Sources: Sen. Commerce Floats Retrans Remake
- Thread starter osu1991
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 45
- Views 5K
I think you missed the point of my post. But I don't really want to rehash it. Well see what happens in the future,but this new law won't turn out for the consumer ,the way it was intended. It might even bring on the end of all ota stations entirely.Many people want their locals (or certain locals) because of the LOCAL content. Whether that is news, sports, weather, or other locally produced shows, there will still be local broadcasters. While I don't believe the "big 4" will go cable/sat only in the near future, even if they did, local broadcasters would still survive. OK, maybe not all of them, but they won't all disappear either.
Also remember networks don't own/control even the majority of their affiliates. In fact, affiliates PAY to use the network programming (a change from how it used to be).
Another thought... how do you think the cable/sat cos get their LiL content? Yes, some may have direct fiber feeds from the affiliates, but that's much more expensive than... wait for it... OTA.
Then I think we're even because you missed the point of my post. I don't think all OTA will ever go away. Might some station sign off without a network affiliation? Yes. Would they all? No.
Agreed. I don't even think the main 4 will go away, despite their threats. It would be betting the farm that they could make more money without their affiliates, than they do now. Are any network execs that gutsy? I don't think so. Note that there's nothing keeping them from doing this right now, if they think their network as a cable channel would pay better.
I doubt it as this is would NOT be the economic system broadcasters prefer. It is, however, very pro consumer. There is no way any of the broadcasters would dare charge a fee. They make plenty on their current advertising model today. Let's remember that all the major networks also own a cornucopia of pay channels as they are all media conglomerates. IF such a system becomes reality, they will do just fine with what they have and accept OTA as advertising only model. And perhaps, just as important, the big 4 nets still get larger audience numbers than ANY pay channels, hence, far more revenue from advertising.
Maybe we should get TiVo's or Channel Master DVR+ machines?
.Let's remember that the major networks own a small number (relative) of affiliates.I doubt it as this is would NOT be the economic system broadcasters prefer. It is, however, very pro consumer. There is no way any of the broadcasters would dare charge a fee. They make plenty on their current advertising model today. Let's remember that all the major networks also own a cornucopia of pay channels as they are all media conglomerates. IF such a system becomes reality, they will do just fine with what they have and accept OTA as advertising only model. And perhaps, just as important, the big 4 nets still get larger audience numbers than ANY pay channels, hence, far more revenue from advertising.
Maybe we should get TiVo's or Channel Master DVR+ machines?
And since you know they make "plenty" on the current advertising model, how much is that? Do you have numbers for an affiliate in NY as well as an affiliate in the boonies?
Some veteran fans of a la carte and retrans reform are getting behind "Local Choice," a Senate Commerce Committee proposal to allow MVPD subs to decide which TV stations they want to include in their tier of cable service.
That proposal would upend the retrans negotiation process, turning cable operators into fee collectors for broadcasters, but eliminating the requirement that all cable operators deliver retrans stations to all customers, and on the so-called "must buy" tier.
Dish, which is part of a coalition pushing for retrans reforms to try to keep those fees in check, praised the plan.
"'We applaud the bipartisan efforts of Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune to update the decades-old retransmission consent regime in a manner that uses free-market concepts to put an end to harmful broadcast television blackouts," it said in a statement. "DISH looks forward to working with Congress as ‘Local Choice’ legislation is considered as part of STELA.”
STELA, a reference to the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, must-pass legislation that could be a vehicle for the Local Choice proposal. Rockefeller and company are slated to work on their version of the bill when the Senate returns in September.
broadcastingcable.com
That proposal would upend the retrans negotiation process, turning cable operators into fee collectors for broadcasters, but eliminating the requirement that all cable operators deliver retrans stations to all customers, and on the so-called "must buy" tier.
Dish, which is part of a coalition pushing for retrans reforms to try to keep those fees in check, praised the plan.
"'We applaud the bipartisan efforts of Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune to update the decades-old retransmission consent regime in a manner that uses free-market concepts to put an end to harmful broadcast television blackouts," it said in a statement. "DISH looks forward to working with Congress as ‘Local Choice’ legislation is considered as part of STELA.”
