# Changes coming for local broadcast disputes?



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Its possible something may be about to give that will provide relief for the problems of carriage disputes that pull local stations off the air due to large increases in fees being requested.

Last month Mediacom formally requested the FCC to take some actions to prevent blackouts and reign in the fee increases. It seems to have got the FCC's attention, because last week the FCC chair Tom Wheeler proposed a rule change to eliminate network exclusivity, one of the things Mediacom requested. Dish then followed up with a specific complaint about Sinclair a couple days ago, which was scheduled to black out hundreds of local stations on Dish nationwide effective midnight last night.

The elimination of network exclusivity would allow cable/satellite providers to import a local station from another market when the station owner pulls the local one. This would be a huge help to satellite and cable customers for whom blackouts or at least potential blackouts of one or more stations in their market have become a yearly occurrence. It would also save them a lot of money, as without the leverage of not being able to watch network programming such as sports, the ability to ask for huge fee increases that customers end up paying for would significantly curtailed.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/exclusive-mediacom-asks-fcc-limit-retrans-blackouts/142336

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fcc-launches-retrans-negotiation-review/143327

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fcc-order-would-ax-syndex-network-non-duplication-rules/143320

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/currency/dish-files-complaint-fcc-against-sinclair/143416


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Lets see how much the lobbyist can throw around to keep this from happening. Since most OTA's receive compensation from cable/sat companies there would have to be negations with another station. That could just amplify the problem. I wonder how they handle compensation for the national feeds. Have not seen any problems there. Opening them up could be a solution.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

It is a wonder that the locals can survive. As stated in the article below, who pays who has been turned on its head. Looks like the locals do not get to keep all the retrans fees they collect. In this case CBS is bullying stations to give up more of the retrans fees. It is no wonder the locals want higher return from cable and sat providers. This problem runs a lot deeper than meets the eye.

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/262401/cbs-prepared-to-play-rough-with-affiliates-over-money/


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Yes, the reason local stations are so greedy is because their network overlords are greedy. The reason in turn they are so greedy is because they, along with ESPN, have bid up the prices for NFL and college football carriage contracts so much. Well, sports in general, but football is over three fourths of it; basketball, baseball, and other sports are chump change by comparison.

If the locals lose leverage to charge more, the networks will be unable to charge the locals more, meaning the networks will be unwilling to bid up the price of those sports contracts. ESPN has also indicated they are cutting back, so it looks like soon the days of ever increasing payrolls in the NFL, MLB and NBA will finally be coming to an end.


----------



## Ruffread (Nov 4, 2004)

I've always thought since local stations provide free over-the-air signals, that, if anything, satellite or cable companies should not have to pay anything, or receive any payment when they re-transmit the signal. Local stations will be happy having their signal reach more customers, thereby increasing their audience size and more easily garnering more commercial income. There seem to be too many greedy people running businesses today trying to get us to pay for what is supposedly a no cost item.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The elimination of network exclusivity would allow cable/satellite providers to import a local station from another market when the station owner pulls the local one.


It is not that simple. Having the Federal rules in place make it easy for a station that has purchased exclusive rights to protect their rights and block satellite and cable from importing stations that infringe on the rights they purchased. But removing the Federal rules does not remove the rights. A station that has purchased exclusive rights to content can still sue to protect their exclusivity rights.

One rule change that would help would be if the Federal government would eliminate the exclusive rights of stations. Pass a law that says stations cannot enforce the exclusivity rights they have paid for. I do not see that happening.

The solution I would push for is statutory licensing. Have the copyright office set a flat fee for the rebroadcast of a television station (similar to the fee set by the copyright office for distants). Then copyright owners can file claims with the copyright office to pay for the right to rebroadcast their content (as they do for distants). That would remove the local negotiations from the marketplace ... no station would be blacked out ... and level the playing field for smaller stations that are currently being forced to allow rebroadcast of their copyrighted content for free because they are not big enough to demand payment like Sinclair, Gray, Wiegle, Schurtz and other large broadcast corporations.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Ruffread said:


> I've always thought since local stations provide free over-the-air signals, that, if anything, satellite or cable companies should not have to pay anything, or receive any payment when they re-transmit the signal. Local stations will be happy having their signal reach more customers, thereby increasing their audience size and more easily garnering more commercial income. There seem to be too many greedy people running businesses today trying to get us to pay for what is supposedly a no cost item.


I've been saying for years that the stations should be paying the carriers for the increased viewer base.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

The biggest thing that would help would be removing the forced carriage requirement. And I'm not talking about must-carry, I mean the requirement that local channels *must* be in the very base package. It's illegal for providers (at least cable companies) to even offer a package without local channels. 

Locals could cost as much as they want to charge if I didn't have to pay for them. It's silly that because I want to watch ESPN or CNN, but live within the shadow of the transmitters in my city and could pick up locals with a paperclip stuck in my TV, I still have to pay whatever outrageous fee the local channels are charging.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> The biggest thing that would help would be removing the forced carriage requirement. And I'm not talking about must-carry, I mean the requirement that local channels *must* be in the very base package. It's illegal for providers (at least cable companies) to even offer a package without local channels.


I'm not sure that would help much because most people wouldn't want to deal with receiving their locals OTA and coming up with a different solution for recording. Directv & Dish at least allow you to integrate OTA reception in with the rest, but cable DVRs don't make any provision for this, though theoretically if they could decouple the locals some might be induced to add an ATSC input but I wouldn't count on it (since Directv dropped the integrated ATSC input nearly a decade ago)

Even if the separate DVR and the antenna was free, I doubt many would be interested in this to save a few dollars a month. Maybe once the locals are up to $10+, but of course that separate DVR and antenna won't be free so even at $10+ the payback period will be a minimum of one year, as many as five if you need a professional antenna install and want a really slick DVR like a Tivo.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

Here in San Diego county, we're going through this now. Our CBS local has been dark since 8/13. I live in Carlsbad and my location is less than ideal to go OTA to receive it. But I do have Time Warner for internet, and was able to do a channel scan on my TV. The CBS local (plus a few others) is viewable. 

That said, it would be nice if DirecTV would be able to put in another channel to replace it. KCBS in LA immediately comes to mind.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

There are some other legal work arounds now. There is something called Significantly Viewed Stations. Any station considered significantly viewed in a county can be broadcast even if it is duplicate programming without being subject to blackouts or anything else. Where I live, we have 3 of the big four from another DMA considered significantly viewed. DirecTV gives me 2 of those 3. So to clarify, I get all 4 of my DMA's big 4 and 2 out of the 4 for the Tulsa DMA. This only works for counties that are considered significantly viewed so its not a fix for everyone but it could help in alot of situations. Feel free to go look on the FCC website to see if you live in a county that claims stations as significantly viewed. Below is a link to the list.

https://transition.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations031815.pdf


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Unfortunately that won't work in Carlsbad is for sure for San Diego residents.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

What they need to do is eliminate all the double speak, protectionism and rights hooplah. If a customer wants locals or distant locals, they should be able to select them at a fee not greater than the actual costs incurred by the carriers. Nobody makes a profit on the process. Local broadcast stations or networks don't get to say which stations a customer can choose or what they have to pay and their only income from it is what they can charge advertisers for the increased viewer base.

Why would CBS care is I watch one of their shows out of one of their cities or another? They still get the eyes.

Yeah, I've heard the spot beam argument, but that's a technical thing for the carriers and has nothing to do with the networks or local stations.



.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> Why would CBS care is I watch one of their shows out of one of their cities or another? They still get the eyes.


They have sold the exclusive rights to your eyes to your affiliates. It would be a violation of their contract with your local affiliate to willing allow your eyes to view another affiliate.

(Note that OTA affiliates may overlap and in those situations both stations have purchased the rights to your eyes. Also note that "distant" stations are NOT carried with the permission of the network nor the affiliate carried ... no permission from the network or station carried is required. But distants are severely limited by law to the point where only the station with the rights to your eyes can give permission for your eyes to view a distant. And yes, I know that they are your eyes - but the network has still sold the rights to show you programs to their specific affiliate(s).)


