Bill to end carriage disputes (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

ncted

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
5,262
3,558
Durham, NC
Not a lot of information in the article. How do they propose to end blackouts?

"end broadcasters’ ability to black out signals during negotiations with cable and satellite service providers"

Essentially, I read that as the broadcasters would no longer be able to pull channels during contract negotiations. How? By making it illegal I guess. Those stations all have FCC licenses, so they are subject to the rules and laws that go along with that.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,661
7,521
FL
Still, even if something gets done, I wonder if it'll only apply to LiL broadcasters or will it reach to general cable/satellite channel carriage?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05

Tampa8

Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
18,033
7,543
Tampa/Eastern Ct
"The trade group says Congress shouldn’t interfere with the process, which it characterizes as “private, market-driven negotiations.”

HAHAHAHA...market driven....hahahahaha...they mean hostage-driven...

Congress shouldn't interfere? Since that's how we are where we are on all this, protection of the Networks and their markets are given by Congress, I want to take them up on their offer right now. Lets take away all the protections, must carry etc and not let Congress interfere anymore and THEN we can watch the "private, market-driven negotiations."
 

ncted

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
5,262
3,558
Durham, NC
"The trade group says Congress shouldn’t interfere with the process, which it characterizes as “private, market-driven negotiations.”

HAHAHAHA...market driven....hahahahaha...they mean hostage-driven...

Private? This from the companies whose broadcasting licenses are based on serving the public's needs?
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,228
1,027
Lexington, ky
"end broadcasters’ ability to black out signals during negotiations with cable and satellite service providers"

Essentially, I read that as the broadcasters would no longer be able to pull channels during contract negotiations. How? By making it illegal I guess. Those stations all have FCC licenses, so they are subject to the rules and laws that go along with that.
Way to be vague. Are you a politician? :)

But, I am serious. Yes, I do think the way things work now is broken. But, if you tell broadcasters "you can't pull channels", what keeps MVPDs negotiating in good faith? I think there needs to be a compromise on how retrans works.
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,228
1,027
Lexington, ky
Congress shouldn't interfere? Since that's how we are where we are on all this, protection of the Networks and their markets are given by Congress, I want to take them up on their offer right now. Lets take away all the protections, must carry etc and not let Congress interfere anymore and THEN we can watch the "private, market-driven negotiations."
The "protections" aren't just put in place by Congress. Contracts between broadcasters and their shows/commercials also regulate what can be shown where. When a station enters a contract to air Jeopardy (for example), they get an exclusive right to it. Jeopardy can't sell it's shows the CBS and the FOX station in the same market. So what happens when the CBS in city 'Y' has Jeopardy, Dish has a dispute with the FOX, and wants to import FOX from city 'Z'? But that FOX station has Jeopardy? By the Jeopardy contract, that can't be shown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,661
7,521
FL
The only way a compromise would work is if the ownership of channels is broken up as well. Then you can't have FOX O&O local stations being held hostage over the carriage of Fox Business, for a recent example.
 

ncted

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
5,262
3,558
Durham, NC
Way to be vague. Are you a politician? :)

But, I am serious. Yes, I do think the way things work now is broken. But, if you tell broadcasters "you can't pull channels", what keeps MVPDs negotiating in good faith? I think there needs to be a compromise on how retrans works.

LOL, no. Not a politician. :oldlaugh

My personal opinion is MVPDs shouldn't have to pay one penny to broadcast channel owners for retransmission. Seems to me it should be a $0 arrangement. MVPDs get to offer local channels to customers and the channel owners get access to the MVPDs' millions of customers eyeballs for the ads the local station runs.

The only way I can see any money needs to change hands is if the MVPD offers DVR functionality that allows commercials to be avoided. Then maybe the MVPD customers should have to pay a minimal fee to skip commercials on those local channels.
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,228
1,027
Lexington, ky
The only way a compromise would work is if the ownership of channels is broken up as well. Then you can't have FOX O&O local stations being held hostage over the carriage of Fox Business, for a recent example.
I've suggested it before, but I feel there should be a fixed amount/subscriber, decided by a 3rd party. Base it on ratings if you'd like. Then it's the same regardless of who the station owner is, how many stations they own, where the station is, etc.
 

Voyager6

*Cancelled*
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 30, 2005
17,097
5,322
Wokeville
Way to be vague. Are you a politician? :)

But, I am serious. Yes, I do think the way things work now is broken. But, if you tell broadcasters "you can't pull channels", what keeps MVPDs negotiating in good faith? I think there needs to be a compromise on how retrans works.
You require that any new carriage deal be retroactive to the old contract's end date.
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,228
1,027
Lexington, ky
LOL, no. Not a politician. :oldlaugh

My personal opinion is MVPDs shouldn't have to pay one penny to broadcast channel owners for retransmission. Seems to me it should be a $0 arrangement. MVPDs get to offer local channels to customers and the channel owners get access to the MVPDs' millions of customers eyeballs for the ads the local station runs.

The only way I can see any money needs to change hands is if the MVPD offers DVR functionality that allows commercials to be avoided. Then maybe the MVPD customers should have to pay a minimal fee to skip commercials on those local channels.
Depends on your definition of "minimal". lol

I still feel (I know people disagree with me) is MVPDs messed up by charging for locals originally. Broadcasters thought "hey, they're making money from our product, we should get a cut." Just my theory and I have nothing to back it up.
 

ncted

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
5,262
3,558
Durham, NC
Depends on your definition of "minimal". lol

I still feel (I know people disagree with me) is MVPDs messed up by charging for locals originally. Broadcasters thought "hey, they're making money from our product, we should get a cut." Just my theory and I have nothing to back it up.

I'd pay $1 per local HD channel to skip commercials, and $0.25 per SD local on a monthly basis, especially if I wasn't paying $12 just to have access to the channels in the first place.
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,228
1,027
Lexington, ky
You require that any new carriage deal be retroactive to the old contract's end date.
So why would an MVPD agree to a new contract?

Old contract:
$1/subscriber/month

New contract:
$1.25/sub/month (making up numbers)

So if the MVPD knows they'd have to pay the extra .25/sub/month going back to the old end date, where's the motivation to sign the new contract?
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts

Top