If you're concerned about losing your high-def signals in the local station-cable TV disputes, check out our editorial below. We have e-mail addresses of the FCC commissioners at the link if you want to register your own concerns.

Editorial
FCC Must End Local HDTV Disputes
The battle over local signals threatens to slowdown sales of High-Definition TVs.
By Phillip Swann

Washington, D.C. (February 13, 2007) -- The Federal Communications Commission must act soon to end disputes between local stations and TV providers over High-Definition signals.

If it doesn't, high-def set sales will begin to decline and the nation's plan to switch to Digital TV signals on February 17, 2009 could be imperiled.
___________________________________________

Make Your Voice Heard!
Send this editorial to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin at: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
____________________________________________

For those not familiar with this issue, here is some background:

In several cities, including Tucson, St. Louis, New Orleans, Providence, Norfolk, Albuquerque and Indianapolis, local TV stations are refusing to let cable and/or satellite operators offer their high-def signals.

The local stations, which are owned by broadcast groups such as Belo, Sinclair and LIN TV, are demanding that the TV providers pay them for the right to carry the HD feeds.

The TV providers are refusing the demand, saying the signals are available for free via off-air antennas. They also note that local stations in the past have not asked for cash payments for analog signals.

Because of the impasse, however, millions of cable and satellite subscribers are unable to watch their local channels in high-def.

For instance, DIRECTV rolled out local HD service in dozens of cities in 2006, but was unable to provide all four broadcast networks in high-def in most markets. Cox Cable in Tucson can't provide the Fox HD signal. Cox in Providence, Rhode Island is unable to offer CBS and Fox in high-def.

And so on.

The battle is likely to escalate in the coming months with CBS saying publicly that it will demand fees for high-def signals at its owned and operated stations.

See More:
http://www.tvpredictions.com/fccact021307.htm
_______

They will be demanding fees for all signals, not just HD feeds. The only reason HD feeds are singled out is because they are in the middle of a current contract allowing carriage, but HD feeds are not expressly part of the current contract. When the current contracts expire, fees will be required for 100% of subscribers (SD or HD). The stations pulling HD feeds are just trying to start those payments prior to the expiration of the current contract.

[EDIT- additional thought added] The FCC has never made any HD requirements, and I don't expect them to start now. The public has been buying plenty of HDTVs under the false assumption that we are in the midst of an HDTV transition. The reality is it is only a DTV transition, and the FCC, other government entities, and the broadcasters have not made any guarantees of HDTV. A forced "end to local HD disputes" would contradict that stance and require them to take a specific stand on HDTV. That's not going to happen. At best they would force carriage of a digital feed (that won't happen either without a major change in the retransmission rules) - but the local station could easily just supply a digital SDTV feed to the MSO.

If cable doesn't show the standard feeds, their ratings will be hurt and therefore so will their advertising. That makes the high-def signals a more likely target.

And let's let the government mandate arbitration for the prices of cars, gasoline, food and any other good or service we want while we are at it.

Why stop there? Let's go even farther and mandate arbitration for movie and sports tickets, rent and the prices of homes.

So, Phillip, your belief is that even though ESPN can demand it be provided to (and paid for) by all cable subs (at about $3 a month), the stations must provide their expensive HD signals for free?

How can 50 cents or so a sub be prohibitive to cable companies, when DBS and telco are already paying for carriage -- and have far lower rates?

If cable doesn't show the standard feeds, their ratings will be hurt and therefore so will their advertising. That makes the high-def signals a more likely target.

If cable doesn't show "American Idol", "CSI", "Heroes" and "Grey's Anatomy" it's revenue will be hurt as people switch to alternatives (antenna, DBS or telco) in droves.

Just ask Mediacom.

CP95, as usual, has it right on the money.

The industries that you mentioned are private sector. Local channels use the public airwaves -- our airwaves.

Arbitration would help high-def owners. What's wrong with that? Shouldn't they come first here?

The industries that you mentioned are private sector. Local channels use the public airwaves -- our airwaves.
The industries that Fredfa mentioned all have a connection to public resources just as the stations do. Oil drilling is done on public land and food is raised and grown on public land as well but the government is not going to force arbritation on their products.

Fine, then "we" should demand that cable should not charge anything for retransmitting signals it takes from "our airwaves".

Perhaps if cable would agree to selling us only the channels we want (which it won't because it upsets its 'business model") it would be easier to side with its position on HD carriage.

But it wants to continue to rebroadcast local stations for nothing, while charging us for all manner of channels we don't want and don't watch.

Compensating the programmers who develop the vast majority of HD programming (and have done so basically free of charge up to this point) is even better for the HD cause.

An MSO willing to pay Fox News (SD) $0.75, but not willing to pay CBS a penny for their tremendous volume of HD programming - does nothing to promote HDTV. High-def owners may get a brief short-term benefit from forced arbitration, but long-term it wouldn't help the cause at all.

The industries that you mentioned are private sector. Local channels use the public airwaves -- our airwaves.
Well the local stations signal uses the public airwaves their content is far from public content. The stations want money for their programming, not their signal, and yes those are two separate things.

I'm not even advocating a side here. I say that we need binding arbitration -- let the mediator decide what the local stations should get in compensation. And while the process takes place, high-def owners can continue to watch HD channels.

For some reason, supporters of -- and employees at -- local stations seem to oppose this idea. It seems that they would rather squeeze the last possible penny out of the cable guys than let people watch high-def.

The industries that you mentioned are private sector. Local channels use the public airwaves -- our airwaves.

The public airwaves aren't affected by cable carriage. High Def owners still have access to those airwaves free of charge. The question is why should a company taking programming from the public airwaves and then charging the public for that programming be allowed to do so without reimbursing the content owners?

In some cities, cable subscribers haven't been able to watch certain HD channels for three years. If you lived in one of those cities, you might have a different view.

The antenna argument doesn't work for everyone. If you live in the wrong place, you can't get the signals.

Arbitration would help high-def owners. What's wrong with that? Shouldn't they come first here?

Well, if cable ops charge more for HD, why shouldn't the stations get a share of that, since the vast majority of their prime time and sports programming is now broadcast in HD?

I could see your point if you coupled it with a proposal that cable operators not charge more -- in any way -- for their local HD signals. (A friend in Mediacom country recently bought an HD set, and was told it would cost her more than $50 a month additional to get HD service. She just bought an antenna, and although she obviously doesn't get cable chanels, gets all four major networks and is qute happy.)

And why would mandatrory arbitration necessarily help HD owners? You are assuming the arbitrator would side with the cable ops. The proposal by Mediacom would have been a baseball-style arbitration -- where each side would put forth its best offer and a mediator would pick one. Clearly there would be some cost.

And by the way, why the big push at TV Predictions on this issue NOW? It has been brewing for years, and the recent several months of Sinclair-MediaCom ugliness was just the most recent flareup.

It seems to me you are more than a little late to this party, Phillip, but welcome anyway. :)

We've had probably 30 stories at TVPredictions.com about this over the last two years.

It seems that they would rather squeeze the last possible penny out of the cable guys than let people watch high-def.
Sentences like this sound like the broadcasters should adopt a not-for profit business model.

When did broadcasters lose the right to make money off of their product?

I'm not even advocating a side here. I say that we need binding arbitration -- let the mediator decide what the local stations should get in compensation. And while the process takes place, high-def owners can continue to watch HD channels.

For some reason, supporters of -- and employees at -- local stations seem to oppose this idea. It seems that they would rather squeeze the last possible penny out of the cable guys than let people watch high-def.

The problem is that arbitration takes supply and demand out of the equation. Forcing that arbitration only on the largest HD providers - and not on all the providers of SD programming is anything but HD-friendly.

How do you justify only limiting the income of the providers of the majority of high def programming? And more importantly, how can that possibly be considered a good thing for HD?

It would be interesting to know how many people here work for local TV stations and how many work for cable TV operators.

I work for neither, which is why I support the solution that would best help high-def owners.

And by the way, why the big push at TV Predictions on this issue NOW? It has been brewing for years, and the recent several months of Sinclair-MediaCom ugliness was just the most recent flareup.

Website traffic must be down again at his site.

If stations want to continue benefiting from "must-carry", they can't ask to be paid for retransmission as well.

Since almost every sports team plays in a stadium built by the public, using Phillip's argument we should mandate arbitration on ticket price increases.

If stations want to continue benefiting from "must-carry", they can't ask to be paid for retransmission as well.


Under law, they can't have both. They must choose one or the other every three years.

"Sentences like this sound like the broadcasters should adopt a not-for profit business model.

When did broadcasters lose the right to make money off of their product?"

Can they not make money in the arbitration process?

For the sake of disclosure, is there anyone here who works for a local TV station? Cable or satellite operator?

For instance, DIRECTV rolled out local HD service in dozens of cities in 2006, but was unable to provide all four broadcast networks in high-def in most markets.

This is factually incorrect. DirecTV has the big four broadcast networks in at least 37 of the 49 markets they carry HD locals.

http://www.dbstalk.com/hr20/html/DTV_HDLIL_DMA.html (note that NBC HD is available in Reno, this list hasn't been updated to reflect that yet)

It would be interesting to know how many people here work for local TV stations and how many work for cable TV operators.

I work for neither, which is why I support the solution that would best help high-def owners.


Then why haven't you complained about the HD surcharges cable and satellite have been charging? Seems to me those fees can't be helping the HD transition.

In some cities, cable subscribers haven't been able to watch certain HD channels for three years. If you lived in one of those cities, you might have a different view.

I'd have the same view. I'd be pissed that my cableco was willing to pay $25 a month for 60 channels of SD programming I don't watch, but not willing to pay anything for the Big 4's HD programming that I do. Considering the high estimates for what stations are asking for is $0.50 a month - that means the cableco is refusing to spend $2 a month for programming that represents half of what their customers watch.

With an average of $65 or more of revenue per customer, what is the programming that represents half of the viewing worth? $2.00 doesn't sound unreasonable.

It would be interesting to know how many people here work for local TV stations and how many work for cable TV operators.

I work for neither, which is why I support the solution that would best help high-def owners.
I do not work for any media related business, yet I do not support your idea of taking the business decisions out of the hands of the business owners.

Frefa, you answered a question with a question. Care to answer the question first:

Do you work for a local TV station or any company affiliated with a broadcast group that owns a local TV station? If so, shouldn't people know that in this debate?

"This is factually incorrect. DirecTV has the big four broadcast networks in at least 37 of the 49 markets they carry HD locals.

http://www.dbstalk.com/hr20/html/DTV_HDLIL_DMA.html (note that NBC HD is available in Reno, this list hasn't been updated to reflect that yet)"

Read my statement again. I said when DIRECTV rolled out local HD service in 2006, they didn't have all four HD channels in most markets. That means that DIRECTV subs went without some local HD channels for a period of time due to this dispute.

"Sentences like this sound like the broadcasters should adopt a not-for profit business model.

When did broadcasters lose the right to make money off of their product?"

Can they not make money in the arbitration process?
Not the fair market value of their product. Considering what the broadcasters are asking from the MSOs they are pricing themselves way below their fair market value.

I am not saying that cable shouldn't pay anything. I am advocating binding arbitration.

Unless the local stations' argument is especially weak, they will be paid in an arbitration. So that's not even the issue here.

I don't work for any TV related business either.

I think it's also important for people to make clear when their motivations are geared more toward self-promotion or attention grabbing headlines, than an objective look at a subject.

Not the fair market value of their product. Considering what the broadcasters are asking from the MSOs they are pricing themselves way below their fair market value.

So let an arbitration decide that. Meanwhile, HD owners will be able to watch HD!

So you don't propose binding arbitration for SD channels or cablenets?

I don't oppose that -- but my area is high-def.

So let an arbitration decide that. Meanwhile, HD owners will be able to watch HD!
I know HDTV owners are a minority but they are not a protected class that needs government interference in their product choices.

HDTV or any TV is not a right that needs to be protected.

I don't oppose that -- but my area is high-def.

Well then, when the industry changes to an "all-binding arbitration" model for all programming, then your position wouldn't be considered anti-HD. But until then, only singling out HD programmers to that restriction in income is certainly not pro-HDTV.

If you want to make waves that resonate, get the word out that HDTV is by no means assured from the local broadcasters. After the DTV transition, we could be getting an SD feed, 3 shopping channels and a weather channel from each local broadcaster. How will that sit with the millions of high def owners?

"This is factually incorrect. DirecTV has the big four broadcast networks in at least 37 of the 49 markets they carry HD locals.

http://www.dbstalk.com/hr20/html/DTV_HDLIL_DMA.html (note that NBC HD is available in Reno, this list hasn't been updated to reflect that yet)"

Read my statement again. I said when DIRECTV rolled out local HD service in 2006, they didn't have all four HD channels in most markets. That means that DIRECTV subs went without some local HD channels for a period of time due to this dispute.

So given the strong record of the successful resolution of these kinds of disputes, why exactly is government interference necessary?

As stated earlier, some markets have gone without cable HD for three years. Plus, this is just the beginning. There will be more and more battles in the next year.

If you have local cable or satellite HD today, you may not have it at some point in the future. That's a fact.

...If you have local cable or satellite HD today, you may not have it at some point in the future. That's a fact.

In no way is that a fact. Conjecture, yes. Fact, no.

If it's not a fact, that would mean that no local station will ever again pull its high-def signals, which no one will commit to. They are saying just the opposite, in fact. They will pull them if they deem it necessary.

So, yes, your high-def signals could be taken away in the future unless:
1. There is action from the feds.
2. Cable and satellite give up the fight, which is not likely.

What is going to happen in 09 when SD is no more?

What is going to happen in 09 when SD is no more?

SD will still be around, Analog will be going away.

There is no need for government interference, let the broadcaster and cable company duke it out and if a subscriber is unhappy, then they can get most signals OTA or from a DBS provider. If they don't like what they get in either of those options, then they can move.

HDTV is a privilege, not a right. If your CableCo is too cheap to pay half a dollar a month out of the $60+ that the average cable customer pays, then I would switch or move.

This is a capitalist economy and its how the game is played.

If it's not a fact, that would mean that no local station will ever again pull its high-def signals, which no one will commit to. They are saying just the opposite, in fact. They will pull them if they deem it necessary.

So, yes, your high-def signals could be taken away in the future unless:
1. There is action from the feds.
2. Cable and satellite give up the fight, which is not likely.


Now you have it: could is not a fact.

The fact is all local TV signals could have been pulled (ever since 1992) if a station refused to grant retransmission consent and asked for payment instead -- and if the cable companies refused.

But since most major market stations are owned by companies with significant cables interests (CBS until the split last year, GE/NBC, Disney/ABC, and NewsCorp/Fox, as you well know), they allowed retransmission in return for getting cable network carriage -- almost always on the "basic" tier. And, of course, they charge the cable companies for those (mostly) little-viewed cable nets. And the cable companies paid, usually without a whimper as the costs escalated -- 93% in the last decade -- according to the FCC.

But now the game has changed, and the cable companies, which have gotten a free ride from local stations all these years, are going to have to change, tpp -- and start paying for the stations which account for far more viewers than any of their cable nets.

In hindsight, had the cable companies stood their ground decades ago, refusing to add cable channels to keep their "free" access to local stations, we wouldn't be in this mess. Yes, cable would have paid more for local stations, but the staggering number of who cares? cable nets would be substantially smaller and probably cable costs to consumers would actually be less.

But cable made no stand on "principle" back then -- they just took the free local feeds, added unwanted cable channels to everyone's bill, jaccked the cost up to cover their "markup" and raked in the money.

SD will still be around, Analog will be going away.

There is no need for government interference, let the broadcaster and cable company duke it out and if a subscriber is unhappy, then they can get most signals OTA or from a DBS provider. If they don't like what they get in either of those options, then they can move.

HDTV is a privilege, not a right. If your CableCo is too cheap to pay half a dollar a month out of the $60+ that the average cable customer pays, then I would switch or move.

This is a capitalist economy and its how the game is played.

Let them eat cake, huh?

If it's not a fact, that would mean that no local station will ever again pull its high-def signals, which no one will commit to. They are saying just the opposite, in fact. They will pull them if they deem it necessary.

So, yes, your high-def signals could be taken away in the future unless:
1. There is action from the feds.
2. Cable and satellite give up the fight, which is not likely.

First of all Facts are 100% correct. Both of your aguments are not 100% correct.
1. There may be no action from the Febs
2. Cable and Sats may not give up the fight.

Could an unfortunate result of all this be:

Local stations continue to provide an SDTV version of their programming to the Cable companies, satellite providers, and OTA viewers, for FREE?.....

Then, declare their HDTV signal to be a "primo" product, scramble it, put it out as an MPEG-4 signal OTA-only, and charge the viewer directly for it?

At one time, Cable was considered an "extension of the home viewers' antenna", helping them to receive distant programming, and helping the stations gain viewership.

Now, Cable, satellite, telcos, MMDS, VOD, FiOS, etc are all in direct competition for eyeballs with the stations. Broadcasters just want to stay in business, and they feel that they should share in the income that others are getting, using the stations' product.

Of course, another alternative would be, get rid of all local affiliates, and let your individual Cable and satellite companies negotiate directly with the networks. Then, you'll see some people really play hardball!

Good points, Ken.
But let's just get it to the arbitrators. Then everyone will benefit. The locals will get some compensation; the cable and dish services will get their HD signals at a fairer rate and the high-def audience will not be blacked out.

The battle over local signals threatens to slowdown sales of High-Definition TVs.


If it doesn't, high-def set sales will begin to decline and the nation's plan to switch to Digital TV signals on February 17, 2009 could be imperiled.

These two statements are so off base a blind umpire would call the writer out! :D

What was the latest thread? Half of todays HDTV owners are actually watching HD? If the feds were interested at all as to the availablity of HD don't you think they might have made it part of the DTV transistion?

The analogs could go dark next week and the majority of viewers woud not even notice it. :rolleyes:

I say a plague on both their houses. The broadcasters are being greedy as are the cablescos, etc. What's new, they want to make money. It is a shame that the broadcasters and cablecos, dbs providers, etc aren't doing the most they can to get as much HD out to as many people as possible as soon as possible.

Good points, Ken.
But let's just get it to the arbitrators. Then everyone will benefit. The locals will get some compensation; the cable and dish services will get their HD signals at a fairer rate and the high-def audience will not be blacked out.

How 'bout we send your business to arbitration. Every time you want to sell a service, we let some arbitrator decide what is "fair" in his mind.

Can someone take one of your articles and sell it to a publication without crediting or compensating you? Everyone benefits since your thoughts have reached a wider audience.

Could an unfortunate result of all this be:

Local stations continue to provide an SDTV version of their programming to the Cable companies, satellite providers, and OTA viewers, for FREE?.....

Could be, but it won't come to that since the market has decided the issue on its own and stations are being compensated for their programming (both SD & HD). Mediacom, Sinclair and TWC have all come to an agreement along with D*, E* and Verizon. Any other holdouts will be bucking the trend.

What if binding arbitration results in the Big 4 being valued in relation to ESPN? They could order the cableco to pay $15 a month each for every subscriber resulting in a hard cost increase of $60 a month - translating to $100+ a month added to our bill.

So who is better qualified to determine value if not the parties dierectly involved with valuing the product?

It would be interesting to know how many people here work for local TV stations and how many work for cable TV operators.

I work for neither, which is why I support the solution that would best help high-def owners.

Let's not make yourself out to be an impatrial observer, Philip, worried only about the welfare of the HD viewer.

In fact you solicit paid speaking engagements from trade groups and others interested in your views on HD, you drum up and accept advertising from manufacturers of TV sets, and you provide a PR forwarding service to paying clients, too.

Certainly, directly or even indirectly, you have some dog(s) in this fight, Phillip.

So to infer your oponion is somehow more pure than anyone who works in the industry is perhaps somewhat disengenuous.

Not that it matters in the least, but in the past I have worked for local and network-owned TV stations, syndicators, and both broadcast and cable networks.

....Of course, another alternative would be, get rid of all local affiliates, and let your individual Cable and satellite companies negotiate directly with the networks. Then, you'll see some people really play hardball!

It is way OT, Kern, but sadly, I don't think there is any way to stop that wave from engulfing us all.

In the past 15 months the networks have gone from igoring the internet to replaying virtually all their programs on it. Many, for now, are free. But....

And when the technology exists (as it will in the relatively near future) for the nets to deliver their programming directly to viewers -- for a fee, of course -- bypassing the local stations entirely, do you honestly believe they will ignore that pot of gold?

Fifty million households paying $10 a month directly to CBS would produce six billion dollars a year -- and dwarf the current CBS profit structure. Plus the network would have total control of its programming.

The time, unfortunately, is coming. Snd probably far sooner than any of us imagine.

How 'bout we send your business to arbitration. Every time you want to sell a service, we let some arbitrator decide what is "fair" in his mind.

Can someone take one of your articles and sell it to a publication without crediting or compensating you? Everyone benefits since your thoughts have reached a wider audience.

Hehe, yep, I'm sure Swanni would be happy to agree to set his speaking fees and consulting rates by binding arbitration. :D

fredfa - That is very interesting. It would negate the entire Janet Jackson nipple incident. No FCC to bother with. :)

Of course, another alternative would be, get rid of all local affiliates, and let your individual Cable and satellite companies negotiate directly with the networks. Then, you'll see some people really play hardball!
All for it. Local just seems to screw everything up lately, ("flip the switch!!!", "what do you mean you can't play Jeopardy in HD?", subchannels, pre-emptions, stretching, distributing a secondary network on a subchannel, etc) Ideally, I'd want the networks (CBS, FOX, ABC, NBC, The CW) to just be distributed like a cable network, being fairly paid for their product, and have the local station just insert news at the times they usually do, but have the channel remain in network control.

(BTW, this thread has reminded me of a Public Forum debate, and that's not really a compliment, people)

Your experience today with WUSA's (brief test of) HD news delivered over the net should be a very ominous sign for those in local broadcasting, SJKurtzke.

As soon as it becomes possible to get good HD PQ over the net, you can bet the networks will work out a way to deliver their content to you. As StephenC notes, no FCC to mess with and the nets would get to keep all the money...AND sell commercials!

That day can't be too far down the road.

Let them eat cake, huh?Perfectly correct.

People act as if network TV on cable is some type of right.

That's why your affiliate has over the air broadcasts. They're free to anyone that wants to receive them that way.

If you insist on paying someone for delivering content you can receive for free, the broadcasters are certainly in the right for asking for payment for the product on which the cable companies are making money. Pretty simple concept.

There's no reason for the FCC to get involved; they're the ones who set up the system by which affiliates can ask for must-carry status or to be paid for their signal, by the affiliate's choosing.

I say a plague on both their houses. The broadcasters are being greedy as are the cablescos, etc. What's new, they want to make money. It is a shame that the broadcasters and cablecos, dbs providers, etc aren't doing the most they can to get as much HD out to as many people as possible as soon as possible.As has been discussed since "day one," how does HD bring in penny one of more revenue for the broadcasters? Going HD is costing them millions of dollars, none of which can be readily recouped.

This is factually incorrect. DirecTV has the big four broadcast networks in at least 37 of the 49 markets they carry HD locals.

http://www.dbstalk.com/hr20/html/DTV_HDLIL_DMA.html (note that NBC HD is available in Reno, this list hasn't been updated to reflect that yet)

You should know by now that BSwanni never checks facts.

Perfectly correct.


If you insist on paying someone for delivering content you can receive for free, the broadcasters are certainly in the right for asking for payment for the product on which the cable companies are making money. Pretty simple concept.

True.. But when you go from paying .25 per sub. for SD then demand $5.00 for HD per sub. That's a problem!



As has been discussed since "day one," how does HD bring in penny one of more revenue for the broadcasters? Going HD is costing them millions of dollars, none of which can be readily recouped.

Can someone say "ad rates"!

True.. But when you go from paying .25 per sub. for SD then demand $5.00 for HD per sub. That's a problem!

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but NO OTA station ANYWHERE is getting $5 a sub and no station is asking for that kind of money either. And 90% of stations aren't even getting $.25 a sub. Most stations would be grateful for that much.

Can someone say "ad rates"!

Locally no one is willing to pay for HD ad rates. That means that the purchse and operations of this new equipment comes out of SD ad rates. Your reasoning says that stations do not have a right to maxize profits, just like any other business.

Sorry, but this is still America with free enterprise rules and that means if a station wants to ask $5 a sub, they can ask. That also means they many not get $5 a sub either. That too is a part of free enterprise of supply and demand. We now have historical evidence through the Medicomm debacle that cable DOES loose subs and the stations are not hurt as bad as cable wants people to think when a station is dropped. That is beginning to embolden smaller stations that they too can share in this.

One thing the TWCs and Comcasts of the world who are in these small markets need to remember, if they are perceived NOT servicing their communities, the local governments could give the franchise to someone else (and there are people in the wings who would LOVE to come in). Now THAT would be interesting to see how fast a cablco came to terms with a station just to keep their franchise. The tide has turned in favor of the broadcasters. Cable has lots to loose as well and it is now beginning to become public that cable too lives in a glass house, just like the rest of us.

If it was a free enterprise, then satellite and cable operators could offer out of market network signals. But they can't because the broadcast networks have a local monopoly.

The free market argument is bogus, as proven by one of our HD Observers:

Give Us Our HDTV Signals!
By Bill Kneeland
HD Observer

Editor's Note: Our editorial calling for the FCC to order binding arbitrations in HDTV signal disputes between local stations and cable operators has generated a slew of e-mails. Here's one from our HD Observer Bill Kneeland who addressed his commentary to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Washington, D.C. (February 14, 2007) -- Chairman Martin, I live in small town California and am a DIRECTV subscriber. Although I have never been a fan of Big Government, now is the time for the FCC to step in and resolve (or help resolve) this ridiculous confrontation between local TV stations and the cable/satellite systems regarding transmission of High Definition (HDTV) signals and higher fees that the local stations and their owners are demanding.

I have a suggestion:

Currently DIRECTV (or Dish Network or cable) cannot provide me with distant network feeds (such as CBS from Los Angeles, for example) without the consent of my local CBS station due to SHVERA, a pro-broadcaster anti-consumer piece of federal legislation. Therefore I am held hostage by my local stations and I am at their mercy. And now the local stations want to harm us viewers even more by extracting higher fees from our satellite/cable providers, which they will just pass on to us consumers.


So my solution? Just allow DIRECTV to provide the distant network service feeds (DNS) of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX to anyone who wants them, without requiring consent ("waivers") of the local stations. DIRECTV can then negotiate directly with a single provider of these signals (perhaps the Los Angeles stations, for example).

They probably could use the lure of a larger number of viewers to keep the cost down. Many viewers would choose to accept this rather than pay a higher bill in order to get their local feed. And DIRECTV could still offer local stations to those viewers who wanted them and charge accordingly.

Some of us just want to receive the network channels but don't care where they come from -- and we don't want to pay higher fees. So this is a good solution for everyone except possibly the local broadcasters. And I have no problem doing to them what they have done to us for the last 10 years.

Thank you for your attention.

If it was a free enterprise, then satellite and cable operators could offer out of market network signals. But they can't because the broadcast networks have a local monopoly.

Purchasing the rights for local distribution of a product doesn't violate the free market. Just as any publisher isn't free to print and sell the top 20 books on the NY Times bestseller list regardless of the wishes of the owner of the material.

Is it really a "monopoly" if 6 different companies are offering programming and actively competing with each other? If so, how do you overlook the 6 media conglomerates who control over 90% of all media in the US?

It's very humorous though for someone to use the monopoly argument against all the local broadcasters - in order to benefit the cable company.

If it was a free enterprise, then satellite and cable operators could offer out of market network signals. But they can't because the broadcast networks have a local monopoly.
And how is this so called "monopoly" any different from a franchise agreement in any other business?

Maybe while we are reforming television broadcasting we should throw out all kinds of contracts across all industries because they protect businesses. :rolleyes:

If it was a free market, I could subscribe to the LA station; the Chicago station -- any station I wish. But it is not a free market and broadcasters should not pretending that it is.

The free market argument is bogus, as proven by one of our HD Observers:...

It is hard to take anything you say seriously, Phillip, when you continue to so carelessly use the language.

Commentary, (most especially when published in your own site, lauding your own commentary) is not "proof".

And we have already demonstrated your lack of clarity regarding what a "fact" is.

So my solution? Just allow DIRECTV to provide the distant network service feeds (DNS) of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX to anyone who wants them, without requiring consent ("waivers") of the local stations. DIRECTV can then negotiate directly with a single provider of these signals (perhaps the Los Angeles stations, for example).

Why not offer stations from any market to any customer? What if I want ABC from LA, CBS from NY, NBC from Little Rock, FOX from Tampa, MYNT from Denver, and CW from Dallas. No system has that much capacity on a nationwide basis. Why create a unfair advantage for the LA or NY station.

Give Us Our HDTV Signals!
By Bill Kneeland
HD Observer

Some of us just want to receive the network channels but don't care where they come from -- and we don't want to pay higher fees. So this is a good solution for everyone except possibly the local broadcasters. And I have no problem doing to them what they have done to us for the last 10 years.

Claiming not to be a fan of government involvement, then asking them to override all copyright laws and normal business practices - just because he doesn't "want to pay higher fees" is a ridiculous contradiction.

What's even more ridiculous is the assumption that those OOM stations aren't also going to be demanding higher fees at the next contract renewal. We know for a fact that they are.

This whole topic is a solution looking for a problem. The outcome has already been decided willingly by the market, and the only cable holdouts are doing so because they have made the conscious decision that the fallout will not be severe enough to justify the expense. They know that when the SD feeds are part of the negotiation, they'll have no choice but to offer fair compensation - but it is their (the cableco's) assessment that their HD viewers alone do not represent a significant concern.

If it was a free market, I could subscribe to the LA station; the Chicago station -- any station I wish. But it is not a free market and broadcasters should not pretending that it is.
So if you owned the franchise rights for McDonalds for a certain geographic area and i came in and tried to start my own McDonalds in your exclusive area, you would have no problem with it?

After all that is the idea of the free market you propose, getting rid of exclusive areas of control.

Fredfa, check the byline. It's not my commentary.

Fredfa, check the byline. It's not my commentary.
He never said it was.

Using someone's commentary to back up your points from your editorial yesterday is not proof.

Fredfa, check the byline. It's not my commentary.

Of course not as I made abundantly clear.

You are, however the one who posted it and said: "The free market argument is bogus, as proven by one of our HD Observers..."

If it was a free enterprise, then satellite and cable operators could offer out of market network signals. But they can't because the broadcast networks have a local monopoly.

I guess you have never heard of something called a CONTRACT? Please let me refresh your memory. The contract that networks sign with program producers state the terrorities and conditions the networks can distribute their content. Did you notice no where did I say LOCAL STATION? That is because the original contract ISN'T with the local station, but the network and that is based on what area the network covers based on its affiliates coverages and markets.

That, my friend is free enterprise, like it or not. Just because you live in market A and want to see stations in market Z doesn't make it less legal or right. It is the law, as defined by a legal and binding contract between two parties (that IS free enterprise) and the courts and/or Congress are not going to get into that. The SCOTUS would term it unconstitutional and may even call it meddling by the government.

It doesn't matter if that legal contract is between Aaron Sorkin and NBC or McDonald's and Joe's Food Emporium. They both define what is expected of both parties and as long as there is no attempt to defraud the public, which in neither case has been provided, it is legal and binding.

I understand swannisez's position in some aspects. Because I had to deal with local stations, having to prove I couldn't receive a signal, begging for waivers, writing my reps and seeing the Satellite Home Viewers Act be essentially written by the National Assoc of Broadcasters. Mostly because I wouldn't see the local ad. Digital has changed -improved my reception. But that 15 year battle has firmly set my opinion.

Considering the passions in this thread, I am probably making a mistake by throwing my two cents in. But I am in an area that has over 60 % cable penetration and missing two major networks and the problem has been solved through an antenna.

I do think binding arbitration in these circumstance is over kill. Binding arbitration should only be used in extreme situations of public safety and stability. Otherwise, resources would be better spent here freeing distribution and supporting Al-cart.

Most of these almost 200 channels have been around for years and have failed by every standard we have of measuring general public satisfaction. I believe that if the internet had been around in force in the 80’s many of these so called television channels would have been better distributed by the internet with its ability to have a more interactive experience in real time with their audience.

It’s not too late to correct this, but you have to open things and free the people to make their choices.

The government ensures the freedom of majority over the tyranny of a minority by not stifling the minority or placing them in front of the majority and its will.

The contract that networks sign with program producers state the terrorities and conditions the networks can distribute their content. Did you notice no where did I say LOCAL STATION? That is because the original contract ISN'T with the local station, but the network and that is based on what area the network covers based on its affiliates coverages and markets.
Why do the producers of a show (not the network) care if I watch their show on a local affiliate or on an affiliate two time zones over?

Also if this is free enterprise, why haven't the networks just bought all their affiliates just like Coke bought out almost all of the independent bottlers in the country? It would make the whole system more efficient.

But that 15 year battle has firmly set my opinion.

I don't blame you. There was a time when I lost my PrimeTime 24 OOM networks because I was in (supposedly) Grade "B" signal range. Couple that with the local cable company telling me that the reason all my analog signals have so much snow and interference was because I was near the end of their line and there was nothing they were going to do to improve the signal.

But that frustration doesn't translate into giving the cableco free access to programming they don't own in order to resell that material for a profit. Swanni claims to want a fair price to be paid through arbitration, but in his post offering "proof" for the justification of allowing subs to bypass the local affiliate by subscribing to OOM stations - the reasoning was to avoid having to pay a fee for that programming.

The real issue here is the cableco is not allowing access to that programming because they are not willing to pay a fair price. If you disagree with their stance, find one of the other (any of the other) MSOs who have had no serious problem negotiating that fair value.

Looking for relief from the same government that has made absolutely no commitment to HDTV is pointless. Why would they ever mandate carriage of HDTV channels when they are completely voluntary in their eyes?

Why do the producers of a show (not the network) care if I watch their show on a local affiliate or on an affiliate two time zones over?

Also if this is free enterprise, why haven't the networks just bought all their affiliates just like Coke bought out almost all of the independent bottlers in the country? It would make the whole system more efficient.

That's a business decision that the producers/networks/affiliates would have to make. Some producers bypass the national network and syndicate programming directly to local affiliates. If they deal with the network, then they have to deal with how they chose to distribute their product.

That's why I said "in some aspects". IMO cable or the sats should be paying a fee for retransmission rights. And if a local wants to retrans a cable/sat originated feed ota then they should pay. Fee negotiation is an art unto itself and will get more complicated. Its the subscribers who should be the winners, but...

And let's let the government mandate arbitration for the prices of cars, gasoline, food and any other good or service we want while we are at it.

This is a bogus argument. Supply and demand mandate the price of cars, gas, etc. If gas company A is charging $12/gallon, I am free to go across the street and get it for $2/gallon. On the other hand, if I can't get the HD signal from my local CBS station for any reason I am not free to to get the HD signal from the CBS station 200 miles away.

Broadcasters have a protected monopoly. The principles of supply and demand are not allowed to drive the cost. Arbitration would definitely be a viable solution.
--------------------------------------------------

Then how about mandatory arbitration on the chanels we consumers are forced to pay for, jelly212?

We are not free to order any of them a la carte.

Instead we have to pay for many channels we not only don't want or watch, but in fact might not want to help support financially in any way.

Cable providers only want mandatory arbitration when they think it will help their bottom line. There is no moral argument here at all. It is all business.

I don't normally resort to personal attacks, but I think most here would agree that Philip Swann is a pundit. I provide a wikipedia link to illustrate my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pundit_%28expert%29

Please refer to the Current Use section on the wiki page.

I understand it's a business and both sides are entitled to a revenue. I was merely pointing out that the "arbitration on gas, car dealerships, etc" wasn't exactly an apples to apples situation. The fact is both, local broadcasters and cable companies, enjoy a protected market (I know cable does have to compete with satellite, but Cox doesn't compete with Mediacom or TimeWarner in a particular area).

As long as both enjoy a protected turf, arbitration should be seen as a potential option and not merely dismissed.

Personally, I don't care who's right or wrong. I just know that the viewers are the ones being hurt and we have absolutely no voice in this argument.

As for a la carte, I'd be in favor of that as well.

I don't normally resort to personal attacks, but I think most here would agree that Philip Swann is a pundit. I provide a wikipedia link to illustrate my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pundit_%28expert%29

Please refer to the Current Use section on the wiki page.

I think wikipedia says a pundit (among other things) is generally regarded as "highly knowledgeable". Based on some of his statements over the years and in this very thread ( what is a "fact" and that a commentary "proves" his point), I would argue that he is NOT a pundit. At least not as demonstrated in this thread.

Opinions and commentary are all great. We all have opinions. But I see little demonstrated reason to take Phillip any more seriously than the vast majority if posters on this forum.

And few of us would call each other pundits -- although CPanther95 might come pretty close to deserving that appelation.

But then since you are rapparently eferring to this particular part of the wikipedia entry: "...The term, however, increasingly refers to popular media personalities who express opinions without necessarily holding recognized expertise in the area on which they opine...." I think we all could agree that Mr. Swann might qualify after all. :)

It is way OT, Kern, but sadly, I don't think there is any way to stop that wave from engulfing us all.

In the past 15 months the networks have gone from igoring the internet to replaying virtually all their programs on it. Many, for now, are free. But....

And when the technology exists (as it will in the relatively near future) for the nets to deliver their programming directly to viewers -- for a fee, of course -- bypassing the local stations entirely, do you honestly believe they will ignore that pot of gold?

Fifty million households paying $10 a month directly to CBS would produce six billion dollars a year -- and dwarf the current CBS profit structure. Plus the network would have total control of its programming.

The time, unfortunately, is coming. Snd probably far sooner than any of us imagine.
I've discussed this transition at length before. I'm happy to see someone else can see the writing on the wall. Affiliates are in far more trouble than they realize. They have no concept of this technology. But, the down side is that neither do the networks. We will end up with the most intrusive marketing viewing experience ever. If you have ever tried to watch a show given away "free" by the networks you will see just how ignorant they are of streaming. They are more worried about getting the adverts positioned than they are about the user experience of the media. It will only get worse.

oh and you think we HD-lite now. Wait until our HD is 128x340 upsample to 1080i!

But then you could buy the silver package for true SD viewing, the gold for real 480p and the Platinum for 1080p! (Extra charges will, of course, apply.)

That's a business decision that the producers/networks/affiliates would have to make. Some producers bypass the national network and syndicate programming directly to local affiliates. If they deal with the network, then they have to deal with how they chose to distribute their product.
So it's more a matter of the networks controlling the producers of the show than the producers controlling how the network distributes it. At first it sounded like somehow it benefited both parties to prevent me from watching the show outside my timezone. It sounds like that only benefits the networks (and the affiliates).

Affiliates are in far more trouble than they realize. They have no concept of this technology. But, the down side is that neither do the networks.

My friend, you have no idea what the nets and locals are cooking it. It would astound you truly. I wish I could go into detail at this point, but it would be considered divulging state secrets and I would be out of a job.

Affiliates will eventually block net delivery-"They are more worried about getting the adverts positioned than they are about the user experience of the media." Or that fee,for net delivery will offset locals costs for not airing their ads?. I'm currently getting no HD from Fox OTA, but cable gets an HD national feed to rebroadcast to subscribers. I guess that's a contract plus.

So it's more a matter of the networks controlling the producers of the show than the producers controlling how the network distributes it. At first it sounded like somehow it benefited both parties to prevent me from watching the show outside my timezone. It sounds like that only benefits the networks (and the affiliates).

Until about a decade ago, it was not legal for a network to own a show it broadcast in prime time.

But they lobbied hard for years and finally got that law rescinded.

So now, of course, almost every show you see is owned by its own network, except for those that are produced by one network and shown on another (NBCU's"House" for example, on Fox).

These days it is all but impossible to get a show on a network without the network have at least some stake in it.

Once they figure out how to deliver those shows to you directly, so they can keep all the profits, you can bet they will do it.

So it's more a matter of the networks controlling the producers of the show than the producers controlling how the network distributes it. At first it sounded like somehow it benefited both parties to prevent me from watching the show outside my timezone. It sounds like that only benefits the networks (and the affiliates).

Saying you want to purchase the programming from the network instead of the affiliate who owns the rights to that programming in your area is no different than saying that you want to be able to get Monday Night Football directly from the NFL instead of ESPN. Or taking it to an extreme - saying you want to be able to get Deadwood episodes via Cartoon Network.

We don't control what network delivers what programming, how the network decides to distribute that programming, or whether or not our MSO of choice makes any programming or network available for purchase.

A major reason network programming is delivered by local affiliates is to insert local advertising.

In the future advertising inserted into internet feeds of network programming will have advertising that will be specifically directed to you.

They already demonstrated they can restrict viewership based upon your ip address. BBC feeds of World Cup Soccer couldn't be watched in the U.S.

The primary reason is that for many years, it was the only way to get mass distribution of programming.

The primary reason is that for many years, it was the only way to get mass distribution of programming.

Yup, but satellite dishes and now broadband internet are changing the playing field.

My choice would be for local cable providers and local affiliates be both ruled superfluous, but that will only happen with the steady advance of technology.

But then you could buy the silver package for true SD viewing, the gold for real 480p and the Platinum for 1080p! (Extra charges will, of course, apply.)
Exactly, with of course a rider that says "the maximum delivery ........" so that they can downrez at will and still charge for the highest level.

Seriously though, I'm surprised that this is not a huge topic. It's almost like everyone has their eyes so focused on Phone/Cable/DBS delivery wars that the real danger is being ignored altogether.

Even funnier is that the 3 participants I mention are providing the delivery mechanism for their own demise to the "enemy" for free. It's so ironic you would think it couldn't be true.

And on back OT. The only person that wins in an arbritration case is the arbitrator.

The public really needs a win sometime soon. The FCC has played patsey to the industry for so long I'm not sure thet they can destinguish the rival media conglomerates from the general public anymore.

It's a non-issue when the will/needs/good of the general public are of little to no concern. :)

Let's not forget one crucial reason local broadcasting probably will remain around for a while: the people who make the laws protecting local TV stations -- that is members of Congress -- need local stations to get their commercials out to a wide audience every two (or six) years.

And the placement of those commercials (not to mention the price) can be crucial to a campaign. So that makes the NAB especially powerful.

Even so, I am sure the networks will figure out a way to get programming directly to people who want (and are willing to pay for) it. But I suspect the price will not be 50 cents a month.

But if HBO is $10-$12 a month, what would Fox be worth? Or CBS, NBC or ABC?

I would guess for a package of ABC, CBS, CW, Fox and NBC, available in both ET and PT would run something like $49.95 a month. That will also make the $5 or so each station will be asking from cable/sat/telco companies seem like a bargain.

As for the original topic of getting the FCC involved to stop companies like LIN from withholding their HD feeds from cable companies that wont pay up, I fully support LIN.

