ESPN even if I didn’t watch sports. Now I will have to start paying an extra dollar or two or five or ten monthly because the streamer I subscribe to obtained costly rights to air (fill in the name of the sports league).

Anyone can unsubscribe if they don't like paying more.

 

[TexasTom]

That’s like saying people should be forced to subscribe to their local newspaper.

I did not say cable companies should “remove” local channels. I am saying that subscribing to them should be an option, not a requirement.

The option is that you can choose not to subscribe to cable TV -- and I'll note that more and more people are opting out of cable.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

ATVA: FCC lacks authority to eliminate national ownership cap

December 1, 2025 - The American Television Alliance says the FCC lacks the authority to lift or eliminate the broadcast TV ownership cap because certain rules were codified by Congress in 2004.

thedesk.net

Here is the current status on the ownership cap.