FCC Chair says time to get rid of old fashioned exclusivity rules

[dishcomm]

In a statement on the FCC blog, FCC Chair Tom Wheeler expressed a desire to rid the country of these outdated exclusivity rules which for example prevent a provider from pulling in an out of town affiliate in the event of for example a retransmission dispute.
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/fc.../2015-09-22?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal
Of course the National Ass'n of Broadcasters is adamantly opposed to any such move.
Theoretically a loss of exclusive rights to broadcast signals to a given market would cause station owners to lose significant leverage against both providers and consumers.
IMO it is time to level the playing field. These disputes should NEVER involve the consumer.

 

[dishdude]

Agreed, I think it's ridiculous that providers need to pay to rebroadcast OTA signals in the first place.

 

[Tampa8]

In this thread...
http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads/import-distant-networks.352557/

 

[ChadT41]

In a statement on the FCC blog, FCC Chair Tom Wheeler expressed a desire to rid the country of these outdated exclusivity rules which for example prevent a provider from pulling in an out of town affiliate in the event of for example a retransmission dispute.
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/fc.../2015-09-22?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal
Of course the National Ass'n of Broadcasters is adamantly opposed to any such move.
Theoretically a loss of exclusive rights to broadcast signals to a given market would cause station owners to lose significant leverage against both providers and consumers.
IMO it is time to level the playing field. These disputes should NEVER involve the consumer.

As Tampa noted, there is a prior thread with this info, but I responded there. Ill copy it over here:

NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said Wheeler is on a "singular crusade" to eliminate the rules despite the harm it will do to local broadcasting. "Neither he nor...Lake has identified any consumer benefit to eliminating the rules. And just last year Congress included broadcast exclusivity protections in the DBS context in satellite TV legislation"
I will go ahead and identify the fact that now local channels cannot hold customers hostage anymore, and the fact that large companies that are screwing the economy such as Sinclair and Media General will not have to disclose to their customers the truth about what is happening. This may actually even help some of the smaller locals, if they charge less for a local channel, then if a station pulls the signal, the smaller station can be put in and paid for it. There is no "Free Ride" as the providers will still be forced to pay for the content, but the question is who will get paid, and is it going to be a fair amount. This may change the face of television for the future, and is awesome that Wheeler is going at it full force.

 

[Stargazer]

They should do this to prevent so many disputes. People can get their local news from the competition and still get their prime time shows from a network out of the area. The perfect solution to the disputes.

 

[jerryez]

I can see a lot of local station going out of business. I never watch local stuff, All I need is network feeds. As far as I am concerned, we only need 1 feed per time zone.

 

[rvvaquero]

I can see a lot of local station going out of business. I never watch local stuff, All I need is network feeds. As far as I am concerned, we only need 1 feed per time zone.

Evidently, you are not a sports fan.

 

[n0qcu]

Evidently, you are not a sports fan.

Not everyone is.

Sent from my iPhone using Chrome.

 

[ekilgus]

Agreed, I think it's ridiculous that providers need to pay to rebroadcast OTA signals in the first place.

Logically, it should be the broadcasters that would pay the providers for rebroadcasting their OTA signals, because by doing so they expand their viewership and consequently their potential ad revenue, at no additional cost to the broadcaster.

 

[RONZ]

Last month in Traverse City Mi Dish was down to one channel. To me this had a affect on the area. The broadcasters were to blame. I truly believe importing channels would have eliminated most of this nonsense. Broadcasters have to much power.

 

[sam_gordon]

Logically, it should be the broadcasters that would pay the providers for rebroadcasting their OTA signals, because by doing so they expand their viewership and consequently their potential ad revenue, at no additional cost to the broadcaster.

And this is different than ESPN, CNN, MTV, and all the other networks? Why should Dish pay ESPN $6+/subscriber? If it wasn't for providers, NO ONE would be able to see ESPN.

 

[ChadT41]

Why should broadcast stations have more power than ESPN or Fox News or anyone else? If they don't want to play ball, then bye, allow competition in as far as broadcast channels.

 

[rvvaquero]

Not everyone is.

Sent from my iPhone using Chrome.

Correct.

 

[Tampa8]

And this is different than ESPN, CNN, MTV, and all the other networks? Why should Dish pay ESPN $6+/subscriber? If it wasn't for providers, NO ONE would be able to see ESPN.

ESPN has no right to access the free to consumer airwaves and if DISH wants only FOX Sports and not ESPN DISH can do that. CNN learned that the hard way. TWC too. But if DISH wants one network they must take them all. DISH does not have to agree to take even all the channels from one company by law either. The networks are given rights the others do not have. I believe just because they are carried on Cable should not negate they are supposed to be free to the consumer only that any additional costs can be recouped. Keep in mind I do think the FCC brought the current situation with contracts on themselves.

 

[sam_gordon]

Why should broadcast stations have more power than ESPN or Fox News or anyone else? If they don't want to play ball, then bye, allow competition in as far as broadcast channels.

I don't think they should. I'm simply commenting on the argument that stations should be thankful for MVPDs because without them, they wouldn't have as many viewers. Without MVPDs, ESPN, Fox News, etc would have ZERO viewers.

ESPN has no right to access the free to consumer airwaves and if DISH wants only FOX Sports and not ESPN DISH can do that. CNN learned that the hard way. TWC too. But if DISH wants one network they must take them all. DISH does not have to agree to take even all the channels from one company by law either. The networks are given rights the others do not have. I believe just because they are carried on Cable should not negate they are supposed to be free to the consumer only that any additional costs can be recouped. Keep in mind I do think the FCC brought the current situation with contracts on themselves.

Personally, I have no problem with MVPDs telling locals "thanks, but no thanks", if that's what they want to do. They should not be forced by law to carry any station, unless it's for free. I don't think Sinclair (for example) should get the same price for Sioux City, Iowa as they do for Washington DC. In my ideal world, the locals get paid a fixed fee per subscriber determined by a 3rd party arbitrator based on ratings. The more people watch, the more expensive.

And doesn't ABC (owners of ESPN) own some local stations? So yes, they DO have the right to access consumer airwaves. If they don't own any channels, they are free to purchase them.

 

[Yespage]

And this is different than ESPN, CNN, MTV, and all the other networks? Why should Dish pay ESPN $6+/subscriber? If it wasn't for providers, NO ONE would be able to see ESPN.

In general, those channels produce content. The Local major networks pretty much distribute content made by others.

 

[ChadT41]

I don't think they should. I'm simply commenting on the argument that stations should be thankful for MVPDs because without them, they wouldn't have as many viewers. Without MVPDs, ESPN, Fox News, etc would have ZERO viewers.

Personally, I have no problem with MVPDs telling locals "thanks, but no thanks", if that's what they want to do. They should not be forced by law to carry any station, unless it's for free. I don't think Sinclair (for example) should get the same price for Sioux City, Iowa as they do for Washington DC. In my ideal world, the locals get paid a fixed fee per subscriber determined by a 3rd party arbitrator based on ratings. The more people watch, the more expensive.

And doesn't ABC (owners of ESPN) own some local stations? So yes, they DO have the right to access consumer airwaves. If they don't own any channels, they are free to purchase them.

The whole point of the exclusivity clause was because locals made the majority of their money from advertisers. The clause was put in to protect local economy. Now they make a significant portion of their money from redistribution and carriage fees to MVPDs. They learned they can use this to their advantage and get the best of both worlds while screwing everyone else. Let them play by the same rules, and take their exclusivity away. Do that, and they have to compete. Competition brings lower prices, and happier consumers.