In Albuquerque LIN owns the CBS affiliate. They are only available via cable through CABLE ONE in RioRancho the neighboring city/suburb of Albuquerque. LIN is asking for a carriage fee, comcast which serves the actual albuquerque city wont pay up as would D* and E*. But they are not withholding, these companies can drop a check off and get the signal that same day.

Here in albuquerque the local affiliates for each of the other networks seem plagued with technical deficiencies on an almost daily basis. Fox seems to lose their digitial broadcast for days. NBC and CW seem to have problems with audio alot. MyNetwork isnt even in HD. ABC seems to have a manual switch to SD for commercials which their night shift often forgets and doesnt switch back to the HD when the show comes back for a minute or two at times.

KRQE seems to have no problems at all during the many shows I watch each week on CBS. Sure I have to go to antenna for CBS when I pay comcast $85 a month for Television, but I know my CBS shows will be handled perfectly. I think that their efforts in providing the best quality of broadcast deserves a cut of comcast's profits from my subscription. If the other affiliates provide their channels for free to cable, then that shows that free is what their broadcast is worth. Cable One is a smaller company than comcast and has the feed. So these stations are happy to play with cable companies who are willing to pay.

Should the DOT get invovled with the local car dealership who is withholding their car from me because I dont want to pay their price? No. Should the FCC get invovled in negotiations between a local broadcaster that is broadcasting for free to any private individual with an antenna, but wants a carriage fee from companies who want to exploit that free signal for a profit? NO.

If I took a camcorder into a movie theather and tried to sell copies that would be piracy. If I tried to sell a tape recording of a concert that would be piracy. But if I take a free broadcast and charge subscribers for access to that free station through my cable its for the public good and I shouldnt be expected to compensate the originator of that free signal I am reselling. HAH thats INSANE.

Hold up a second. HBO packages are 98% commerical free and offers several channels to watch. Fredfa, The five networks you listed only have one channel each and are loaded with commericals. To say that those packages would cost fifty dollars a month is outrageous!

Hold up a second. HBO packages are 98% commerical free and offers several channels to watch. Fredfa, The five networks you listed only have one channel each and are loaded with commericals. To say that those packages would cost fifty dollars a month is outrageous!
You are already paying just about that to the cable company. Guess which channels 90% of the viewership time goes to? You guessed it, the part that the cable company gets for free or way cheap. They don't bother removing the commercials just because you are paying for the right to watch a station you can watch for free.

I would guess for a package of ABC, CBS, CW, Fox and NBC, available in both ET and PT would run something like $49.95 a month. That will also make the $5 or so each station will be asking from cable/sat/telco companies seem like a bargain.
Part of the popularity of the programming on these networks is the affordability of these channels. To maintain the same level of programming the networks would never be able to charge such prices and still maintain the mass appeal of their programming and their current revenue level. Just like in an a la carte situation the networks could not charge what you are suggesting and have a large enough audience.

I'm a D* subscriber and have been for 11 years. I watch football, sports center, some golf and a lot of PPV movies. Other than that I watch exactly two Network shows......Heroes and Lost. Neither of which I watch when it's on live. I occassionlly try to get caught up on 24. So even though I couldn't care less about Network TV, I still think they are in the right on this issue.

In the area that I live in, Cox offers a basic analog package, that includes the channels mentioned above, for $11.54. If you decided to purchase digital cable, the cost to rent a hi-def box is an additional $15.99, for a total of $27.53. That is nearly half of the price mentioned by Fredfa.

Now, I am not saying that cable companies should not pay for the local stations, but I am merely pointing out the overly exaggerated points that were made. And, about the commericals, it is completely fair to bring in the lack of commercials on HBO due to the fact that Fredfa used it for a comparison in his argument.

Hey I am not offering anything but an opinion about what I think could happen down the road.

But those five channels account for nearly half the prime time viewing -- which would be some 20+ hours a week in an average household. HBO doesn't get anywhere near that level of viewership.

Nor does it offer the really big ticket spectaculars of network TV: the sports, Olympics, Academy Awards, or the top prime time shows watched by tens of millions.

But it is just my opinion. If ESPN ever is forced to offer a la carte, it would probably cost $12-$15 by itself (and still be "loaded with commercials"). Given that, five networks for something like $50 ain't too bad a bargain.

I'd pay it right now for east and west coast HD feeds -- without a whimper. I'd much rather have my money go to stations I watch than networks I never watch.

At the moment (almost all) local stations get nothing for their signals, and the average cable bill is near $70. And people watch those local channels close to half the time. So you figure out where the price point could be in 5-10 years.


Hold up a second. HBO packages are 98% commerical free and offers several channels to watch. Fredfa, The five networks you listed only have one channel each and are loaded with commericals. To say that those packages would cost fifty dollars a month is outrageous!

Point taken. Although I still think your numbers are a little high. :p

However, If the local companies charge upwards of $5, it would behoove the cable companies to provide OTA antennas for their consumers. With your prices, the cable companies would make up for it after no more than 3 months!

I don't normally resort to personal attacks, but I think most here would agree that Philip Swann is a pundit. I provide a wikipedia link to illustrate my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pundit_%28expert%29

Please refer to the Current Use section on the wiki page.

Pundit?

Putz, yes!

I'll also provide a wikipedia link to find the definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Yiddish_origin

I'd pay it right now for east and west coast HD feeds -- without a whimper. I'd much rather have my money go to stations I watch than networks I never watch.

At the moment (almost all) local stations get nothing for their signals, and the average cable bill is near $70. And people watch those local channels close to half the time. So you figure out where the price point could be in 5-10 years.

You or I may pay for a dedicated network feed in the future but the truth is, not everyone will, socio-economics withstanding. Not everyone today wants to pay for their HD (or TV for that matter) and uses OTA even if they can afford sat or cable (some people reading my words right here fall in that category). There are enough of them, that not only will Congress not go against that flow but neither will the networks. As you have pointed out on more than one occasion, the best day on a cable network is no where near a bad day on a OTA network (even though that gap is narrowing) and I really don't see a GE or a Disney or a CBS or even my own News Corp turning down a dollar just because someone chooses to use OTA exclusively. It goes against the grain. Even if they do charge for a network fee, they will not be willing to give up the OTA ad revenue either. It is an addiction. :)

Part of the popularity of the programming on these networks is the affordability of these channels. To maintain the same level of programming the networks would never be able to charge such prices and still maintain the mass appeal of their programming and their current revenue level. Just like in an a la carte situation the networks could not charge what you are suggesting and have a large enough audience.

Very true, except we aren't in an a la carte environment.

Ironically, HBO is a la carte, and despite the relatively high cost of $10 a month, they still manage a 27% penetration rate. The Big 4 by comparison are fighting for ~$0.50 a month. You may value HBO greater than any of the Big 4, but it would be hard to argue that they aren't each worth a buck or two even with 100% carriage.

Should the DOT get invovled with the local car dealership who is withholding their car from me because I dont want to pay their price? No. Should the FCC get invovled in negotiations between a local broadcaster that is broadcasting for free to any private individual with an antenna, but wants a carriage fee from companies who want to exploit that free signal for a profit? NO.
Again, this is not a legitimate argument. If you don't want to pay their price, you can simply drive to the next dealership and see if he'll give you a price that you want. Car dealers don't charge 100,000 for a Camry because they know you'll just go to the next Toyota dealership who will sell it to you for 25k. It's called supply and demand. On the flip side, if you were not allowed only allowed to buy from the Toyota dealership in your town they could charge you 100k and you couldn't do anything about it - why, supply and demand is not allowed to work. In this case, if the dealer wanted to charge 100k the government would be right in stepping in.

If I took a camcorder into a movie theather and tried to sell copies that would be piracy. If I tried to sell a tape recording of a concert that would be piracy. But if I take a free broadcast and charge subscribers for access to that free station through my cable its for the public good and I shouldnt be expected to compensate the originator of that free signal I am reselling. HAH thats INSANE.
What about the cable companies that provide HD networks for free. Cox here provides the HD network channels for CBS and NBC for free. They don't provide Fox because Sinclair wants to be paid for their signal which they provide free OTA. In essence, they're saying Jack can have our signal for free but Jill must pay to receive it.

I can understand the local broadcasters wanting to be paid if the cable company charges for their signal, but they want to be paid even when the cable company isn't making any additional money and is in fact allowing them to reach a larger audience.

What about the cable companies that provide HD networks for free. Cox here provides the HD network channels for CBS and NBC for free. They don't provide Fox because Sinclair wants to be paid for their signal which they provide free OTA. In essence, they're saying Jack can have our signal for free but Jill must pay to receive it.
No cable company allows a customer to get even the local channels for free. There is always some type of service fee and connection fee.

So if you owned the franchise rights for McDonalds for a certain geographic area and i came in and tried to start my own McDonalds in your exclusive area, you would have no problem with it?

After all that is the idea of the free market you propose, getting rid of exclusive areas of control.

I don't think this argument floats. It's more like you start a business that delivers McDonald's products to your home from the local franchisee. The products being delivered are free (OTA). You are paying the messenger to pick up the free products and deliver them.

I don't think this argument floats. It's more like you start a business that delivers McDonald's products to your home from the local franchisee. The products being delivered are free (OTA). You are paying the messenger to pick up the free products and deliver them.
That analogy was in response to being able to get OOM stations and having to throw out the current network contracts for the local stations.

I don't think this argument floats. It's more like you start a business that delivers McDonald's products to your home from the local franchisee. The products being delivered are free (OTA). You are paying the messenger to pick up the free products and deliver them.
Even in this example the deliver company is still paying for the product. In television the cable company does not want to pay for the product.

I may be way off, but I've always thought that one of the big reasons cable took off is because we're basically lazy and cable gave us a perfect local signal with no antenna hassles anymore. In other words easy access to local networks drove cable adoption in the beginning. Yes the extra channels were great too, but I think less people would be willing to move to a pay tv model if they were happy with the ease of receiving local free tv. Cable growth would have occurred at a much slower pace.

And to a point I think that is still true today. Most people sign up for cable because they don't want to deal with an antenna to get their local stations. So for customers I don't think we should expect to not have to pay for that convenience. And neither should cableco's expect not to pay for what something that drives their subscriptions. But local networks should be careful not to get greedy. Yes they deserve to be paid, but remember it is our laziness that will drive that new revenue stream and that could change with the whim of your viewers.

As for arbitration, as both are technically local monopolies I can see the logic. But no I wouldn't force it. Make them go to court and fight it out. That way they have to pay for it, not taxpayer funded FCC arbitration!

No cable company allows a customer to get even the local channels for free. There is always some type of service fee and connection fee.

This is the best statement in this entire thread. To get anything from the cable company, you have to pay something. My parents have the Comcast barebones basic package which gives them the 6 locals (ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, MyNetwork TV, and NBC), 2 superstations (WGN and TBS), prolly 10 public access and must carries, and TLC. For this they pay roughly $12/month.

If they had an HDTV with a QAM tuner, then they would be able to get the locals in HD in the clear, however, they are still paying the cable company for the service.

Nothing is "free!"

This is the best statement in this entire thread. To get anything from the cable company, you have to pay something. My parents have the Comcast barebones basic package which gives them the 6 locals (ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, MyNetwork TV, and NBC), 2 superstations (WGN and TBS), prolly 10 public access and must carries, and TLC. For this they pay roughly $12/month.

If they had an HDTV with a QAM tuner, then they would be able to get the locals in HD in the clear, however, they are still paying the cable company for the service.

Nothing is "free!"
Exactly, if the cable company gave every residence it passed a truly free connection with just the locals this would be a whole different conversation.

Even in this example the deliver company is still paying for the product. In television the cable company does not want to pay for the product.

And the product is _free_ OTA. We just pay for a clean delivery, without multipath or glitches (hopefully!). I reiterate, local stations should be glad cable is carrying them and delivering perfect pictures to households for the benefit of the advertisers. Advertisers want eyeballs, why would you fight penetration?

Advertisers want eyeballs, why would you fight penetration?

Penetration, just for penetration's sake, doesn't justify giving away your product for free. If that were the case, our households would be chock full of valuable products that were received for free. If the extra eyeballs were worth more than the carriage fees, they certainly would cave. But they don't come close. Cable has far more to lose, which is why they are all gradually coming to terms with the broadcasters (without forced arbitration).

And the product is _free_ OTA. We just pay for a clean delivery, without multipath or glitches (hopefully!). I reiterate, local stations should be glad cable is carrying them and delivering perfect pictures to households for the benefit of the advertisers. Advertisers want eyeballs, why would you fight penetration?
You are right the product is free OTA and OTA only. Any other distribution method we are going to pay for, be it cable, DBS, DVD, or the Internet.

The stations would fight penetration because the product is in demand. Customers as proved in the Mediacom situation will seek out the OTA stations whether by going to OTA or to another provider. The stations can put up this fight, because they can take the short term ad revenue hit for the long term gain. The station in the long run will maintain the same ad revenue level and gain a relatively fixed income stream from the cable companies.

Let's not forget that cable needs eyeballs, too.

Both for the fees it collects and the local advertising it sells.

If a substantial number of eyeballs defect (to antennas, DBS, telco or whatever) cable loses big time.

You are right the product is free OTA and OTA only. Any other distribution method we are going to pay for, be it cable, DBS, DVD, or the Internet.

The stations would fight penetration because the product is in demand. Customers as proved in the Mediacom situation will seek out the OTA stations whether by going to OTA or to another provider. The stations can put up this fight, because they can take the short term ad revenue hit for the long term gain. The station in the long run will maintain the same ad revenue level and gain a relatively fixed income stream from the cable companies.Of course, it helped Sinclair's cause that the retrans deal expired in December and that the stations were only gone throughout January. That was after the November ratings book was done and around the time the February book began. Had those stations stayed off during February it could have affected their viewership -- and their ad revenue -- for another three months until the May numbers came in. There is only so much viewers will do to get a hard-to-get station, and while they might take extreme steps to get the Super Bowl or Grey's Anatomy, will they take those same steps when it comes time for the local news every night, when it really matters? Especially when there are usually at least two other choices for local news in a market?

I agree entirely with that first point, though. It's just like that "free" weekly paper some of you can pick up at the newsstand. I can pick up a copy for free, but that doesn't give me the right to take a whole stack of them and resell them at $2 apiece.

Sinclair's leverage boiled down to just one thing - the inclusion of the SD feeds in the negotiation. Doesn't matter what time of year (a little less leverage in the Summer - but not significantly less) it is, it was just a matter of the cablecos putting 100% of their subs at risk instead of the 10% interested in the HD feeds.

We all knew that the broadcast nets were worth ~$0.50 to the cablecos, and Sinclair knew it also. They just tried to get a jump on those fees while their SD feeds were still under contract, so they tried to use the HD feeds as leverage (unsuccessfully) to try and get those fees early. There was never any doubt that once the retransmission contract expired, the new contract would demand those fees.

The timing of negotiations and the existing contracts are the only reason the HD feeds are a separate issue in some markets. It has nothing really to do with trying to get a premium price for a premium product - which is also why they wanted the "HD fee" to apply to all subs, not just HD subs.

Of course, it helped Sinclair's cause that the retrans deal expired in December and that the stations were only gone throughout January. That was after the November ratings book was done and around the time the February book began. Had those stations stayed off during February it could have affected their viewership -- and their ad revenue -- for another three months until the May numbers came in. There is only so much viewers will do to get a hard-to-get station, and while they might take extreme steps to get the Super Bowl or Grey's Anatomy, will they take those same steps when it comes time for the local news every night, when it really matters? Especially when there are usually at least two other choices for local news in a market?
I think the short term hit in revenue would be a small price to pay to get the long term benefit of the added revenue stream.

There is enough mass appeal of the content on the big 4 networks that consumers will seek out their local station one way or another.

It's just like that "free" weekly paper some of you can pick up at the newsstand. I can pick up a copy for free, but that doesn't give me the right to take a whole stack of them and resell them at $2 apiece.

Wouldn't a better analogy be - I'll give you a quarter to go down to the corner and bring me back a free newspaper?

Wouldn't a better analogy be - I'll give you a quarter to go down to the corner and bring me back a free newspaper?

Sure, but Im going to leave the Sports, Comics, and TV listings behind in the box. If you want those you have to get them yourself.


As for Comcast/LIN/Albuquerque situation, You can't argue that LIN isn't playing fair with cable or satellite providers. LIN has worked out deals with Cable One the second cable company in the county. It's really Comcast that isnt playing fair by charging us a quarter for newspaper delivery but leaving out the sections we really want to read forcing me to walk to get the other sections myself just so I can get the penny saver that comcast delivers with the normal paper.

The concern isnt that we want comcast to give us CBS and not pass on the cost of carriage fees to us. It's that we want CBS, and we are already proving we will pay for their service. Raise our rate the buck or two for carriage fees and lets be done with this. Comcast will raise my rates anyways every 6 months or so. They might as well just pay the man and pass the cost on to us. That is the way things work afterall.

But it is just my opinion. If ESPN ever is forced to offer a la carte, it would probably cost $12-$15 by itself (and still be "loaded with commercials"). Given that, five networks for something like $50 ain't too bad a bargain.


At that price, all ESPN could afford would be Little League Games and Putt Putt Tournaments.

$12-$15 isn't even close.

