# FCC votes for retransmission rulemaking



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

You really need to read the original article by the hardest-working man in Washington, John Eggerton, in Multichannel News: http://www.multichannel.com/article/464728-FCC_Votes_Unanimously_To_Launch_Retrans_Rulemaking.php

My favorite quote: "The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ... suggest(s) a number of possible changes, specifically to 'provide more guidance to the negotiating parties on good-faith negotiation requirements; ... and *eliminate the commission's network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules*.' " (emphasis mine)

If I understand this correctly, it's possible that syndex could go away, which might leave viewers free to buy out-of-market channels. That would give cable/satellite a much better bargaining position with negotiating retransmission rights.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Elimination of the syndicated exclusivity and network nonduplication rules will be fought by the NAB. However, there is no reason that these rules must exist. They do provide a uniform and heavy-handed way for broadcasters to enforce copyright law. However, if the rules were repealed, the situation would have to be worked out through direct negotiation between the broadcasters and the cable companies, or through the courts.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

As noted previously, broadcast stations should NOT be able to charge a retransmission fee to cable or Sat companies for subscribers in their home DMA.

Local stations should NOT have any say in restriction of choice regarding distant stations.

Retrans fees COULD be charged for subscribers choosing distant stations.


ETA: I say screw the NAB the same way I say screw the RIAA and all other wannabe dictatorships.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My personal preference is making all stations "must carry" within their own DMA with no consent required to redeliver a signal to a customer within the "protected contour" of any station. I'd make it all dependent on the "protected contour" but that would leave people without an affiliate - so I'm willing to extend the protected area of a station to fill their DMA. But if another affiliate provides predicted coverage (current SV stations) I would not deny them carriage.

The only thing left in my personal preference is what to do with short markets ... and the current distants laws could be modified to cover that. I would restore the protection for out of market stations (since the station itself would be carried).

(I'm not a fan of any station from any market in any time zone carriage. I don't mind the locals having priority. But where a local has OTA or in-market coverage the local should be carried without a retransmission fee.)

Anyone can dream.


As far as the actual proposal .... the more that is put on the table the more that can be negotiated. Asking for the complete removal of SYNDEX and network exclusivity is a good start toward reaching a middle ground. If they start with the obtainable then the final result will be something less.

And in light of other actions (the FCC's desire to free up much of the broadcast spectrum for broadband) ordering satellite companies to deliver stations within their coverage area/market and ordering stations to allow carriage makes sure that the stations remain available to the public even if the OTA signals are compromised.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

_I'm not a fan of any station from any market in any time zone carriage._

I don't really care about markets or time zones. A network program is a network program is a network program. Doesn't matter if it comes from a station in Miami, Boston, St. Louis, Denver or Sacramento. If I move from Buffalo to Tulsa and want to stay in touch, I should be able to choose Buffalo locals for the news and other local programming, if any. Yeah, I know there are some technical issues with spot beams and all, but no one will even try to work those out as long as the draconian laws are in place.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> If I move from Buffalo to Tulsa and want to stay in touch, I should be able to choose Buffalo locals for the news and other local programming, if any.


If any channel from any market in any time zone is ever allowed there is a chance that stations in Buffalo and Tulsa may not get carried in their own market - let alone allowed "everywhere". (Unless, of course, there is a requirement that one's home market be provided BEFORE allowing any out of market affiliates ... similar to the requirement DISH is under to offer local carriage in all DMAs in order to be able to offer distants anywhere.)

If you're really looking for the locally produced content from another market and not trying to watch network content that should be available on a local affiliate or regionally restricted content such as pro sports you are in a distinct minority.

The technical challenge of being able to deliver thousands of local affiliates to anywhere in the country via satellite is not met by the demand. Perhaps streamed on demand via the Internet (with territorial restrictions intact) would work. But there is simply no need for customers to have to have a dish that can receive ~4000 channels just to please a few who want a foreign market.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

There are, IMHO, two different issues here. Maybe three.

First is this "any station, any market" theory, predicated upon "keeping in touch with 'home'". This is, as a cultural deal, a non-starter. Part of moving is, well, moving. New OTA channels, new ways of interacting with others, new politics, new sports loyalities, different brands of white sliced bread, etc. If you don't like Tulsa, don't live there. But my opinion on that aside, it boils down to the things that are two things that are different on local TV. Look at this as one issue or two. News and sports. Sports is, for the most part, taken care of via the packages. And, in a few years I think every game that has any merit whatsoever, even Div II and one bid league games will be on the internet. The other is news. This you can cover on the internet. Most markets have at least one station that streams its news.

But the second is the whole retransmission deal. First the FCC need to realize that signals do not die neatly at county lines. Every station that can be received OTA should be retransmitable. And second, this is another case of Congress fixing something that was not broken. Fortnightly was rightly decided. Local TV should be free. Operated in the public interest as a public trustee. Any station that cannot accept those terms and conditions can sign their FCC permits on the back and I will be glad to take the station off their hands. Really that simple.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

I've posted often that the local stations should have no right to charge anything to SAT or Cable broadcasters. The cable and sat guys extend the free OTA signal that they want people to see.

That said, there is one good reason today to require that if people are watching network TV that it be the local staton and not a distant station. That is for emergency notification. Could be a train derailment with toxic chemicals in your area or a tornado warning etc.

Yes I know that if I'm watching HBO I won't see it anyway but the emergency notification piece plays big in the NAB position and is hard to argue away. That said, Directv knows my zip code, knows where I live and whether or not I watch a DNS or HBO, they could have the technology in the SAT boxes to pop up messages on my screen and remove that NAB lobbying point. If they can cover that, one major NAB and local broadcaster argument goes away.

Glad to see the FCC taking this on. No doubt the Fox World Series mess in the NY area last fall motivated the FCC that the free market is captive at times.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Except that it will be 10 years before any changes take place in practice. There will be years of study and testimony. Then, once the FCC makes a statement, either the NAB or the Sat/Cable carriers (or both) will appeal and tie it up in the courts.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FCC Takes a Fresh Look at Its Retransmission Consent Rules in Light of Recent Consumer Television Disruption.
Press Release
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Commission Comments


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Lots of reading, but in all, a good step in the right direction. I particularly like the section which would allow a DBS provider to negotiate carriage of a network station from the next DMA over, should the network affiliate in the local DMA not negotiate in good faith (If I read that correctly). In any case, can the general public weigh in on these proposals, or are they limited to the parties they directly involve?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> Lots of reading, but in all, a good step in the right direction. I particularly like the section which would allow a DBS provider to negotiate carriage of a network station from the next DMA over, should the network affiliate in the local DMA not negotiate in good faith (If I read that correctly). In any case, can the general public weigh in on these proposals, or are they limited to the parties they directly involve?


Anyone can file a comment or reply comment, but the FCC generally takes the comments of those with standing more seriously (stations and providers, in this case).

I've seen some rulemaking procedures where the FCC notes response from the general public but few where that response is specifically quoted and responded to in the next step of the rule making process. (In my opinion this is generally because general public comments leave little to reply to. They are often non-responsive to the actual rulemaking - sometimes involving irrelevant topics. But I'm sure a professionally presented response to the actual proposal would be considered.)


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Davenlr said:


> Lots of reading, but in all, a good step in the right direction. I particularly like the section which would allow a DBS provider to negotiate carriage of a network station from the next DMA over, should the network affiliate in the local DMA not negotiate in good faith (If I read that correctly). In any case, can the general public weigh in on these proposals, or are they limited to the parties they directly involve?


I don't think it is limited to negotiating for carriage of a network station from the next DMA over. The idea is more generally to allow the carrier to negotiate for alternate carriage of programming by eliminating the syndicated exclusivity and network nonduplication rules.

If implemented (and that is a big if), then the carrier would be able to choose a station from anywhere, as long as that station agreed. Of course, the FCC won't end up exactly allowing that.

However, the bigger issue of retransmission consent is one that the FCC really cannot deal with, since it is mandated by law. Congress would have to change that, if/when it chooses to do so.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

True ... most of this proposal is finding a better definition of what is fair.

I like the part where a station cannot negotiate to block a SV station from a market. It seems odd that a station with RF coverage could be blocked by a more distant "local station" just because of the DMA lines. Every time the law is revised Congress talks about leveling the playing field with cable. Yet a station that can require carriage on a cable system (by being SV) can be blocked on a satellite system by another affiliate.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> Lots of reading, but in all, a good step in the right direction. I particularly like the section which would allow a DBS provider to negotiate carriage of a network station from the next DMA over, should the network affiliate in the local DMA not negotiate in good faith (If I read that correctly). In any case, can the general public weigh in on these proposals, or are they limited to the parties they directly involve?


Anyone can respond. And examples of actual problems weigh heavily. I saw your post about the SD subchannels and I don't know if the FCC would care about it being SD vs HD, but loss of programming entirely is a big issue.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm not sure what DBS providers stand to gain here based on this on page 26 of the Notice (*emphasis* added):


> 45. We note that in SHVIA Congress extended the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules to DBS but only in extremely limited situations that are not equivalent to their application to cable systems. As specified in SHVIA, the Commission's rules apply the exclusivity requirements only to "nationally distributed superstations." We do not propose to eliminate or revise these statutorily mandated rules. In SHVERA, Congress permitted DBS to carry out-of-market significantly viewed stations and applied the exclusivity rules insofar as local stations could challenge the significantly viewed status of the out-of-market station and thus prevent its carriage, just as in the cable context. _*We seek comment on whether and, if so, how, this limited application of the exclusivity rules would apply to DBS if we eliminate the rules as they apply to cable and whether eliminating rules as to cable systems would create undue disparities or unintended consequences for DBS.*_ We also seek comment on whether new rules would be needed to permit local stations to challenge the significantly viewed status of an out-of-market station if the network non-duplication rules are revised or eliminated.


I'm sure my old brain is just confused.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If DBS does not have to protect in market stations from duplicated programming on potential significantly viewed stations then SV stations can be carried more freely.

It is easier for DBS to not carry a feed than to apply blackout rules to selected programs throughout the day. Freeing DBS from the burden of deleting duplication would allow more SVs to be carried. A separate proposal in the rulemaking supports removing the ability for a station to refuse carriage unless SV stations are not carried.

This seems fair ... after all, the stations compete over the air with that duplicated programming. Why should they get more protection via satellite or cable? If any protection is afforded it should favor the station with OTA coverage over the one without. SV stations by definition have OTA coverage. Often the "in-market" station does not ... yet via DBS the LIL station gets preference under the law.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Elimination of the syndicated exclusivity and network nonduplication rules will be fought by the NAB. However, there is no reason that these rules must exist.


I've never seen two sentences back-to-back that were so diametrically opposed. Syndex will remain for the simple reason that NAB is behind it.

The lobbies that have N for their first initial tend to be juggernauts.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

IF we ever get to a point where any local from any market is available to anyone anywhere then I'm SURE the Sports leagues will force blackout rules. I'm sure the NFL won't stand for you being able to watch all their games from various stations and NOT pay them for the NFL Sunday ticket. Even though the ticket is only available on Directv. They will force the Sat carriers to black the games out, which as it stands right now, they don't do. In fact, it would probably be cheaper to get the sunday ticket then pay $2-4 dollars per month (or more), per distant channel you sub to.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Huh. So I've been reading the NPRM regarding these changes and a couple of interesting things popped up that I was unaware of.

II.D.27 regarding SV's: 


> we seek comment on whether a broadcaster's request or requirement, as a condition of retransmission consent, that an MVPD not carry an out-of-market "significantly viewed" ("SV")84 station violates Section 76.65(b)(1)(vi) of our rules.


Huh. Well that's funny. Who's had that happen? Oh, right.



> DISH Network L.L.C. requested that the Commission adopt a rule to "clarify that tying retransmission consent to restrictions on SV station carriage" violates the requirement that parties negotiate retransmission consent in good faith.86 DISH Network stated that some "local stations
> have tied the grant of their retransmission consent for local-into-local service to concessions from satellite carriers that the carriers will not introduce any SV stations of the same network."87


This likely explains the lack of SVs in the Metro NYC area; my in-laws should have both Philly and NYC stations, as those in southwestern CT should have Hartford and NYC. Would I be surprised to hear that Dish got put over the barrel like this? Nope.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

How about make it simple? If you can receive (or should be able to if not for blocking terrain or objects) it with a mid-range antenna at 35' AGL, satellite can carry it regardless of the transmitter city or DMA.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Oh, dear. I figured out how to make an RSS feed for comments on 10-71.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/rss?proceeding=10-71&recieved.minDate=3/12/10


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> How about make it simple? If you can receive (or should be able to if not for blocking terrain or objects) it with a mid-range antenna at 35' AGL, satellite can carry it regardless of the transmitter city or DMA.


Does that include tropo?:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> SayWhat? said:
> 
> 
> > How about make it simple? If you can receive (or should be able to if not for blocking terrain or objects) it with a mid-range antenna at 35' AGL, satellite can carry it regardless of the transmitter city or DMA.
> ...


Just use the service contour the station claims and call it a day.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

James Long said:


> Just use the service contour the station claims and call it a day.


Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## dishdude19 (Dec 8, 2003)

*Originally posted by James Long*:

"If you're really looking for the locally produced content from another market and not trying to watch network content that should be available on a local affiliate or regionally restricted content such as pro sports you are in a distinct minority.

The technical challenge of being able to deliver thousands of local affiliates to anywhere in the country via satellite is not met by the demand. Perhaps streamed on demand via the Internet (with territorial restrictions intact) would work. But there is simply no need for customers to have to have a dish that can receive ~4000 channels just to please a few who want a foreign market.[/QUOTE]

*From Dishdude19: *
I know this is a highly-charged topic, and I don't want to offend anyone, especially James whom I'm quoting, and I mean the following with the upmost respect to all . . . but here's my opinion.

I don't think anyone is suggesting making 4000 channels available, but why would anyone be against choice for the consumers? Why not make it mandatory to receive local stations and give subscribers the choice to buy an additional market (even adjacent DMA) for extra cost? I think this is a good plan.

Those who want to have two markets may be a "minority," but minorities should still have a choice to view the way they wish; it's not hurting anyone if they choose to buy an extra DMA if the law is amended. Further, if it's only a "minority," then why are local stations so threatened by this "minority?" I have worked for several television stations during my professional career. DId I want people to watch my stations? ABSOLUTELY! ! ! But I wanted them to watch by choice, not because we were the only option forced upon them by law as their only choice. I've never agreed with that, even as a broadcaster, and I know, James, this makes me in the minority.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The post I replied to was in respect to seeing Buffalo locals in Tulsa ... those are not adjacent markets. I believe the posts after it cover my opinion that a station should be available via satellite anywhere that their OTA signal is expected to reach (protected FCC service contour). That would include any overlap with another station of the same network ... they compete over the air, they shouldn't mind competing via satellite (and cable).

Channels from the next market over where the station doesn't provide coverage would have to be worked out in the affiliate contracts. Some overlap is expected but competing against a neighboring DMA on a full market basis isn't just translating the OTA marketplace to satellite.

There would still be some technical limits. Spotbeams that barely cover a market would not always cover an entire neighboring market.


----------



## spikor (Aug 12, 2008)

I have not read everything listed above on page 1 and 2 but will this allow a choice in locals? O.K here is what I am getting at my Locals are Huntington-Charleston W.Va. I never had and never will like/liked those channels ( and I have my reasons why but I will not get into that ) BUT IF I do not want these as my Locals can I choose Neighboring Cincinnati Ohio ( We were at one time but this was changed Years ago ) as my Locals or Lexington Ky. as my Locals. At one time I was allowed 2 Locals and I had Cincinnati and Lexington as my Locals maybe this was a Glitch in their system....BUT I never Questioned it. I would LOVE 2 Locals again IF allowed. BUT would settle for one IF I had a Choice in Choosing one besides Huntington-Charleston W.Va
This is my take from this. Am I understanding it right or am totally wrong?
I hope they would allow 2 again in the future but would be O.K If they allow a Choice besides what I will be set up with.


----------



## sniller (Apr 9, 2011)

I think it would be great to watch any Over the Air signal I want to watch in the country. I want to live in San Fransisco and get New York Locals and Portland locals. I hope they change the exclusivity law its a violation of freedom of the press.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> The only thing left in my personal preference is what to do with short markets ... and the current distants laws could be modified to cover that. I would restore the protection for out of market stations (since the station itself would be carried).


NO NO NO

NEVER give protection to short market stations, like KQTV in St Joseph which provides LOUSY product. If I was in St Joseph, I would be able to get currently all the majors except KMBC (ABC) and instead be forced to watch KQTV (again, a LOUSY excuse for a broadcaster) and they keep KMBC off a dish. KMBC gets higher ratings overall than KQTV does (and local cable is allowed to carry KMBC by virtue of its viewed status.

KQTV should have to compete for my viewership, and by virtue of the lcoal cable bandit carrying it, DBS should be allowed to as well.


----------

