Through public notice, Carr signals tougher rules on broadcast networks coming
The FCC has opened a probe into the business relationship between broadcast networks and local affiliated stations.
thedesk.net
-
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
Through public notice, Carr signals tougher rules on broadcast networks coming
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
thedesk.net
This after the president pretty much ordered him to take action during Trump's blistering dressing-down of that ABC reporter a couple of days ago.Through public notice, Carr signals tougher rules on broadcast networks coming
The FCC has opened a probe into the business relationship between broadcast networks and local affiliated stations.
I'm not aware that any TV network charges its affiliates a fee for its programming. It's all done by barter. This is a made-up investigation.
Broadcast TV viewing is a declining market. The owners of the big three networks are already looking into getting out of the business. This new investigation is likely to push media companies further out of broadcasting and more towards streaming.
Not true. Retransmission fees are meant to cover local stations for their investment in local news coverage, not network programming. As I said, network programming is all done by barter, not by fees.
And like the rest of the sycophantic foot soldiers, he falls right in line, actually laws and FCC rules be damned.
From the article:
"The FCC already has a rule that largely prohibits broadcast networks from preventing a local station from pre-empting shows in the event of breaking news; Carr wants to expand the same prohibition to content that is “unsatisfactory or unsuitable or contrary to the public interest” — which, again, the agency and lawmakers have never defined."
Forgive me but didn't TV stations in the South try to buck the networks during the 1960s and early 1970s when those networks offered pro-black civil rights programming? It seems to me that Mr. Carr may be opening a real can of worms with this one.
Also, I note with interest that President Trump was only referenced once in this article and then in a very oblique way. As I think has been noted above, Mr. Carr is making the suggestions at the urging of the aforementioned Mr. Trump who is really looking to give his critics less airtime.
"The FCC already has a rule that largely prohibits broadcast networks from preventing a local station from pre-empting shows in the event of breaking news; Carr wants to expand the same prohibition to content that is “unsatisfactory or unsuitable or contrary to the public interest” — which, again, the agency and lawmakers have never defined."
Forgive me but didn't TV stations in the South try to buck the networks during the 1960s and early 1970s when those networks offered pro-black civil rights programming? It seems to me that Mr. Carr may be opening a real can of worms with this one.
Also, I note with interest that President Trump was only referenced once in this article and then in a very oblique way. As I think has been noted above, Mr. Carr is making the suggestions at the urging of the aforementioned Mr. Trump who is really looking to give his critics less airtime.
It was worse than that. They pre-empted news coverage of civil rights marches and the violence that ensued.
Carr throws around the words "public interest," but what he really means is in the interest of the president. Not the public.
The question it brings up is who gets to make that decision? The government or the viewers?
When did networks prevent a local station from pre-empting shows for Breaking news? I never heard of this. The one concern that came into play was ABC Affiliated owned by Sinclair wanting to pre-empt Jimmy Kimmel for a TV special about Charlie Kirk that Disney determined violated the contract. Even more interesting all stations that did that for breaking news had to move the pre-empted shows to streaming only as in the case of the O&O's or secondary OTA stations in some places. But yes its all about the white house in this case wanting to control the speech.
lot of them do it already occasionally with barely disguised infomercials for grocery stores and hospitals
The public notice referenced in the OP mentions the 1941 Report on Chain Broadcasting as it's justification:
What the report did was require NBC to sell its Blue network to form ABC. However since that report in 1941, the FCC has created a series of ownership limits. Those limits also spell out how many networks a single company can own. Those ownership limits also cover television. So this action by the FCC is basically seeking to impose new laws to cover things that are already regulated. In fact, the FCC is seeking to deregulate some ownership. So in my opinion, the FCC is taking contradictory action, on one hand seeking to deregulate station ownership, while also seeking to regulate in some way the networks.
