Here's what Gannett's position (all the other content providers, too) really comes down to: "You will pay to watch our content. Either you pay some by watching commercials and the rest in cash, or you pay much more in cash. Your call."
Hard to argue - fewer people watching the commercials makes the commercials worth less to the advertiser. So the content providers get smaller checks every month from ad agencies.
But everybody wants these TV shows that are expensive to produce. Hmmm... how to make that happen... smaller checks from our advertisers because people won't watch the commercials... no increase in fees from distribution... well, have to cut those shows, because we can't afford the cost.
Nobody wants to pay more - but advertiser supported television is a non-starter in an auto-hop world. There has to be another source of revenue, or the shows everybody is complaining about missing will go away anyway. Product placement in the show? That'll help some, and I'm amazed we haven't seen more of it than we have. "Side by side" advertising while the show goes on? Maybe for some "slideshow" type ads... can't skip the ad without missing the show...
The FCC isn't about to step in and tell broadcast licensees that elect retrans consent what the fees will or won't be, and they shouldn't. That's not their role.
