How to end local disputes

[Deadlocked]

Have a national feed for the 5 major broadcast networks as an addon pack. If there is a dispute that pulls the channels then replace the affiliate with the proper national feed. The channel owners would then quickly learn to get a deal done.

The ideal national feed would have the prime time and late night programming and then loop it back late night.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mdram]

sounds good, but FCC wont let it happen

 

[jegrant]

Yeah, if a national feed was legally available, this would already be happening. When a local affiliate buys a network contract, they believe that they have the exclusive right to show that network in your area and they would sue anyone who gave you that network without their permission. It is kind of like the franchise system. If I contract to open a McDonald's franchise, no one else would be allowed to open a McDonald's or provide its products anywhere within my legal territory. Currently, the same applies to network TV.

 

[Willh699]

the only way to end local dispute is to change the retransmission rules but too bad the FCC is in bed with the the NAB, lobbyist for big cable/satellite (DirecTV/AT&T, Comcast/Xfinity, Time Warner/Charter, Verizon/Frontier, and Dish) and lobbyist from the companies that own the networks.

Sent from my RCT6773W22B using Tapatalk

 

[Blackhawks]

The other problem is that some local OTA stations are owned & operated by said Networks, ie; WBBM (cbs), WLS (abc), WMAQ (nbc) & WFLD (fox) in Chicago. All of these four have been blacked out due to disputes in the past.

Won't work, but good idea.

 

[TNGTony]

It's not the FCC that wont allow Dish, or any other carrier for that matter, to carry broadcast network feeds. It is the broadcast networks themselves that will not allow it! If ABC, CBS, NBC, et.al. decided that it was in their best interest to open the network feeds to the cable and satellite distributors, it would happen TOMORROW! (or the moment the affiliation agreements expire with the locals).

Fox decided to have direct distribution in areas where a local affiliate was not available and they have/had FoxNet (I saw it in PR.) WB and later CW wanted wide distribution and they put their content on a channel that was nationally available WGN Superstation (now WGN America). The INSTANT the CW had enough local channels to cover most of the country the CW pulled its programming from the superstation and it was only available on the local version of WGN

PBS has a national feed (PBSx) and they make it available to satellite and cable subscribers in areas where there is no local affiliate right now.

Ion, TBN, Univision, Telemundo, Azteca America are all U.S. Based broadcast networks that make their programming available to cable and satellite distributers. They don't have to, but they do. ABC, CBS, and NBC could do the same, but they don't.

For the 1,495,675th time, major Broadcast Network feeds (ABC, NBC, CBS) were NEVER... repeat after me, NEVER made available to cable and satellite carriers. Some one essentially decided, on their own, without permission from the station or the content owners, to uplink a local channel and make it available for redistribution early on in the days of satellite. It took 20-30 years for the EXISTING laws to catch up, but now no one can just grab a signal off the air and put it on a satellite uplink without permission with extremely narrow exceptions, like the 5 remaining so-called super-stations. And even those exceptions are highly limited by the owners of the content (programs) available on those channels. All the laws passed by congress to allow satellite to carry local channels and to keep super stations were actually laws the PUNCHED HOLES in the existing copyright laws protecting the stations from unapproved redistribution.

 

[TNGTony]

Following up on my previous post:
The networks give the local channels exclusivity on the programs they distribute. I know it's silly, but I have to say it. Exclusivity means exclusive...no one else can have those programs within the area the local channel and the network have agreed to. This is spelled out in their affiliate agreement (contract). Recently, networks have reworked their affiliation agreements to allow the network to distribute programming via streaming. But this is limited. This is why there is usually a one to three day delay in release dates for any given program.

Essentially the networks would have to redraw the affiliate agreements to let them distribute network programs in the affiliate's exclusive region. What possible incentive would the local affiliate have to do something like that?

 

[SamCdbs]

All of the above is correct. A local NBC station has the exclusive right to sell NBC in a particular area.

The retransmission problem is one of Congressional creation. Fortnightly was rightly decided. The model worked, VERY WELL, for two generations and could work again. Simply reinstate Fortnightly.

 

[Claude Greiner]

I'm kind of on congresses side with this one.

If a provider like Dish was allowed to simply import a distant network we would never see a resolution to these disputes.

Hell, the satellite companies don't want to offer locals, they would be perfectly fine getting a set of networks from each time zone.

Think of it. Every time there would be a dish dispute, Charlie would import the distant network and end negotiations.

The only incentive dish has to negotiate in good faith is that customers will cancel if they don't get their local network

 

[Hall]

Bringing in a distant network only helps between 8pm and 11pm though. A lot of people really, really, really are attached to their local news and have no interest (and what's the benefit) in news from a city hundreds or even thousands of miles away.

Personally, I'm okay with it though as I watch neither the local "news" and very little primetime programming on the big 4 networks.

 

[SamCdbs]

You misunderstand Fortnightly. It has nothing to do with the importation of distant signals. It has to do with so-called "local into local". Under Fortnightly, a dish or cable company can simply show the local stations without payment to that station. There are no "retransmission consent" disputes for a simple reason. No "retransmission consent" is needed in the first place.

Why should a station get paid? The station is using the PUBLIC'S airwaves and has a contract with the FCC to "operate in the public interest as a public trustee". Dish, DirecTV, and every cable company should simply be allowed to return to the system of simply putting up an antenna and receiving and retransmitting local stations to local customers, without payment. The ultra-profitable broadcast industry can make sufficient $$ via ad sales. Any TV station that thinks it cannot make enough from ad sales alone can sign its FCC license on the back and forward it to me.

Local TV should be free.

 

[Claude Greiner]

You can put up an antenna for free, and get the programming for free.

Your paying for retransmission convent for the convince of having the channel available on 1 platform.

Dish, Directv and the cable providers all benefit and sell subscriptions based on the fact they have locals on their system.

It's a proven fact Dbs would have less subscribers if they didn't have locals.

 

[jegrant]

I'm very much in favor of selling locals at a price set by the local stations. Let each local station choose what their price is, and let consumers decide if they want to pay it. Dish would simply pass on whatever that fee is to the local stations. But if consumers don't want to pay, say, 75 cents a month for NBC, don't force them to.

 

[Hall]

I'm very much in favor of selling locals at a price set by the local stations. Let each local station choose what their price is, and let consumers decide if they want to pay it. Dish would simply pass on whatever that fee is to the local stations. But if consumers don't want to pay, say, 75 cents a month for NBC, don't force them to.

I really, really like that idea ! It may not work out the way we think though.... What if Dish actually pays $0.50 per station, which in most markets is (4) stations or $2.00 ? Dish charges around $5 for locals in the AT packages (I know they're not separated but this was the price just a few years ago). Customers see that Dish is "pocketing" $3 of the $5 (I also know there are other costs but consumers don't look at it that way).

On the other hand, maybe there's a reason why Dish charges $10 for locals through the Flex Pack.

 

[SamCdbs]

You can put up an antenna for free, and get the programming for free.

Not exactly. Under the Congressional replacement for Fortnightly, a local station "owns", more or less, the entire DMA. Yet many people who live far from broadcast source cannot receive stations OTA. Many other live in apartments or other situations where OTA is impossible or impractical. In fact, that is what cable TV started as. CATV, a way for country people to get the TV their city cousins got for free. And, under Fortnightly, they got that TV without paying the stations, and nobody seemed to go broke down at the TV station.

Local TV should be free.

 

[sam_gordon]

Not exactly. Under the Congressional replacement for Fortnightly, a local station "owns", more or less, the entire DMA. Yet many people who live far from broadcast source cannot receive stations OTA. Many other live in apartments or other situations where OTA is impossible or impractical. In fact, that is what cable TV started as. CATV, a way for country people to get the TV their city cousins got for free. And, under Fortnightly, they got that TV without paying the stations, and nobody seemed to go broke down at the TV station.

Local TV should be free.

