[opendtv] Re: Early UHF in DC and Baltimore

From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 09:09:01 -0400

On Aug 7, 2016, at 8:05 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

No Bert. At the time cable systems were re-regulated in 1992 the
typical system could carry 30-35 channels.

Highly doubtful, Craig, although it only reinforces my point that cable
capacity was a constraint too, even if not as much as OTA capacity. Cable
systems by 1992 were carrying that many channels as their BASIC service,
Craig. (Also pay attention to what they say about whether cable rates are
regulated by franchising authorities.)

https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OSEC/library/legislative_histories/1439.pdf

It depended on whether systems upgraded from early analog systems with about
200 MHz bandwidth to 400 MHz analog systems, or went directly to HFC systems in
which about 400 MHz was used for analog service (about 66 analog channels). It
is true that there were more than 35 networks available for carriage by 1992,
and that cable systems started offering tiered services in the early '90s.

As for the FCC PDF, it is full of crap. There was no meaningful deregulation of
local cable systems in the '80s - franchise authorities still had the power to
regulate rates. But by adding channels rates could be increased.

The FCC PDF also tried to make the case that cable systems could discriminate
against local broadcasters in favor of running affiliated programming. But FCC
must carry rules had existed for decades:

http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/www/departmentalcontent/dpi/pdfs/retransmission.pdf?la=en
But, in 1962, in its Carter Mountain Transmission Corporation decision, the
Commission reversed course on cable when a system proposed to “import” distant
signals into a local television market via common carrier microwave. Those
signals, carried on cable, would have duplicated the local station’s network
programming. On the theory that such a practice would result in cable affecting
broadcasting negatively, the FCC denied the microwave application and said that
it only would consider a refiled microwave application if the cable system
promised to carry local stations and not to distribute the signals of other
stations that might be carrying duplicating programming.

By the mid-60s the FCC had adopted its first formal set of cable television
regulations.9 The rules required carriage of the “closest” network affiliated
stations and placed severe restrictions on the importation of out-of-market
stations. Cable TV interests challenged the FCC’s authority to promulgate these
regulations. But, in its 1968 U.S. v. Southwestern Cable Co. decision,10 the
U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the FCC’s jurisdiction over cable. The Court
accepted the “ancillary to broadcasting” jurisdictional theory for cable
regulation and also found support for such jurisdiction in the general
provisions of the Communications Act.

A more comprehensive set of cable rules took effect in 1972.11 Under this new
regulatory scheme, a cable operator was required to obtain a “certificate of
compliance” prior to inaugurating cable service or adding a broadcast signal to
an existing cable system. These rules incorporated carriage requirements for
full-service stations casting a “Grade B” signal strength contour over the
cable community, “translator” stations in the cable community with 100 watts or
higher power, noncommercial educational stations within 35 miles of the cable
community and also stations “significantly viewed” over-the- air in the cable
community.

Since that time, the FCC’s must carry rules have undergone several changes, in
part due to the results of court proceedings questioning the rules on
Constitutional grounds. In the Quincy Cable v. FCC challenge to the must carry
rules, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
found that the rules were in violation of the First Amendment and beyond the
FCC’s regulatory jurisdiction.12 Two years later the FCC adopted “interim” must
carry rules that also were challenged and struck down by the same federal
appeals court.13 This time the appeals court did not find that the rules
necessary were unconstitutional. It only found that the FCC had failed to
provide a compelling reasoning to support its rules. The U.S. Supreme Court
refused to hear the case in response to a petition for certiorari.14

The 1992 Cable Act codified the must carry rules. But, then again they were
challenged in court. After a court of appeals decision and a Supreme Court
remand back to the lower court, the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the FCC’s
must carry rules as “content neutral” and not in violation of cable operators’
First Amendment rights.15

So the FCC statements in this PDF were related primarily to Court decisions
overturning FCC Must Carry regulations. The 1992 Act codified must
carry/retransmission consent into law, which was subsequently upheld by the
Supreme Court.

As they say, the rest is history. Thanks to retrans consent we now have six
media conglomerates that control almost everything we see on MVPD systems.

And by the way the PDF said most systems had about 30 channels...

For example, German TV is available online. Most other countries' too, but
only for the news programs. Explain why all of this has not been available on
cable systems, all these years.

Because it is not in the interest of the cable systems or their subscribers to
carry most foreign media content. The potential audiences is too small to
justify carriage and the expense of importing the signals. Please note that it
has only been economically feasible to carry International TV signals in the
past 5-10 years; prior to that time it would have been necessary to pay for
international satellite carriage.

There are exceptions. There are many foreign networks on the cable systems
around Washington DC because of the concentration of diplomats and other
foreign government services. And Spanish language tiers are now commonplace in
communities with large Spanish language populations.

It is easily available on the Internet. Or do you really think that CBS or
NBC can dictate to MVPDs that they must not carry these other TV networks?
Cable systems can negotiate rights to whatever they want, but the fact
remains that capacity is limited, so the cable system has to choose. On the
Internet, the user gets to choose, and the individual owner of content, but
not some MVPD head end.

When these foreign sourced became available via the Internet, any possible
reason to carry them on MVPD systems became a moot point.

You must be very unfamiliar with the web, to make such an absurd comment.

No. There is a huge difference between programming a live linear network and
setting up servers to sell library programming on demand. But the same
licensing issues apply to both.

Exactly, limited only by what the INDIVIDUAL content owner decides, and what
the individual user can find. Again, this is common knowledge for anyone
familiar with web browsing (which has been available for "only" 22 years). So
why we are belaboring the obvious again is beyond me. So for example, RAI
will allow you to watch the news programs, but not their other daily programs
(legally, anyway). And yet, cable systems in the US have an extremely limited
choice of such international programming. Because they only have so much
capacity. No other reason.

Capacity has nothing to do it hit Bert...

That's ridiculous. The real issues are licensing restrictions and economics.

If there were sufficient demand those international networks would be carried,
as they are on D.C. Area systems. And the reason RAI and most other
international broadcasters do not stream the programming they license is that
those licenses limit where they can offer the programs

But you'll need a MVPD subscription.

You can watch more Olympic sports than I can digest, FOTA, and I even noticed
that you can stream some FOTI for a period of time (30 minutes, I think, when
I checked last).

Never mind...

But in general there is not a large audience for foreign media,

And yet, it is all available on the Internet, large audience or no.

Golly Bert. That's an amazing observation!

Could it have something to do with the way the Internet works? At least when
there is no geoblocking?

Clearly there is an audience in the country of origin of these streams...

Do you spend time on Japanese and Chinese language web sites? There are
millions of website that serve specific interests. It is the architecture of
the Internet that makes all of these sites accessible around the world. But
that does not mean there is a significant global audience.

They won't lose subscribers Bert. They won't attract them in the first
place.

Nonsense. Cable systems attracted customers with very low prices initially.

We are not talking about cable systems now Bert. We are talking about Internet
streaming video services.

Then those low prices vanished, in short order. Year after year, the prices
seemed to double. But, the system was a monopoly, so no problem. Jack up the
rates. **No Internet OTT site could get away with that**. They can try, but
they would lose subscribers in no time.

Hulu is getting away with it. So is Netflix. The rules are no different on the
Internet with few exceptions. The most significant is that most OTT sites have
not resorted to long contract periods for service. This is probably influenced
by the distaste MVPD subscribers have for these long contracts, AND the fact
that most OTT subscribers are ALSO MVPD subscribers.

Exactly. But people are not interested in obscure options.

People are obviously not interested in remaining tethered either, Craig. We
have seen what people are interested in, and it is Internet broadband
increasingly, legacy MVPD structures decreasingly.

We have seen the first wave of the impact of the Internet on two industries
that are in transition because of the technologies the Internet enables. It is
way too early to tell how this is all going to play out as everyone is still
experimenting with ways in which to best utilize these capabilities.

The one thing we can agree on is that competition is almost always good. There
is no question that the Internet is enabling competition with the MVPD
services, even as it gives them another service oligopoly to depend on should
VMVPD bundles replace dedicated video bandwidth.

Regards
Craig

Bert

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.

References:
- [opendtv] Re: Early UHF in DC and Baltimore
  - From: Manfredi, Albert E

[opendtv] Re: Early UHF in DC and Baltimore

Other related posts: