Bill to end carriage disputes
- Thread starter ncted
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 68
- Views 6K
"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.
"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...
HAHAHAHA...market driven....hahahahaha...they mean hostage-driven...
It's about time. Our local Fox channel has been off Dish since March 20 and no sign of the dispute ending. It's ridiculous.
But according to the broadcaster lobby, these disputes typically last only "hours or days, not months"
But according to the broadcaster lobby, these disputes typically last only "hours or days, not months"
Greedy SOB's.
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."
Private? This from the companies whose broadcasting licenses are based on serving the public's needs?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You require that any new carriage deal be retroactive to the old contract's end date.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.
Depends on your definition of "minimal". lolLOL, no. Not a politician.
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.
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.
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?
Similar threads