It IS free as Claude said. I can get behind a proposal to not charge those who can't receive OTA, but you need more than a viewer saying "I can't receive it". I've heard of people asking for waivers (before LiL) who were within 10 miles of the transmitter, and in a home (not apartment).

 

[jackson85]

It's not the FCC that wont allow Dish, or any other carrier for that matter, to carry broadcast network feeds. It is the broadcast networks themselves that will not allow it! If ABC, CBS, NBC, et.al. decided that it was in their best interest to open the network feeds to the cable and satellite distributors, it would happen TOMORROW! (or the moment the affiliation agreements expire with the locals).

Fox decided to have direct distribution in areas where a local affiliate was not available and they have/had FoxNet (I saw it in PR.) WB and later CW wanted wide distribution and they put their content on a channel that was nationally available WGN Superstation (now WGN America). The INSTANT the CW had enough local channels to cover most of the country the CW pulled its programming from the superstation and it was only available on the local version of WGN

PBS has a national feed (PBSx) and they make it available to satellite and cable subscribers in areas where there is no local affiliate right now.

Ion, TBN, Univision, Telemundo, Azteca America are all U.S. Based broadcast networks that make their programming available to cable and satellite distributers. They don't have to, but they do. ABC, CBS, and NBC could do the same, but they don't.

For the 1,495,675th time, major Broadcast Network feeds (ABC, NBC, CBS) were NEVER... repeat after me, NEVER made available to cable and satellite carriers. Some one essentially decided, on their own, without permission from the station or the content owners, to uplink a local channel and make it available for redistribution early on in the days of satellite. It took 20-30 years for the EXISTING laws to catch up, but now no one can just grab a signal off the air and put it on a satellite uplink without permission with extremely narrow exceptions, like the 5 remaining so-called super-stations. And even those exceptions are highly limited by the owners of the content (programs) available on those channels. All the laws passed by congress to allow satellite to carry local channels and to keep super stations were actually laws the PUNCHED HOLES in the existing copyright laws protecting the stations from unapproved redistribution.

With my locals, we have had our local CBS owner in with a dispute with Dish. Directv is not any better. Both satellite companies have had this station shut off, then the disputes are usually settled. The one thing that I have noticed, is that with Directv, they have The CW in our local TV Package, where with Dish The CW is a station out of New York. I am not sure, if The CW is even offered to Dish locallly, so if you want The CW, may have to pay for it in any of the packages.

 

[sam_gordon]

I personally think there are a couple options to end negotiations...
1) Binding arbritation.
2) Set a nationwide price point based on station affiliation and/or ratings.

The LAST thing you do is what the OP suggested. As mentioned, earlier, if you do that, what incentive does Dish (any MVPD) have to negotiate in good faith?

 

[ohioankev]

Solution, even the playing field

My local cable company gives our area network TV channels from the Charleston, WV DMA (WCHS (ABC) & WVAH-TV, (FOX) WOWK-13 (CBS) WSAZ (NBC), the Parkersburg, WV DMA (WTAP (NBC), WYIE (CBS), My NetworkTV, Fox Parkersburg) and Columbus, Ohio DMA (WSYX (ABC) and WBNS (CBS). Allow the sat companies to allow channels from neighboring DMAs in like the cable company is allowed and this gives DISH some leverage in negotiations.

Sure in regards to spot beams there might be some issues where it might not be possible but in my opinion cable and satellite are both providers so they should have the same rule set and limitations. Also I do believe now that DISH can legally import a network from another DMA if said DMA lacks the network. Take WCHS out of Charleston/Huntington, WV. While I have NBC, CBS and FOX out of parkersburg on DISH they imported WCHS to our line up when they launched our locals in HD on the EA.

 

[dare2be]

I'm very much in favor of selling locals at a price set by the local stations. Let each local station choose what their price is, and let consumers decide if they want to pay it. Dish would simply pass on whatever that fee is to the local stations. But if consumers don't want to pay, say, 75 cents a month for NBC, don't force them to.

Me too. Extend that to all the cable channels as well, and we would have a true consumer-driven ala carte free market. No more extortion.