[opendtv] The rationale for retrans consent from local broadcasters

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 01:11:10 +0000

Craig claims:

One more time...

LEVERAGE

They gain negotiating leverage with retrans consent. Leverage they
used to create new MVPD networks; leverage they are using now to
negotiate higher subscriber fees for ALL of their networks. And
political leverage.

This does not sink in, Craig, because for the most part, it makes no sense.
(But I think I discovered what's going on.)

The "leverage" the networks (congloms) seek is for their own content, not a
broadcaster's content. I'll agree only to a small amount of extra leverage the
conglom might get, and that would be for LOCAL political ads or debates
inserted by the local broadcaster (which, as I've already stated, essentially
don't exist in my market, or if they do, are very few and years-far between).

Most of what you read on retrans consent is a "let's pretend" game, as I've
mentioned before. "Let's pretend" that the TV network content that MVPD
subscribers scream about is owned by the local broadcaster. With that pretense,
sure, all the arguments for retrans consent make perfect sense. Obiously, the
owner of content needs to be compensated fairly, and proportionally to other
MVPD channels. Because the MVPD charges subscription fees, and this conglom
content is highly sought after by the subscribers. Supply-demand. Simple and
obvious.

Furthermore, "let's pretend" that the local broadcaster also owns the other
MVPD-only channels produced by the conglom. Great. Even more leverage.

The problem is, this is all pretense (just about). The congloms could do their
own negotiating. And negotiating could include the main network shows,
including sports, as well as bundles of less desirable content they own. So
where does this pretend game come from, that Craig doesn't address?

First, here's an example of the "pretend game," dated 2012:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/affils-make-case-commerce-retaining-retrans/60413

"He said that as the committee reviews the act, it should keep in mind that
local broadcasters spend billions of dollars on news, sports and entertainment
programming, that cable and satellite resell that content, that in order for
broadcasters to pay for that content it needs and deserves compensation from
those resellers, and that under the current system the vast number deals get
done without incident."

Someone is undoubtedly spending billions, and must be compensated. But what the
local broadcasters produce is not what MVPD subscribers wail about, when it
gets pulled. Just ask them! The sports craved by subscribers want are most
likely not your high school games. The entertainment content is probably not a
local public affairs debate.

Instead, this is much more likely to be the genesis of this strange and
illogical state of affairs.

http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/DPI/PDFs/RETRANSMISSION.pdf

"In 1952, this time in the context of television broadcasting, the FCC made the
policy choice to encourage 'local' service by this 'new' medium, rather than to
allow 'national' coverage by stations. The Commission believed it was obligated
to take a locally-oriented approach to station allocation, etc., due to the
strictures of Section 307(b) of the Act. The Commission created a 'table of
allocations,' indicating which television channels would be available in
communities of various sizes throughout the nation.

"This allocation policy was the first of the components that support the
'localism'concept in American television broadcasting. Stations are licensed to
particular communities and also have been required - first to a greater and now
to a lesser extent - to demonstrate, at time of initial licensing and
periodically when seeking license renewal, that the station has assessed local
needs and interests and will provide, or has provided, programming to meet
those needs and interests. The FCC's generalized requirement that stations now
offer 'issue-responsive' programming is a far cry from previous regulatory
regimes forcing stations to stay in continuing contact with local organizations
and community leaders, and to offer specific amounts of 'non-entertainment'
programming, much of which was expected to be of a locally-oriented nature.
But, even today's generalized requirement supports the notion that station
licenses were distributed among the several states and communities to provide a
program service of value to local citizens. It is this local service, and
ensuring the economic viability of stations licensed to provide this service,
that supports the 'must carry' rules and the various other rules governing
program exclusivity and cable carriage rights."

It's a form of political correctness, if you ask me. TV is about localism. I
mean, ask the subscribers if they believe this. And as it turns out, the FCC
apparently doesn't believe this either. From that same bsu.edu paper:

"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."

But hold on, hadn't the FCC just told us that this new TV medium wasn't
national, but local? So how is it that distant signals would carry the same
content as local stations?

This is the explanation, Craig. Rules that evolved from pretense. In today's
reality, with the Internet, people have no trouble accessing local content from
their location, local content from distant locations (unless the owner
restricts its footprint), and content meant for a nationwide audience. And
that's why retrans consent rules are totally irrelevant. No matter what the FCC
might dream up, with this VMVPD idea.

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.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2015