[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: UHF Discounted, Ownership Cap Targeted
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:30:01 -0400
WOW. Bert is exploring some new ground here...
On Apr 23, 2017, at 9:20 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And to be even more honest, the local broadcasters that provide access to
LOCAL politicians are the very same TV stations that are affiliated with one
of the major TV networks anyway.
This is generally true, but there are many stations in large markets that are
not affiliated with the content congloms that offer local news. It is also
important to remember that local affiliates offer "voices' that are independent
of or complimentary to the network newscasts.
So this is just part of the same old pretend game. The local caps should be
sufficient. A 100% national footprint should be no problem, with meaningful
local caps as we already have.
Which local caps Bert?
The number of stations you can own or manage in a single market?
The number of TV and radio stations you can own in a single market?
The ability to own both a newspaper and a TV station in the same market?
The reason I ask this is that THIS is what Pai wants to address, along with
national ownership caps, in one proceeding that can address all of these
issues. Changing one rule (the UHF discount) without addressing the rules that
it impacts is well...irresponsible.
Bert may not be concerned about media consolidation.
That's not it, Craig. As the national caps are written, you can have only one
giant conglom, and a zillion little broadcast stations spread around the
country, passively carrying content from that one giant conglom. That would
be okay, by the national cap, and it solves NOTHING. The real deal here are
the congloms. Of course, you want several of them. But if each one either
owns all of its own stations, or outsources to one station group with 100%
national footprint, you have just as many voices being heard by TV viewers in
any given market.
You have just as many "TV broadcast voices" being heard in every market.
I agree that many of the historic reasons for ownership caps are no longer as
important as they were when TV dominated the "information" landscape. The
audience for network and local TV news is now a fraction of what it was during
the golden age of television.
This article from Pew Research provides very good look at the broadcast TV
news industry:
http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/local-tv-news-fact-sheet/
Here's the bottom line:
This is a small fraction of the TV audience. What is NOT reflected here is the
impact of 24/7 cable news networks and the Internet on TV news (and newspapers
too).
In most markets cable systems offer only national news networks like Fox News,
CNN, etc. In larger markets some cable systems operate local news channels as
well; for example Bay News 9 in Tampa/St. Petersburg.
Add to this the general decline in the credibility of the "mass media," and one
can build a very good case that the legacy ownership restrictions on
broadcasters are no longer necessary.
This is not the same argument as the economic argument regarding how many
stations will be able to operate news organizations profitably moving forward.
IMHO, we are likely to see much more consolidation of the broadcast industry,
with station groups like Sinclair and Nexstar operating multiple stations in a
market to gain operational efficiency and to reduce the number of news
organizations that compete in a market.
O&Os now have as much local coverage as any other station, as far as I can
tell.
Of course they do. They own stations in the largest TV markets, which remain
VERY profitable. The reality of the broadcast TV industry, as has been the case
since day one, is that there are about 50 large markets where most of the
audience resides, and most of the profits are realized.
And too, whatever cost-cutting and consolidation broadcast stations have to
do, to stay alive, all of them would have to do. Be it O&Os or larger station
groups. I don't see that making a difference in voices being heard. The local
caps are all-important.
This is very much market dependent. There are still FIVE daily English language
newspapers in the city of New York. Here in market 161 there are two struggling
newspapers (Gainesville Sun and Ocala Star Banner) owned by the same company
sharing the same staff.
I'm not sure the local caps are that important anymore. Or the local stations
for that matter. But I don't watch broadcast news, either national or local. On
rare occasions I may look a a local station website to see how they cover a
major local story.
We might well evolve to the point where there is just one or two
broadcast TV entities in each market,
A problem which the national caps do not actually address. We already have
local caps that assume the existence of four (IIRC) major TV networks.
Here in Gainesville we have TWO voices; Sinclair manages two stations with four
networks in their multiplexes. Actually the University PBS station offers news
too, but the only people watching seem to be the student journalists.
Moving forward I expect to see significant consolidation in smaller markets,
especially if the FCC loosens the ownership caps. Butt this is a good thing, as
it logically follows that this consolidation will help move the industry toward
the spectrum utility model, which in turn may make it possible for many voices
to access the broadcast spectrum.
That is exactly what he is doing Bert. The FCC reversed the UHF
discount decision, as it completely changed the meaning of the
existing ownership caps.
Craig, Chairman Pai is merely extending the pretend game. That is not
cleaning of any slate. Tom Wheeler was closer to cleaning the slate, except
he didn't go far enough. To clean, you have to abolish the phony artifacts,
not perpetuate them.
Maybe you should just "shut up" until the FCC actually begins a real broadcast
ownership proceeding. Wheeler was nowhere near cleaning the slate; his
commission was focused on taking control of the Internet..."broadcasting was so
last century..."
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: