Proposal to change retrans

[whatchel1]

Here's something that mostly agree with. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) have introduced a bill that would effectually throw out retransmission regulations and reform local media ownership rules. Proposed as the "Next Generation Television Marketplace Act," the legislation looks to ditch "decades old" communications law that the Republicans say doesn't adequately reflect today's high-tech industry.

If passed, the bill would 1) repeal sections of the Communications Act that require the carriage and purchase of broadcast signals by pay-TV ops; 2) repeal retrans consent and compulsory license provisions; and 3) repeal ownership limits on local media operators.

ACA President Matt Polka said his organization supported the legislation and was encouraged by the effort to modernize video market laws that will better serve consumers, especially those in rural areas. Calling the proposal "long overdue," Polka said he was encouraged that legislators are finally looking into how current communications law affects competition and consumers.

Cable wasn't the only industry praising the proposal. DIRECTV issued a statement late last week in favor of the bill applauding the Republican officials for attempting to "modernize" the TV marketplace by eliminating regulations that "shackle innovation, competition and consumer choice."
The part I don't agree with is #3. We shouldn't allow any more consolidation of ownership by TV corps.

 

[CK SatGuy]

I posted this a couple of days ago in the Directv Fourm. To me, it sounds like a good bill, but I don't think Congress (at least this Congress that we have now) won't have the time or the willingness to deal with it.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/directv...luds-introduction-new-video-deregulation.html

 

[Yespage]

"Shackle innovation"? The requirement to broadcast local channels "shackle(s) innovation"?!

Looks like the typical pro-corporate trojan horse legislation. Gives the cable/sat providers a bone, gives media ownership companies a larger bone, gives the people jacksquat. Allowing a greater consolidation of local stations would be terrible.

 

[Dah-Henny]

O boy!...let's go political and get a good thread locked down!

 

[Mr Tony]

agreed. Removed the political post

 

[Jim S.]

Um, how the heck are we supposed to discuss the topic at all without it being a political discussion, when it's a political entity making the rules in the first place? I mean come on now, natural law would dictate that anyone could take an unencrypted signal and do anything they want with it!

 

[jimdandyvi]

I believe the way the current law works is that if a broadcast station wants mandatory carriage on a cable or satellite company they can not ask for compensation. If they waive mandatory carriage then they can ask for what ever the market will pay in compensation.

Compensation while often monetary can be such things as channel position, carriage of other channels or programming.

Who the new law would screw the worst is low power and or fringe market stations that depend on the cable company to distribute their broadcasts to a much larger market than their signal reaches over the air.

 

[Dah-Henny]

Personally, I'd be happy if the satcos got to play by the same rules as cable. I live 1000 feet from a SV DMA, and can't legally subscribe to them.

 

[Stargazer]

I thought satellite companies were allowed to offer significantly subscribed or something like that to offer local DMA's like the cable companies do? A local cable coming into my area is going to offer two DMA's here whereas on satellite you can't get both markets. In the neighboring towns the other cable company is doing the same thing. This is stupid how cable has rights that satellite don't. Laws need updated. Cable company has unfair advantage. I guess I could just get the neighboring DMA news online.

 

[whatchel1]

I believe the way the current law works is that if a broadcast station wants mandatory carriage on a cable or satellite company they can not ask for compensation. If they waive mandatory carriage then they can ask for what ever the market will pay in compensation.

Compensation while often monetary can be such things as channel position, carriage of other channels or programming.

Who the new law would screw the worst is low power and or fringe market stations that depend on the cable company to distribute their broadcasts to a much larger market than their signal reaches over the air.

That is the way it used to be. But now cable & sat co's have to carry the major networks now. They don't have the choice of being must carry anymore. They already are as gov pretty much says that the big 4 (and PBS is going to be added I think next year) has to be on the system that is in it's DMA.

 

[Dah-Henny]

My local telephone co-op provides 3 DMA's, Charlotte, Greensboro, and Tri cities TN. Dish legally can only provide Charlotte. That ain't the same playing field. I shop a lot in the SV Tri cities, seeing that it's only a 40 mile drive, as opposed to the 100+ mile drive to Charlotte.