I agree... cases like this definitely make you think about the Must Carry Rules as they currently exist, whether they should be changed, and if so, how they should be changed.
Current options:
1) Station can demand it be carried on cable. Cable company must carry, but doesn't pay a cent.
2) Station can demand retransmission fees. Cable company now has option to keep station and pay fee, or refuse to pay and drop station.
In general, high-demand stations like those in the "big 4" networks can get away with option 2, knowing that their programming is popular, and knowing that cable companies would get flak from customers if a popular station disappears. But in most cases, stations don't expect that they'll be replaced by other network affiliates in other communities. For example, I don't think Smith Media ever expected TWC to replace WKTV with WBRE, and apparently WBRE's owner never saw it coming either.
The disputes in 2010 -- Comcast vs. News Corp, TWC vs. Sinclair, and TWC vs. Smith -- gained plenty of media attention and attention from lawmakers as well. It's almost certain that this issue will eventually be addressed by the FCC or Congress.
Should the rules change? Definitely. Consumers always lose out twice in these situations -- first, by having channels taken away, and again, by paying higher cable bills when those channels are restored.
My suggestion: no retransmission fees for ANY channel, broadcast or cable. All local stations are carried for free, and all cable stations are carried for free. The cable company only charges based on the actual costs of receiving and relaying the programming. Content providers make their money entirely on advertising revenue, just like most other forms of media. Benefit to the consumer: no more paying for dozens/hundreds of packaged channels that you rarely or never watch just to get the handful of channels you DO watch often.
Obviously, that won't work just as I've laid it out above. If any channel (like HBO, Cinemax, etc.) wants a retransmission fee, that's fine -- but viewers have the option to pick and choose exactly which channels they want to pay for. Yep, basically, it would be a la carte. But at least consumers wouldn't be forced to pay for channels they don't watch.
Imagine if you wanted a subscription to Time magazine and it's $50 a year. But Time won't let you buy Time by itself. You also have to buy Sports Illustrated, Popular Mechanics, Cosmopolitan, Cooking Light, GQ, TV Guide, Newsweek, The Oprah Magazine, Electronic Gaming Monthly, People, Ms., National Enquirer, Woman's Day, Wired and Martha Stewart Living. Now you're paying $250 for all these magazines. But there are very few people who would actually care to read ALL of these magazines every single month. Most of them would just get thrown out. That's a waste of paper, and a waste of your money. You shouldn't have to pay $250 for a dozen magazines when you just want the ONE magazine for just $50.
Same thing with cable. I shouldn't be stuck paying for channels I don't watch. But I don't have the option to pick and choose the channels I do want.