STELA, a reference to the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, must-pass legislation that could be a vehicle for the Local Choice proposal. Rockefeller and company are slated to work on their version of the bill when the Senate returns in September.
broadcastingcable.com
Right, and their O&O's are in the top ad revenue markets accross the country, and it some cases they own TWO stations in the top 2 markets. However, the issue is not CBS broadcast or ABC Television, etc. Rather, the numbers you seek are for Comcast Corporation (for NBC/Universal), The Walt Disney Company, National Amusements (for CBS and some cable channels), and 21st Century Fox. A googel search and some research will bring you to first-hand information.
The rules for Satellite carriage of media don't make sense. Why do satellite carriers of TV have to carry all the local channels in the country and the carrier for satellite radio does not carry any local channels? If you argue that Satellite carriers of TV are more like cable carriers of TV , then they should follow all the cable regulations which they are not granted (i.e.. be allowed to show multiple DMA locals). More interesting is that the satellite TV carriers must pay for transponder space to carry most local channels in the USA, while the cable carriers only need to supply enough bandwidth to carry the locals in a limited area. If the new retransmission regulations are passed, it would tend to even the playing field. Local TV stations would be similar to local radio channels. National broadcast channels would look more like national cable channels.
Senate Commerce STELA Update Includes Local Choice
John Eggerton
According to a draft of a Senate Commerce Committee version of satellite license reauthorization, the bill has a new name, STAVRA (the Satellite Television Access and Viewer Rights Act) and a bunch of retrans elements that broadcasters argue will make it dead on arrival.
The draft circulated in advance of a planned Senate Commerce briefing Friday with cable and broadcast lobbyists.
The draft bill extends the license, which allows satellite subs to receive distant network TV station signals, for five years and ensures that the FCC has the authority to enforce good faith retrans negotiations. But there is much more, including the Local Choice proposal that would allow MVPD subs not to pay for TV station signals, essentially deep-sixing the retransmission consent regime.
Cable ops had been pushing for Local Choice, while broadcasters have been pushing back just as hard.
multichannel.com
John Eggerton
According to a draft of a Senate Commerce Committee version of satellite license reauthorization, the bill has a new name, STAVRA (the Satellite Television Access and Viewer Rights Act) and a bunch of retrans elements that broadcasters argue will make it dead on arrival.
The draft circulated in advance of a planned Senate Commerce briefing Friday with cable and broadcast lobbyists.
The draft bill extends the license, which allows satellite subs to receive distant network TV station signals, for five years and ensures that the FCC has the authority to enforce good faith retrans negotiations. But there is much more, including the Local Choice proposal that would allow MVPD subs not to pay for TV station signals, essentially deep-sixing the retransmission consent regime.
Cable ops had been pushing for Local Choice, while broadcasters have been pushing back just as hard.
multichannel.com
What is socialist about channels charging to be carried? Sounds pretty capitalist to me.
It comes down to the channel's responsibility to offer a public service and they seem to have lost sight of that where the conventional TV airwaves aren't involved.
Socialist in the sense that many channels survive (read: are forced upon the MVPDs) on the backs of others because they are owned by the same entity.
Socialist in the sense that a channel owner will take content from one channel, create two new channels, spread that same content over the 3 channels, and expect to be paid triple for the same content.
Extortionist seems to be the more appropriate wording, however.
Socialist in the sense that a channel owner will take content from one channel, create two new channels, spread that same content over the 3 channels, and expect to be paid triple for the same content.
Extortionist seems to be the more appropriate wording, however.
You have a unique view of what the term socialist means.
Socialism involves community or government ownership where you're beef seems to be with business conglomerates owning everything which is more along the lines of monopoly.
It certainly isn't socialist. It's the deregulation of the market allowing for oligopolies or monopolies that is the cause of what you're complaining about.That's why I said the more proper term is "extortionist"
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
The thing I like about this plan is if you have something like a TiVo and can get OTA just fine you do not have to turn around and pay Dish or cable for the same channel. Yes I know those without OTA reception would end up having to pay for each channel. But, at least those out of range of OTA could just buy the locals since the carriers have to sell them a la carte and cannot force a non broadcast channel in a bundle with them.
A la carte is the way to go if I could buy just the channels I wanted too watch then maybe I'd subscribe to cable or satellite
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
-
-
TThe Future of Gaming: An Adaptive Mindset for Personalized Characters
- Latest: TWiT Tech Podcast Network
-
TAstronomical Arms Race: The Battle for the Biggest Telescopes
- Latest: TWiT Tech Podcast Network