What the report did was require NBC to sell its Blue network to form ABC. However since that report in 1941, the FCC has created a series of ownership limits. Those limits also spell out how many networks a single company can own. Those ownership limits also cover television. So this action by the FCC is basically seeking to impose new laws to cover things that are already regulated. In fact, the FCC is seeking to deregulate some ownership. So in my opinion, the FCC is taking contradictory action, on one hand seeking to deregulate station ownership, while also seeking to regulate in some way the networks.
Then I wonder where Nexstar is sending $950 million this year.
The line item is called "Network affiliation agreements", which is defined as follows, from pg 40 of their most recent annual report filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission:
Future minimum payments for network affiliation agreements during the contract period. Excludes network affiliation agreements between the Company’s stations and The CW as the related fees are eliminated in consolidation.
My interpretation of that is they're claiming bartered spot time as a payment. They don't actually send a payment to any network. They air programming that contains barter spots in place of local spots. The barter time has value, but so does the programming. They get the programming for free. This is the basis of network and syndicated programming. Yes, barter costs them money. They would sell that time locally if they didn't have a network agreement. But they willingly signed a network agreement. They were not forced into it. They could do what numerous stations do, and operate independently. This option exists, and so there is no need for government regulation.
They actually send payments to all their networks. This is known as "reverse compensation" and has been occurring for around 30 years. It was pioneered by the WB Network.
Here's a piece from RBR 15 years ago, as CBS began to demand such payments: Fee income adding up for CBS Corporation | Radio & Television Business Report
> “Incrementally, [CBS] management believes there is the opportunity for reverse compensation to reach $225 million in two to
> three years time, assuming roughly $0.25 per sub from the non-owned affiliates,” the analyst said.
It's a percentage of the retransmission fees the stations receive from cable and satellite companies.
Is that how it is written in the contracts?
My understanding was that the broadcast stations owe the money to the national networks regardless of how the retransmission fees change over time. But if that is true, that would be putting a major strain on broadcasters as cable/satellite lose subscribers and the retrans revenue drops.
The FCC prohibits obscenity and profanity, but there is no definition of obscenity and no list of profane words.
A number of stations refused to run "All in the Family" and other shows as they felt they were not in conformity with local values. That was not, per se, "civil rights programming". It was just programming that station owners in certain markets disagreed with and thought would offend many of their viewers.
and many stations, mostly in smaller conservative markets except Dallas, wouldn't let viewers decide for themselves about NYPD Blue
The fees cable companies pay to "must carry" stations go to the stations.
As BigA has stated, network affiliates not owned by the network get "free" programming in exchange for a percentage of ad time. The networks then sell that time to national or regional accounts. That is the only real source of revenue for the "wired networks" (of course, shows that they own can be "leased" to cable nets, streaming services, etc., for later broadcast).
What the FCC hasn't addressed in this proposal is that the concept of a "network" has changed drastically since the 1940s. Back then, the radio networks were connected by AT&T long lines. The Red and Blue networks of NBC referred to the colors of the wires at the AT&T switching offices. CBS was yellow. I believe Mutual was green. The AT&T long lines became obsolete in the late 70s and early 80s, and were replaced by satellites. In any case, the old networks were cost-prohibitive for most companies.
Today, networks can be created using the internet. Anyone can create a network. In fact, station groups such as NexStar and Sinclair have their own networks. A few years ago, Grey put together its own diginetwork. NexStar is an investor in the CW. So the stations have in fact created their own networks. To say that there are only four TV networks today ignores the reality. If the FCC imposes rules on networks, they will have to also apply to those ad hoc station based networks.
No one forces these stations to become affiliates. They enter affiliation deals willingly. The fact that the federal government is looking to insert itself in this process should concern anyone in this business.
When WFAA refused to air NYPD Blue it was picked up by competitor KTXA.
You are thinking of “retransmission consent” in which video providers pay for carrying a station.
“Must Carry” involves a station forcing carriage by a video provider, but without receiving compensation. Such stations are usually market dogs that have little viewership.
You are overlooking “reverse compensation” which has become a thing in recent years. The money is now flowing from affiliates to networks, the opposite of years ago.