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> What they need to do is eliminate all the double speak, protectionism and rights hooplah. If a customer wants locals or distant locals, they should be able to select them at a fee not greater than the actual costs incurred by the carriers. Nobody makes a profit on the process. Local broadcast stations or networks don't get to say which stations a customer can choose or what they have to pay and their only income from it is what they can charge advertisers for the increased viewer base.
> 
> *Why would CBS care is I watch one of their shows out of one of their cities or another? They still get the eyes.*
> 
> ...


Well a part of their revenue is from advertisement and if no local eyes are seeing it, there goes that revenue stream. The other major issue is that locals carry the immediate weather threats among other things. A DNS feed isnt going to help with that. Locals are flawed but until there is a better solution, it is the mess we are dealt wtih at this time.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> ........
> 
> Why would CBS care is I watch one of their shows out of one of their cities or another? They still get the eyes.
> 
> ...


Well the spot beam issue is huge. It's just not possible for DIRECTV nor any cable company to offer and it supply every local in the country. There's just no way.

And there's nothing to gain for anyone consumer or provider to offer then all anyway. In fact it's probably cause more harm than good overall. That part of the system works good really IMHO. The problem is the price... I liked your idea on the pricing scheme but getting that to work would be nearly impossible.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I still like how whenever these discussions come up... people always want some other market's locals and not their own... ignoring that IF that other market didn't have locals, you wouldn't even be able to get them as an out-of-market thing if the law ever allowed it.

I look at local channels like things that are available at specific places in other places than where I am at... I can't just get anything I want from wherever I want delivered to my door whenever I want it. Sure, I can order lots of things online from megastores like Amazon... but there are lots of small shops in places all over the world that the only way to buy from them is go to where they are and buy in person. That's not "depriving" you of anything... it's just real-life. Sometimes you have to leave your house to go get a specific thing you want.

So... some channels are national ones... others are only available through local partnerships... and there's a long history of local stations being a GOOD provider for those networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX, etc) before there were any other ways to distribute TV... so I see why those networks are loyal to their local affiliates... and local affiliates also don't want to step across broadcast lines and infringe on another local's territory because of longstanding success for all of them in agreeing (by FCC regulation mainly) not to overlap boundaries.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Until the big four go to a cable distribution route and end all affiliate partnerships I don't expect anything in regards to locals to change. 

Or 

I don't ever expect local channels to really change who can get them ever.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Don't really care.

Don't watch any of them anymore anyways.

Electric bill loves the lack of TV, DVR and HT amplifier system.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> Don't really care.
> 
> Don't watch any of them anymore anyways.


If you don't care and you don't watch then you're just trolling.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

Do you think in the way future networks like NBC ABC CBS and FOX will go cable only and then all the local affiliates will become indie stations.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mkdtv21 said:


> Do you think in the way future networks like NBC ABC CBS and FOX will go cable only and then all the local affiliates will become indie stations.


Networks will follow the money. As long as their is money in regional affiliation the existing networks will continue to affiliate with local stations. It is a good way to catch the cord cutters and cord nevers.

New networks have a choice to make ... attempt to sell their channel through cable and satellite systems or build an affiliate network of OTA stations. Some new networks will go cable, others will go broadcast. Some may attempt both.

Fox managed to create their network out of independent affiliates. Years later WB and UPN started their OTA networks (and combined to form the CW network). More recent OTA networks have been aimed at subchannels. Few have sold their channels to cable and OTA (usually in non-competitive ways).

Losing subchannels may force the newer OTA subchannels off the air and on to cable and satellite. The major networks will take the prime space. And as long as they make money OTA they will remain OTA.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I still like how whenever these discussions come up... people always want some other market's locals and not their own... ignoring that IF that other market didn't have locals, you wouldn't even be able to get them as an out-of-market thing if the law ever allowed it.
> 
> I look at local channels like things that are available at specific places in other places than where I am at... I can't just get anything I want from wherever I want delivered to my door whenever I want it. Sure, I can order lots of things online from megastores like Amazon... but there are lots of small shops in places all over the world that the only way to buy from them is go to where they are and buy in person. That's not "depriving" you of anything... it's just real-life. Sometimes you have to leave your house to go get a specific thing you want.
> 
> So... some channels are national ones... others are only available through local partnerships... and there's a long history of local stations being a GOOD provider for those networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX, etc) before there were any other ways to distribute TV... so I see why those networks are loyal to their local affiliates... and local affiliates also don't want to step across broadcast lines and infringe on another local's territory because of longstanding success for all of them in agreeing (by FCC regulation mainly) not to overlap boundaries.


You make it sound so easy. What about people like me that get locals from two different states that I dont even live in? Its my DMA but I dont live in Kansas or Missouri. I live in Oklahoma and want Oklahoma locals. We are the only county in the NE part of the state in another DMA. Just stupid if you ask me. The local weather does not cover until we are already under a tornado warning because they are above us and have more time. Tulsa DMA covers us very well considering we are not in their market. They are on the air with weather for hours, before it hits their area and after it has left their area. There are reasons people want a different DMA, With things like significantly viewed, there ware reasons for people to have out of market DMA stations. Not to mention antenna's.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

How far away are you from all those different cities?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That's a different scenario... where you're in a DMA that has you assigned LiLs that aren't the ones you'd normally be watching OTA. I don't know how those situations evolve, but I have to think they are the exception rather than the rule... and I agree something ought to be done in those scenarios.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> How far away are you from all those different cities?


I live 85 miles from Tulsa but the DMA ends like 5 miles from my house so I am close to their DMA. I know several people who falsify their address to get the Tulsa locals in my county. Joplin and Pittsburg are closer but they just dont cover us for weather and dont cover Oklahoma sports very well either. Its difficult being forced to have locals from outside the state I live in. If they did cover us for weather that would be different.

A few months back we were under a tornado warning, the sirens in town were going off, CBS cut in after the sirens were already going off to briefly update us and then they went back to Wheel of Fortune. All while Tulsa had been live on air with nothing but weather coverage for 1-2 hours straight before it got to us.

In the last few years we have had tornadoes hit all around us and I dont wanna rely on locals that are not gonna warn me of a tornado warning before the sirens are already going off in my town. I dont really enjoy the no warning warning. That is pathetic. They should know with all the tornadoes we have had that this is super serious.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What does cable do? If you were a cable subscriber would you get Tulsa locals (along with your Nielson/FCC assigned DMA)?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> What does cable do? If you were a cable subscriber would you get Tulsa locals (along with your Nielson/FCC assigned DMA)?


They used to offer both but over the last few years, they did away with all the Tulsa stations and only carry Joplin/Pittsburg. I am very fortunate that DirecTV carries 2 Tulsa locals in my market as my county is considered significantly viewed for both additional stations. That means no blackouts. These days I think its just a must have in my area. DirecTV is the only provider in my area that offers any of the Tulsa stations. Its either that or get a really large antenna or fib about your address to one of the sat companies.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I am surprised cable doesn't carry the significantly viewed stations ... especially since that is the point of "significantly viewed". Perhaps the stations no longer reach the cable system's receive site. Usually cable "does better" than satellite because they are forced to carry locals that satellite does not have to carry (or in some cases, is prohibited from carrying).


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> I am surprised cable doesn't carry the significantly viewed stations ... especially since that is the point of "significantly viewed". Perhaps the stations no longer reach the cable system's receive site. Usually cable "does better" than satellite because they are forced to carry locals that satellite does not have to carry (or in some cases, is prohibited from carrying).


It came down to cost. I think it was a year or two ago they had 2 of them and then decided to cut back to 1 but the town didnt like the 1 they wanted to keep so Cable One changed which one they kept. They offered to keep both if the one they were dropping would let them carry it for free but that was not agreed to. Then a year later they dropped the 1 that was left. They also dropped Viacom not long after that so I wonder why they didnt add a Tulsa channel back with part of the money they recovered by not paying Viacom.


----------

