[opendtv] Re: How Many Strikes Until They're Out?
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:52:34 -0400
At 10:22 AM -0700 4/2/08, John Willkie wrote:
Actually, since I am refreshing your 'memory' did you subsequently remember
that network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity did not come about
(effectively) until the late 1970's?
No. Since you want to play memory games I decided to do a bit of research.
Google Books has a preview copy online of a book by James C. Goodale:
All about Cable
I cannot cut and paste passages, but you can read
the pertinent stuff yourself John...
Let's begin with section 2.07: Retransmission of
Distant Signals: The Compulsory License and
Syndicated Exclusivity:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yBwpUiXyEFgC&pg=PP205&lpg=PP205&dq=network+non+duplication+for+cable&source=web&ots=5bIGfRySmh&sig=Y6ow32ck44WpVAFRow4db80kSqg&hl=en#PPP195,M1
We begin by learning that there was no statutory
prohibition on cable carriage of broadcast
content until the 1992 cable act.
We then learn that in 1965 the FCC adopted rules
that protected broadcasters from the importation
by cable systems of signals that carried network
or syndicated programs for which the broadcaster
had purchased exclusive rights.We are told that
these rules only applied to the use of FCC
licensed microwave links to import the signals.
The rules were revised several times until 1972
when the FCC placed limits on the number of
distant signals that could be imported.
So in essence, the Network non-duplication rules
and syndicated programming exclusivity were in
place by 1972. In 1976 Congress imposed a
compulsory licensing process so that cable could
carry copyrighted network and syndicated content
WITHOUT negotiating license fees or obtaining
consents. We then go through a long period where
these rules are challenged, partially rescinded
and then reinstated. The net effect is that
stations have had the ability to protect their
content from duplication since 1972.
Marshall Herskowitz, the guy behind "Quarterlife" (and, with others, "My So
Called Life" and "Thirtysomething" among other television programs) would
beg to differ with you on what FinSyn had to do with. I heard an interview
with him a month or two back where he mentioned quite prominently that
'everything changed' with HIS BUSINESS when FinSyn came into effect in 1994.
But, I suspect you think you know more about the production/distribution
business than does he.
The Fyn Syn rules were imposed by the FCC in 1970
and remained in place until the FCC began to
relax the rules in 1991. In 1993 they adopted an
order that totally eliminated the rules in 1995.
From http://www.legalinterface.com/aba%20media%20concentration%20w-bkg.htm
The result is that In 1999, four years after the
abolition of the FinSyn rules, the following
concentration in regards to network programming
has taken place:
· Eight of the top 10 primetime program
suppliers are corporately linked to one of the
six major networks.
· All six of CBS's debuting series list CBS
Prods. as a co-producer. Including its three new
programs, 63% of the eye network's night schedule
is generated in-house.
· Nine of Fox's 20 primetime programs come from Twentieth Television.
· Four news shows and six NBC Studios
programs constitute 41% of the peacock's schedule.
· ABC gets four of its primetime shows from
ABC News. Another four come from sister firm the
Walt Disney Co. Walt Disney Television will also
provide ABC with seven telefilms during the 1999
season.
· The WB and UPN networks generate about
one-fifth of their primetime schedules
in-house[28]
There is no question that the elimination of
these rules has allowed the six conglomerates to
concentrate their power. But these rules apply
only to network financial interests in the
programming produced for their OTA networks and
the syndication of these programs. It has NOTHING
to do with cable networks per se', however, the
networks do have greater financial participation
in off-network programming that is migrated to
cable networks.
Again, this has NOTHING to do with retransmission
consent and the way it was used to rebuild the
programming oligopoly that now exists across
broadcast, cable and DBS.
So, now that Time-Warner owns one tv station (WTBS) broadcast is a big part
of their business, but it wasn't a big part of their business when they
owned zero television stations?
Time Warner has gone through numerous mergers, acquisitions and divestitures.
WTBS IS a broadcaster, but ONLY because this was
the way that Ted Turner was able to bend the
rules to create a national superstation (dittos
for WGN Chicago). Broadcasting per se' is a tiny
part of Time Warner's business. Time Inc. sold
their TV station group a year or two ago.
The reason that TW is among the list of
conglomerates is that they became the economic
force that was able to build cable into a
competitor with the broadcast networks. They
still own a significant "footprint" of cable
networks. It can be argued that the tactics of
the cable industry, and the companies that
became Time Warner in particular, led to the
successful bid by broadcasters to re-regulate the
cable industry and to FINALLY gain the ability to
negotiate carriage fees for broadcast signals
that had previously been covered by the
Compulsory License. The 1992 Cable Act gave
broadcasters the power to develop cable
properties with "preferred placement" on cable
systems; this was achieved by threats to withhold
broadcast network content. The subsequent deals
gave broadcasters the opportunity to develop new
non-broadcast networks, for which they received
monthly subscriber fees. CBS elected to take
monetary payments, rather than using the first
round of ReTrans consent agreements to build
cable properties - a mistake that CBS still
regrets as it scrambles to catch up with the
other conglomerates.
Time Warner did not use retrans consent to build
their programming empires - Take a tour of their
numerous operations in Atlanta. Only TBS is even
remotely linked to broadcasting. Everything else
was developed for cable.
But their cable systems were forced to negotiate
with broadcasters after the passage of the 1992
Cable Act.
How about when they owned KGTV San Diego, WRGB, KERO Bakersfield, KMGH
Denver and channe 6 in Indianapolis? They were called Time, Inc. back then,
had no cable channels, owned scattered cable systems, and their TV arm was
called Time-Life Stations. They started in that field in 1956 or so, and
got out in 1973, having sold all but WRGB station to McGraw-Hill.
This was one of the companies that was involved
in the merger that created Time Warner. Time
decided in 2006 to sell these stations and focus
on print and the Internet.
And, just to keep you on the straight and narrow, Warner Brothers didn't own
any TV station after 1956 or so. Bet you can't tell me which station(s)
they had an interest in back then.
One of the reasons they gave for getting out the tv station business back
then was that the 'new' cable rules prevented owning cable systems and
broadcast stations in the same market. The biggest market where they had
both was -- San Diego. Since cable was Greenfield, and TV not, they went
for cable. Now, a much bigger company, they own one television station, and
somehow "broadcast" is a big part of their business.
Let's get something straight here John.
BROADCASTING is no longer a big part of ANY of
the businesses operated by the media
conglomerates. It accounts for only about 30% of
all TV viewing today. They are moving in the
direction of eliminating OTA broadcasting - CBS
just announced significant lay-offs in its O&Os
this week. NBC is selling more stations. ABC is
migrating all sports programming to ESPN, as is
Fox with their regional sports networks.
I am not complaining about the power that the
conglomerates now have over broadcasting. That's
a dying business. My entire purpose in all of
this was to explain how the conglomerates used
the NAB and their their clout with the
politicians to reign in the cable industry and
take control of the content that it delivers.
I'm sure that's why they are resurrecting "The WB" as a streaming-only
network showing reruns and a few new things, via a web site.
They are doing this because it makes good
economic sense to migrate content to the
Internet. In 5-10 years this is how most of their
content will be consumed, however it will not be
a streaming network that draws the audience.
People will migrate to downloading the shows they
like and watching them whenever they want. Other
than for live sports and American idol,
"Appointment TV" is going the way of the buggy
whip.
But, like Bert, I suspect you won't let facts get in the way of a good
argument.
If there is one person on this list who plays
loose with facts John, you're it. Bert just
twists facts to his purpose, even when those
facts undermine his arguments.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Other related posts:
