Commissioner O'Rielly seems unable to go beyond the mantra of the Chairman.
Instead, he has become a mouthpiece for the Chairman. I don't think the
Sinclair angle is the main point of this article, actually. For instance,
here's a typically less than credible point of view:
"Seeing this collaboration was impressive in and of itself," O'Rielly said,
"but it also emphasized what I already knew to be the case: that ATSC 3.0 may
very well be a game changer for our nation's broadcasters. Unfortunately there
is a false narrative in Washington D.C. that ATSC 3.0 will only benefit one
particular company. In fact, this narrative goes even further, suggesting
everything the Commission has done in the media space over the last 17 months
has been to benefit one company, in this case, Sinclair Broadcast Group."
This is the type of disingenuous pap we have come to expect from Chairman Pai.
First, it's doubtful that ATSC 3.0, which consists mainly of a nicer new OTA
broadcast standard and all the rest is Internet-based, will do much for OTA TV.
Nothing significant that plain old Internet use can't do all by itself.
Second, the FCC couldn't care less about ATSC 3.0 or OTA TV. If the FCC cared
at all, they would have to mandate ATSC 3.0 receivers, and they would have to
show that they aren't grabbing OTA frequencies as fast as they can. Even
perhaps the C band frequencies, used by broadcasters. The fact that they don't
mandate, and do grab, speaks louder than any BS verbiage. (Not that I think
broadcast OTA TV has a big future. Just saying that phony rhetoric is easy to
detect, and this FCC indulges in it like no other FCC has done.) (The link
below concerns sharing the C band with cellular companies.)
https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/more-broadcasters-weigh-in-on-c-band-sharing
"He noted that the elimination of the main studio rule was not some 'master
conspiracy theory' that he likened to 'Area 51 territory,' but that in reality,
the benefits of doing away with the rule went to small and mid-sized radio
stations. 'The elimination of the unnecessary rule hasn't let to great studio
consolidation or closures,' he said. 'Instead, it was and is about permitting
cost efficiencies-without harm to localism-for all broadcasters, which will
occur over a longer time frame.'"
Hard to tell whether this is deliberately disingenuous, or just clueless. Put
together all their positions, their desired elimination of local ownership and
national caps, the reinstituting of the UHF discount, the de-emphasizing of the
importance of broadcaster diverse points of view, the large SFN potential of
ATSC 3.0, and this local studio rule, and you have to be dumber than dirt NOT
to appreciate where it will lead. It will lead to a consolidation of
broadcasting, not only in terms of the number of companies, but also in
markets. It will lead to a few, large, regional nets. (Not that I think we need
to care, mind you. Just that, FCC, quit with your phony-baloney politically
correct BS, already. They keep talking up the common accepted, comfy PC
narrative, and then do exactly the opposite.)
An then, here's more evidence of really simplistic rhetoric:
"O'Rielly also noted that the standard was developed and vetted by the private
sector and that adoption of the standard is voluntary. 'The new standard
promoted real benefits for consumers-such as ultra high-definition pictures and
enhanced emergency alerting,' he said. 'But, if consumers are uninterested in
these features, they will not be forced to adopt them.'"
Consumers "adopt" nothing that isn't on store shelves. This is the common
excuse of libertarian extremist yahoos, not to do their jobs. In an existing
medium, if a new standard is only "voluntary," it means that neither the CE
companies nor the broadcasters can, or must, depend on it. For the CE
companies, the best approach is not to rock the boat, keep consumers ignorant.
"Voluntary" describes every player EXCEPT the consumer. History has repeated
itself too many times, for the FCC to be unaware of it.
Bert
-----------------------------------------
https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/o-rielly-fcc-not-showing-favoritism-towards-sinclair
O'Rielly: FCC Not Showing Favoritism Towards Sinclair
Commissioner uses visit to Phoenix ATSC Model Market to defend recent actions
Tom Butts* 7 hours ago
WASHINGTON-FCC Republican Commissioner Michael O'Reilly lashed out at critics
who claim that the commission's actions since the beginning of the Trump
administration are designed to help one broadcast company seeking a
well-publicized merger: Sinclair.
In a blog post, O'Rielly used the occasion of a trip to Phoenix last week to
respond to opponents of Sinclair's proposal to acquire Tribune Media for $3.9
billion, giving the Baltimore station group control of 210 stations (following
its recent proposal to sell off 23 of its stations). The purpose of his trip
was to review progress of the 12 TV stations participating in the Phoenix Model
Market for ATSC 3.0.
"Seeing this collaboration was impressive in and of itself," O'Rielly said,
"but it also emphasized what I already knew to be the case: that ATSC 3.0 may
very well be a game changer for our nation's broadcasters. Unfortunately there
is a false narrative in Washington D.C. that ATSC 3.0 will only benefit one
particular company. In fact, this narrative goes even further, suggesting
everything the Commission has done in the media space over the last 17 months
has been to benefit one company, in this case, Sinclair Broadcast Group."
O'Rielly called such a narrative a "misguided fantasy" and a "rhetorical tool
tool designed to divert attention from opponents' lack of substantive
objections to the underlying policies, combined with what seemingly appears to
be an extreme personal dislike for the company itself."
O'Rielly defended Chairman Ajit Pai's actions, noting they were designed to
"reduce the labyrinth of outdated and costly media rules that no longer make
sense today," noting that the marketplace broadcasters are competing against
today include the likes of Netflix and Amazon.
He noted that the elimination of the main studio rule was not some "master
conspiracy theory" that he likened to "Area 51 territory," but that in reality,
the benefits of doing away with the rule went to small and mid-sized radio
stations. "The elimination of the unnecessary rule hasn't let to great studio
consolidation or closures," he said. "Instead, it was and is about permitting
cost efficiencies-without harm to localism-for all broadcasters, which will
occur over a longer time frame."
The commission's reinstatement of the UHF discount, O'Rielly said, was simply a
reversion of the "status quo," and whether or not the action helps Sinclair is
"irrelevant." He also said that the elimination of the radio/television cross
ownership rule provides "little to no benefit" to Sinclair and that while he
thinks that the commission's adoption of a waiver process to allow duopolies in
a market, even if both stations are among the top four in terms of audience
share is less than ideal due to the potential of abuse, he is willing to delay
a larger examination of the rules until the commission's 2018 Quadrennial
review of ownership rules is completed.
Repeating comments' from 2016 to justify his argument, O'Rielly said then, "To
say [the duopoly rule] is still needed in an era of literally hundreds of
competitive pay TV channels and essentially unlimited competitive Internet
content defies belief."
Turning his attention to Next Gen TV, O'Rielly responded to critics who said
the commission's approval of ATSC 3.0 would give preferential treatment to
Sinclair due to its portfolio of patents for the new standard. He reiterated
his position "against including any portion of the standards in our rules," and
instead supported the elimination of rules "prohibiting broadcasters from
moving to ATSC 3.0."
O'Rielly also noted that the standard was developed and vetted by the private
sector and that adoption of the standard is voluntary. "The new standard
promoted real benefits for consumers-such as ultra high-definition pictures and
enhanced emergency alerting," he said. "But, if consumers are uninterested in
these features, they will not be forced to adopt them."
O'Rielly drove the point home that the FCC's actions during the past year and a
half were designed to enhance the entire broadcast industry's competitive in
today's media marketplace and not to give one company a leg up on its
competition.
"The entire debate misses the bigger picture that I witnessed firsthand in
Arizona," the commissioner said. "That the changing marketplace is causing
tremendous challenges to legacy broadcasters forced to abide by outdated and
irrelevant ownership limitations and Commission rules."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
