Bill to end carriage disputes

[edisonprime]

I support this bill. Regulated market capitalism works.

I disagree, but I won't elaborate since we aren't supposed to talk politics. But MAYBE on this topic I'd make an exception, but I'm not completely sure...

 

[comfortably_numb]

I'm not completely sure...

I am sure. I am for small government all day long, but if some controls are not in place, inflation and extortion will reel out of control. These prolonged ridiculous disputes are a prime example of that.

 

[Bobby]

No direct fiber connects in SF?

None whatsoever...

 

[sam_gordon]

Do you think that "Dish and the others" are able to receive the normal over the air broadcasts, and then rebroadcast those via satellite?

No. The individual network stations (channels) must have and pay for an alternate source to get the signal to "Dish and the others"!

That could mean sending the signal by fiber, or more likely, by transmitting the signal to a satellite in space!

Whichever, the network channels are in a contract for that, that still must be paid for even if " Dish and the others" stop paying!

" Dish and the others" also have to have a receiving station to be able to rebroadcast the signal via their normal means!

ekilgus, just stop and think for a minute, "at absolutely no cost to them" ?

Who paid for your antenna, cables, and tv? And who pays for the electricity for that?

You imply that it is free, but almost everything has a cost involved! Your cost is just a little bit less than theirs!

I'll back up the others. In my market, the local cable company has fiber from each station, DirecTV has fiber from one station (their pickup is on the campus of that station) and relies on OTA for the others. Dish uses OTA for all pickups. Legally, you're not allowed to give the signal to others and benefit from it. That's why it's illegal to charge for Super Bowl watch parties.

 

[ncted]

Not sure about all the stations in my market, but I know WRAL provided leased lines delivery to all the major providers as of 2011. They did it to ensure the best possible picture for all their viewers. However, they are owned by a fairly small media company called Capital Broadcasting Company with only 3 TV stations (and some other assets), but they don't have to answer to Wall Street, so they can make smarter long-term decisions, not based on how much they can grow revenue from quarter to quarter. They are the exception to the rule, which reminded me of something.

When they had a retransmission dispute in 2017 with Uverse, they apparently didn't ask for an increase, but AT&T wanted to cut what they were already paying, presumably to help pay down all that debt they'd incurred with DirecTV. Anyway, during that dispute, CBC managed to renew their contract with Dish early, gave away 4000 OTA antennas, and put this comment out for public consumption:

"We are not pushing for things that are unreasonable. We are asking to be paid market rate for our programming so we can pay the affiliation fees required by NBC and FOX. This isn't about greed, it's about survival for our small, locally-owned media company. We have successfully negotiated fair deals with five other distributors in the last 10 months without impacting our viewers. We just want AT&T to come to the table and be reasonable. We believe AT&T has another motive.

Since the merger of AT&T and DIRECTV, 143 local stations have reached negotiation impasses with AT&T and have gone off the air for some period of time. That's 143 stations since 2016. Read about them here. We hope you see this situation isn't unique to Capitol Broadcasting. It's not."

My point is this. In most cases, I blame the large broadcast media conglomerates for this mess, but it isn't always the case. Either way, they need to do something to stop these disputes from depriving the public they serve of the local news, weather, traffic, and public safety information they are charged to provide. If everyone could get everything OTA, perhaps I would think differently, but that is not the case, and, given my own struggles to get reliable OTA reception a mere 28 miles from the transmission towers, cable/satellite/OTT are something I have had to rely on for decades. There is no avoiding the reality that this is how huge sections of the population get access to these resources. One side being able to just take their ball and go home while the other "must carry" is imbalanced and does a disservice to their supposed customers.

 

[dare2be]

I think the solution is simple. Enforce "must carry" for everyone. The stations and MVPDs split the costs evenly. Drop additional fees to the consumer for locals except for the actual cost of delivery by market (fiber, uplink, electricity, etc).

 

[rvvaquero]

I think the solution is simple. Enforce "must carry" for everyone.

I agree totally. Oh, wait. You're not talking about the solution to mass shootings, are you?

 

[comfortably_numb]

I agree totally. Oh, wait. You're not talking about the solution to mass shootings, are you?

 

[sam_gordon]

We are not pushing for things that are unreasonable. We are asking to be paid market rate for our programming so we can pay the affiliation fees required by NBC and FOX. This isn't about greed, it's about survival for our small, locally-owned media company. We have successfully negotiated fair deals with five other distributors in the last 10 months without impacting our viewers. We just want AT&T to come to the table and be reasonable. We believe AT&T has another motive.

Isn't that basically the same verbiage every broadcast owner uses when they're in a dispute? "We're not unreasonable", "We want market rate", "We've successfully negotiated with all the other providers."

 

[ncted]

Isn't that basically the same verbiage every broadcast owner uses when they're in a dispute? "We're not unreasonable", "We want market rate", "We've successfully negotiated with all the other providers."

Essentially yes, although, in this case, CBC wasn't actually asking for a rate increase. It was AT&T who was unwilling to keep paying the existing rate for the highest rated local station in my market. I am simply pointing out that it isn't always about the station owners bilking us, and, even in those cases, the stations should not be allowed to be pulled from the MVPDs.

 

[edisonprime]

I am sure. I am for small government all day long, but if some controls are not in place, inflation and extortion will reel out of control. These prolonged ridiculous disputes are a prime example of that.

One of the reasons I'm worried about such a bill is that it might make the cost for cable/satellite service more expensive.

 

[comfortably_numb]

One of the reasons I'm worried about such a bill is that it might make the cost for cable/satellite service more expensive.

It could, if the networks feel they need to recover their costs somehow. That's why I am a strong advocate of Dish's model of optional locals.

 

[ncted]

One of the reasons I'm worried about such a bill is that it might make the cost for cable/satellite service more expensive.

While that is a possibility, I'd have to see the bill (or a good summary) to know whether that is the case.

 

[edisonprime]

It could, if the networks feel they need to recover their costs somehow. That's why I am a strong advocate of Dish's model of optional locals.

If I didn't feel the need to be "moved" or have Primetime Anytime I'd probably drop my locals and use them just OTA.

 

[ncted]

As it is a bipartisan effort, I'd say it has a 50:50 chance of getting rid of all the retrans stupidity or making everything 10 times worse, but probably no chance of anything in between. Who's feeling lucky?

 

[comfortably_numb]

As it is a bipartisan effort, I'd say it has a 50:50 chance of getting rid of all the retrans stupidity or making everything 10 times worse, but probably no chance of anything in between. Who's feeling lucky?

Might be the only thing this Congress gets done.

I will say, though, as someone who is now 100% OTA, FTA, and OTT, it's nice never having to experience blackouts anymore

 

[sam_gordon]

Essentially yes, although, in this case, CBC wasn't actually asking for a rate increase. It was AT&T who was unwilling to keep paying the existing rate for the highest rated local station in my market. I am simply pointing out that it isn't always about the station owners bilking us, and, even in those cases, the stations should not be allowed to be pulled from the MVPDs.

So if the "market rate" is the same as what they've been getting for the last 3 years, doesn't that mean they've been overpaid for three years? What was AT&T's spin?

 

[ncted]

So if the "market rate" is the same as what they've been getting for the last 3 years, doesn't that mean they've been overpaid for three years? What was AT&T's spin?

AT&T was suspiciously quiet on the topic.

 

[dare2be]

Since the retrans rate increases have averaged about 35% per year since 2006, I'd say the overpayments have gone on for more than 3 years.

 

[sam_gordon]

Since the retrans rate increases have averaged about 35% per year since 2006, I'd say the overpayments have gone on for more than 3 years.

Or were they underpriced since 2006 and now are at the correct price?