1. Way it should be, but no chance of happening: because broadcast stations operate on frequencies OWNED by the US public and content regulated by the FCC, and broadcasters are granted licenses to operate on those frequencies--NOT ownership--that can be revoked if those stations do no meet FCC requirements regarding content for the granted right to operate on those frequencies, including their responsibilities to the local community they serve in return for not having to buy those licenses, consumers have a right to view (I argue ALL, but at least their own local stations) free of any charge, and, therefore, every MVPD should be allowed to retransmit ANY local channel for its subscribers within the subscribers DMA, with all cost to do so upon the MVPD. NO payment for retransmission, in any form, allowed. This allow the MVPD to function as a rooftop antenna for subscribers in the DMA, allowing the consumer to view their local channels as they would using other means, but also providing local stations to those people who have obstructions preventing the use of an OTA antenna. The market forces will affect those MVPD's who may choose NOT to retransmit local OTA to their peril compared with competitors who do. Local broadcasters get INCREASE in viewership by having MVPD retransmit and local broadcasters can increase their ad rates charged.
2. Free Market access to local broadcasts (the suggested model by the MVPD's) not likley to happen: All MVPD's required to retransmit/offer a la carte ALL local broadcast stations, limited to a subscribers DMA, but subscribers would pay a monthly fee established only by the local broadcaster, to access/view those locals channels unless a broadcaster chooses Must Carry status, hence, not charge. While the those fees are added to the MVPD monthly fee of a subscriber as an itemized item, the monthly fee NEVER goes to the MVPD, but goes directly to the local broadcaster. The consumer decides if they want and which locals channels. The local stations would have to prove their value to the consumer worth paying (Les Moonves said--as a threat-- he wanted to go to a "paid" model for broadcast stations), and the local stations set the price they want, otherwise Must Carry is still an option for local stations who may have little or no value to a subscriber.
Neither suggestion has much of a chance because of NAB opposition, but those and other suggestions would be the "right" and closest to "fair" that can be reached. This does not really affect the big 4 and their O&O's nor multiple CW owners like Tribune because they have content that is King, and because of the huge populations where big 4 have O&O's almost assures some deal happening even if dropped from an MVPD for a few weeks. This is really about the smaller locals and the corporate owners who have constellations of local channels across the country. Remember, the big 4 have rights of first refusal and have tremendous influence that can even result in a change of WHICH channel is an affiliate within the contract, and modifications for the new era could be put in place.
Wheeler is just trying to bypass the corrupt legislative process in behalf of the MVPD's, for whom is advocates while trying to look as if he is being "fair" or "pro-consumer." Let's be clear, Wheeler can site all the letters and complaints he want, but Wheeler's true motivation for this proposal is because he was a Cable TV lobbyist.
