NAB Chief Gordon Smith Chides AT&T And Dish Network For Broadcast Blackouts

[Jon J]

This guy has a dog in the hunt so just ignore his support for his employers.

 

[ncted]

Let's take it easy on the regulation talk. Not many things are made better by the government stepping in to create winners and losers IMO. This is broadcast TV after all and in most cases an antenna will get you back to having access to your local station for a fairly modest one time cost. And there are plenty of other avenues nowadays to enhance your viewing experience by purchasing items such as the aforementioned Recast DVR (full disclosure, I recently purchased one of these and got rid of the locals from Dish and so far I am very pleased with it). I work in the Engineering department of a public TV network and while we don't typically have these types of retransmission disputes, I can assure everyone here that running a TV station is a very expensive proposition just from an operational standpoint let alone the programming costs. Commercial broadcasters have begun to figure retransmission fees into their business models by necessity in many cases. I'm not giving them a pass by any stretch since they have found a backdoor way to charge for the public airwaves but I'm saying that I can see both sides of this argument.

I agree that we don't necessarily need more regulation, but they need to fix the currently broken regulations that favor the station owners, most of which are not small companies any more, let alone non-profits. As things get more profitable for large companies like Sinclair, and companies like Comcast need to pay down the debt from their megamergers, the people who are paying for the product end up paying a lot more. The regulations need to updated to deal with the new realities. Businesses evolve and adapt to the status quo and optimize themselves to maximize profits. In a sense, they take advantage of the situation they are presented with. To prevent them from having too much power over the market, rules need to be added/removed/changed from time to time. As they are using public resources (airwaves), it is the government's job to do that, hopefully with the lightest touch necessary and with the public's interest in mind -- not just the broadcasters and/or MVPDs. I'd be perfectly fine with the regulations reverting to the original spirit of the public interest broadcast licenses. Making gobs of money for investors on the backs of people who just want local news, weather, and traffic doesn't really jibe with that idea.

 

[JSheridan]

I agree that we don't necessarily need more regulation, but they need to fix the currently broken regulations that favor the station owners, most of which are not small companies any more, let alone non-profits. As things get more profitable for large companies like Sinclair, and companies like Comcast need to pay down the debt from their megamergers, the people who are paying for the product end up paying a lot more. The regulations need to updated to deal with the new realities. Businesses evolve and adapt to the status quo and optimize themselves to maximize profits. In a sense, they take advantage of the situation they are presented with. To prevent them from having too much power over the market, rules need to be added/removed/changed from time to time. As they are using public resources (airwaves), it is the government's job to do that, hopefully with the lightest touch necessary and with the public's interest in mind -- not just the broadcasters and/or MVPDs. I'd be perfectly fine with the regulations reverting to the original spirit of the public interest broadcast licenses. Making gobs of money for investors on the backs of people who just want local news, weather, and traffic doesn't really jibe with that idea.

There it is in a nutshell. Thank you!

 

[TVEngineerArk]

I've been reading this forum for years and certainly didn't expect to be snarkily piled on to for simply making a comment which I began by stating was simply my opinion! I never said that I supported what has been going on with the channel blackouts for financial leverage, only that I understand they have adjusted their business models to reflect the realities of the broadcast television business today! I really have "no dog in this hunt", if anyone who jumped on me would simply read where I stated that I work for a public TV network and understand what it takes to run a TV station from an operational standpoint since my job entails seeing the bills every month that it takes to run TV stations.

Ironically enough, for everyone who pines for the good old days of regulation, back in the 70's , 80's and 90's ownership of a TV station, especially one that was run with expenses kept as low as possible (which, by the way included low pay for many employees and poor maintenance of technical facilities which then led to a far lower quality product) was nearly a license to print money. And owners back then most assuredly did. The difference being that there weren't as likely to be stockholders to answer to for many of them, but there was an owner capitalizing on his initial investment (or inheritance). But they had their Cadillac, Mercedes and other high dollar vehicles of the time, country club memberships, second or third homes, extensive vacations along other far more nefarious ways to spend money (remember this was the 70's, 80's and 90's so draw your own conclusions) while putting as little as possible back into the product. If anyone remembers back then there was also nowhere near the amount of competition for potential eyeballs there is now. I'm a thirty +year veteran of broadcast radio and TV so don't even get me started on how great it was when a 'little guy' was the owner of the station.

Enough of this, I'll go back to just reading this board now. I don't pretend to have all the answers but I thought I would throw another perspective out there since I'm a career broadcaster but apparently many on here wish to rant, complain and demand government action rather than even considering there are two sides to the discussion so I will keep that in mind.

 

[JSheridan]

What a spin!

 

[ncted]

I've been reading this forum for years and certainly didn't expect to be snarkily piled on to for simply making a comment which I began by stating was simply my opinion! I never said that I supported what has been going on with the channel blackouts for financial leverage, only that I understand they have adjusted their business models to reflect the realities of the broadcast television business today! I really have "no dog in this hunt", if anyone who jumped on me would simply read where I stated that I work for a public TV network and understand what it takes to run a TV station from an operational standpoint since my job entails seeing the bills every month that it takes to run TV stations.

Ironically enough, for everyone who pines for the good old days of regulation, back in the 70's , 80's and 90's ownership of a TV station, especially one that was run with expenses kept as low as possible (which, by the way included low pay for many employees and poor maintenance of technical facilities which then led to a far lower quality product) was nearly a license to print money. And owners back then most assuredly did. The difference being that there weren't as likely to be stockholders to answer to for many of them, but there was an owner capitalizing on his initial investment (or inheritance). But they had their Cadillac, Mercedes and other high dollar vehicles of the time, country club memberships, second or third homes, extensive vacations along other far more nefarious ways to spend money (remember this was the 70's, 80's and 90's so draw your own conclusions) while putting as little as possible back into the product. If anyone remembers back then there was also nowhere near the amount of competition for potential eyeballs there is now. I'm a thirty +year veteran of broadcast radio and TV so don't even get me started on how great it was when a 'little guy' was the owner of the station.

Enough of this, I'll go back to just reading this board now. I don't pretend to have all the answers but I thought I would throw another perspective out there since I'm a career broadcaster but apparently many on here wish to rant, complain and demand government action rather than even considering there are two sides to the discussion so I will keep that in mind.

I, for one, really appreciated your post, and I certainly appreciate your perspective based on your experience. Based on your description, I certainly wouldn't want to return to what you describe. That said, I don't think what we've got now is particularly great either. The people I know who were in broadcast TV have pretty much all left, mostly due to layoffs thanks to Disney/ABC and Nexstar consolidation.

 

[comfortably_numb]

run with expenses kept as low as possible (which, by the way included low pay for many employees and poor maintenance of technical facilities which then led to a far lower quality product) was nearly a license to print money. And owners back then most assuredly did. The difference being that there weren't as likely to be stockholders to answer to for many of them, but there was an owner capitalizing on his initial investment (or inheritance). But they had their Cadillac, Mercedes and other high dollar vehicles of the time, country club memberships, second or third homes, extensive vacations along other far more nefarious ways to spend money (remember this was the 70's, 80's and 90's so draw your own conclusions) while putting as little as possible back into the product

That's capitalism, my friend

The owner of the Wendy's franchise I worked for in high school drove a Mercedes, was a cheap bastard who never invested money in his stores, BUT I had a job because of him

 

[mwdxer1]

I've been reading this forum for years and certainly didn't expect to be snarkily piled on to for simply making a comment which I began by stating was simply my opinion! I never said that I supported what has been going on with the channel blackouts for financial leverage, only that I understand they have adjusted their business models to reflect the realities of the broadcast television business today! I really have "no dog in this hunt", if anyone who jumped on me would simply read where I stated that I work for a public TV network and understand what it takes to run a TV station from an operational standpoint since my job entails seeing the bills every month that it takes to run TV stations.

Ironically enough, for everyone who pines for the good old days of regulation, back in the 70's , 80's and 90's ownership of a TV station, especially one that was run with expenses kept as low as possible (which, by the way included low pay for many employees and poor maintenance of technical facilities which then led to a far lower quality product) was nearly a license to print money. And owners back then most assuredly did. The difference being that there weren't as likely to be stockholders to answer to for many of them, but there was an owner capitalizing on his initial investment (or inheritance). But they had their Cadillac, Mercedes and other high dollar vehicles of the time, country club memberships, second or third homes, extensive vacations along other far more nefarious ways to spend money (remember this was the 70's, 80's and 90's so draw your own conclusions) while putting as little as possible back into the product. If anyone remembers back then there was also nowhere near the amount of competition for potential eyeballs there is now. I'm a thirty +year veteran of broadcast radio and TV so don't even get me started on how great it was when a 'little guy' was the owner of the station.

Enough of this, I'll go back to just reading this board now. I don't pretend to have all the answers but I thought I would throw another perspective out there since I'm a career broadcaster but apparently many on here wish to rant, complain and demand government action rather than even considering there are two sides to the discussion so I will keep that in mind.

Glad to hear from someone in the business. It is a different world now. As an old radio engineer/broadcaster, I also enjoyed the old days. But you are right, pay was not very good. But we were kids and never thought about it at the time.. We were happy to have that job. As a society we are spoiled today. We were happy with a few OTA stations. Now, most people have to have everything and everything costs money.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Glad to hear from someone in the business. It is a different world now. As an old radio engineer/broadcaster, I also enjoyed the old days. But you are right, pay was not very good. But we were kids and never thought about it at the time.. We were happy to have that job. As a society we are spoiled today. We were happy with a few OTA stations. Now, most people have to have everything and everything costs money.

Damn right, if I won the lottery, I would immediately quit my job and go be a DJ or run a radio station. That's my dream!

 

[navychop]

Thanks for reminding me to check my retirement ticket. Err- lottery ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys App. For now.

 

[Tampa8]

I've been reading this forum for years and certainly didn't expect to be snarkily piled on to for simply making a comment which I began by stating was simply my opinion! I never said that I supported what has been going on with the channel blackouts for financial leverage, only that I understand they have adjusted their business models to reflect the realities of the broadcast television business today! I really have "no dog in this hunt", if anyone who jumped on me would simply read where I stated that I work for a public TV network and understand what it takes to run a TV station from an operational standpoint since my job entails seeing the bills every month that it takes to run TV stations.

Ironically enough, for everyone who pines for the good old days of regulation, back in the 70's , 80's and 90's ownership of a TV station, especially one that was run with expenses kept as low as possible (which, by the way included low pay for many employees and poor maintenance of technical facilities which then led to a far lower quality product) was nearly a license to print money. And owners back then most assuredly did. The difference being that there weren't as likely to be stockholders to answer to for many of them, but there was an owner capitalizing on his initial investment (or inheritance). But they had their Cadillac, Mercedes and other high dollar vehicles of the time, country club memberships, second or third homes, extensive vacations along other far more nefarious ways to spend money (remember this was the 70's, 80's and 90's so draw your own conclusions) while putting as little as possible back into the product. If anyone remembers back then there was also nowhere near the amount of competition for potential eyeballs there is now. I'm a thirty +year veteran of broadcast radio and TV so don't even get me started on how great it was when a 'little guy' was the owner of the station.

Enough of this, I'll go back to just reading this board now. I don't pretend to have all the answers but I thought I would throw another perspective out there since I'm a career broadcaster but apparently many on here wish to rant, complain and demand government action rather than even considering there are two sides to the discussion so I will keep that in mind.

I too appreciated that post. You can't cover everything in one post, what you did cover was reasonable. It's true most of us do not know the cost of running a station, and also true the amount of choices of what to watch has grown exponentially.
Problem is we are not in the 70's now in other ways also. Ownership of stations have become in large part a business in themselves meaning companies have been buying stations to make a conglomerate. No law prohibiting that of course but it changes the landscape. I don't think FCC rules have been updated to address that, they have been updated but not in the area of a conglomerate pulling multiple stations if they don't get what they are asking for with no recourse by the provider for signal that should be free. Or that we pay the stations to have them on Satellite when the signal should be free but in some places there is no free signal. (Much more so now than Analog)
Or that I feel there is double dipping, we pay to watch the networks who have protection from competition of the same programming, but also have commercials for income and that we have to watch or skip. So a monopoly in the market, in what the provider can carry, a free signal now being charged for to watch even if you can't get that free signal and the station also has ad revenue.

To add to that, and this is not unlike traditional cable channels, alot of what is being charged to the provider for is given away free online. The consumer is footing the bill for all this of a "free signal."

 

[SamCdbs]

There is no need for any regulation. Simply return to the logical, fair, reasonable and constitutional system outlined in Fortnightly. Zero retransmission $$ for broadcasters.

Any poor struggling Big Media company who cannot make it on the windfall it makes from ad revenue alone is welcome to sign their FCC granted monopoly over to me.

Local TV should be free.

 

[mwdxer1]

There is no need for any regulation. Simply return to the logical, fair, reasonable and constitutional system outlined in Fortnightly. Zero retransmission $$ for broadcasters.

Any poor struggling Big Media company who cannot make it on the windfall it makes from ad revenue alone is welcome to sign their FCC granted monopoly over to me.

Local TV should be free.

They can make with ads. Several of the Portland OR stations have a huge network of translators all over the state. These cost plenty and yet, the stations must feel they are worth it. Now Seattle stations have few translators. But Portland stations have had a network of stations for years. They even run a fiber cable to the translator site as the signals would vary so much. All of that is very expensive, and yet they give us 16 channels of free OTA TV. We are very happy to have.