I was trying not to be too scary, HDTVF! :)

I may be way off, but I've always thought that one of the big reasons cable took off is because we're basically lazy and cable gave us a perfect local signal with no antenna hassles anymore. In other words easy access to local networks drove cable adoption in the beginning. Yes the extra channels were great too, but I think less people would be willing to move to a pay tv model if they were happy with the ease of receiving local free tv. Cable growth would have occurred at a much slower pace.


Actually, there were really no extra channels in the beginning.

There was a channel with a black and white camera in some markets pointed at an AP Teletype machine that showed the news as it was typing on the the teletype roll.

And there was a weather channel that had 5 or so round gauges that the black and white camera panned across.

Not what anyone would call "extra channels" that were great.

The real reason cable took off was wives hated the big antennas on the roof of their houses and thought they looked ugly.

Are you kidding? :eek:

The real reason was HBO, the promise of first run movies with a much shorter window time from theater to television. Titled boxing matches in homes with fresh memories of waiting until three in the morning to find out whether it was Alee or Frasier who won and Broadway shows.

Well before our Politian’s sold us out to the ever self destructive pant loads of Hollywood has been!

Are you kidding? :eek:

The real reason was HBO, the promise of first run movies with a much shorter window time from theater to television. Titled boxing matches in homes with fresh memories of waiting until three in the morning to find out whether it was Alee or Frasier who won and Broadway shows.

Well before our Politian’s sold us out to the ever self destructive pant loads of Hollywood has been!
Cable was around a long time before HBO. I'm trying to remember when we first got cable, but I'm pretty sure it was around 1980 or 81 and I'm pretty sure it had been available quite awhile before we got it. I don't remember HBO being available for several years after we got cable. I suppose I should go google HBO original air date.

well, that's interesting...HBO available in 1975 in the area I was living. So I guess it was on. But we didn't get it for at least 10 years after it was available.

The most hilarious thing about this whole thread is that THERE ARE NO LOCAL HDTV DISPUTES.

And that fact that someone that calls themself an Expert on Industry doesn't realize that.

Now, there are DTV and Local disputes - but again, there is nothing concerning HDTV and locals - as HDTV - as most Industry and non-Industry people except BSwanni know - is not mandated.

The disputes will not slow down the 2009 date as BSwanni states in post #1 - as ANY TV, High Def or not above a certain screen size must contain an ATSC tuner as of certain dates.

How someone that thinks they are so smart can be making Rookie mistakes shows just how little research and knowlege he really has.



Just hilarious.

Are you kidding? :eek:

The real reason was HBO, the promise of first run movies with a much shorter window time from theater to television. Titled boxing matches in homes with fresh memories of waiting until three in the morning to find out whether it was Alee or Frasier who won and Broadway shows.

Well before our Politian’s sold us out to the ever self destructive pant loads of Hollywood has been!


Nice, but HBO didn't show up until the mid 70s. Cable started showing up in the late 60s in most metropolitian areas. Some of my elders built and moved into a house in 1966 and it never had anything but cable - as it was available they never planned to put an antenna on the roof during construction.

And your revisionist history of HBO Boxing Matches and even PPV is comical. It only moved from microwave distribution to a few systems in the NY and Penn region in the early 70s to satellite distribution around the end of 1975.

It had a huge churn rate because of access to only a few movies.

It only went 24 hours a day in the early 80s.

Cable was around a long time before HBO. I'm trying to remember when we first got cable, but I'm pretty sure it was around 1980 or 81 and I'm pretty sure it had been available quite awhile before we got it. I don't remember HBO being available for several years after we got cable. I suppose I should go google HBO original air date.

There in lies the problem...as it is with the other posters revision of history and facts.

HBO was available - but many systems with only 12 available channels (less if the RF from a local TV station) was too strong locally.

A bypass filter had to be installed on EVERY pole leading to EVERY HOUSE that trapped the channel that HBO was on. When you ordered HBO, an installer had to come to the house, climb the pole and take the filter off.

It wasn't until around 1980 when OAK came up with the first real srambling and encryption system - and even that only allowed 36 channels.

So that is when most cable systems put on HBO as they finally had the channel capacity at that time, which is what you are most likely remembering.

In fact, most seem to forget that HBO was not even a 24 hour channel until the 80s.

PPV came much later on.

well, that's interesting...HBO available in 1975 in the area I was living. So I guess it was on. But we didn't get it for at least 10 years after it was available.

Well, HBO's first day as HBO was November 8, 1972, but was only available via microwave to the NY/PA region.

I've been away for a few days, but.....going back a page or two.....

Has anyone seen any guarantees from the networks and programmers, that promise on-line streaming of their programs will always remain free?

Just wondering ;) .

None at all, Ken.

In fact, I would suspect that quite the opposite will happen eventually.

Cable History

According to Wikipedia:

During the television licensing freeze of 1948-1952, (personal note - the era when when UHF was being carved out and channel 1 disappeared and color was being fought over by CBS and RCA) the demand for television increased. Since new television licenses were not being issued, the only way the demand was met was by Community Antenna Television. The first American CATV System is believed to have been developed in 1948 by Robert Tarlton. He had interest in an appliance store that began to carry televisions. A major problem in selling televisions in Langsford, Pennsylvania was that the stations which were available were received very poorly. Tarlton built an antenna on the top of a nearby mountain and strung a wire from it to his shop. A neighbor asked for the wire to be connected to his house and Tarlton connected it to his own house. He said he would extend the wire to anyone who would buy one of his television receivers, and in 1949 he started charging for the service. visit; http://www.cablecenter.org/education/library/oralHistoryDetails.cfm?id=270

Another system in Mahanoy City, PA was founded by Jerrold Electronics Corp. which served the other side of town. Both were originally three-channel systems and were upgraded to five. Other systems were built: some conceived the idea independently, others didn't, and others laid claim to the title of first.

On August 1, 1949 T.J. Slowie, a secretary of the Federal Communications Commission, sent a letter to a CATV pioneer in Astoria, Oregon, L.E. Parsons, requesting he "furnish the Commission full information with respect to the nature of the system you may have developed and may be operating." He did. This is the first known involvement of the FCC in CATV. An FCC lawyer, E. Stratford Smith, determined the Commission could exercise common carrier jurisdiction over CATV. The FCC didn't act on this opinion and Smith later changed his mind after working in the cable industry for some time and testifying in Senate committee hearings. Senator and future Federal Communications Commissioner Kenneth A. Cox attended and participated in these hearings. He prepared a report for the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce against CATV and supporting the FCC policy of a television station in every community.

In 1959 and 1961 bills were introduced in Congress that would have determined the role of the FCC in CATV policy. The 1959 bill, which actually made it to the floor of the Senate, would have limited FCC jurisdiction to CATV systems within the contours, i.e. the broadcast range, of a single station. It was defeated. The 1961 bill proposed by the FCC would have given the Commission authority over CATV as CATV, and not as a common carrier or broadcaster. The Commission could then adopt rules and regulations "in the public interest" to govern CATV in any area covered both by CATV and broadcast television. No action was ever taken on this bill.

The whole entry, which is quite long is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States

I especially like the part about the FCC lawywer being for FCC jursdiction and after he joined the cable industry, being against it! Not much has changed in almost 60 years!!

It was never the stations who wanted cable, but the equipment sales people! HHMM. Not much has changed, has it! ;)

Cable History

According to Wikipedia:

{snip}
A major problem in selling televisions in Langsford, Pennsylvania was that the stations which were available were received very poorly.

{snip}

Not much has changed in almost 60 years!!

Apparently so :p

Wouldn't a better analogy be - I'll give you a quarter to go down to the corner and bring me back a free newspaper?You didn't read what I said carefully enough:
... It's just like that "free" weekly paper some of you can pick up at the newsstand. I can pick up a copy for free, but that doesn't give me the right to take a whole stack of them and resell them at $2 apiece.I might be able to get away with it for one or two people, but I can't make a business out of it without the paper's blessing. In fact, most free papers I pick up specifically say "one free copy per person," and one even says, "It is illegal to take copies in bulk; violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

Point being, it may be "free" for you to view, but that doesn't make it yours to do whatever you want.

How many local stations would even be on cable if THEY had to pay cable? Probably none. Since the stations already get their channels out to their viewing audience and coverage area.

The post office charges sender for delivery. Imagine if they could then charge the recipient as well. The end of the Post Office's financial problems. Get $.39 on both ends.

Cable charges us to get the channels on their cable. Should they get to "double dip" and charge local stations to get on their cable? Or should they get to continue to redistribute a free over the air signal for profit?

So why should local stations have to pay cable? This makes no sense at all. I must be missing your point, sorry.

These smaller cable companies apparently found no real problem in ending their dispute with CBS:

The Business of Television
CBS Gets Cash in Retrans Deal
By Michael Malone Broadcasting & Cable, 2/22/2007

CBS Corp. announced it has reached retransmission consent agreements with nine cable operators, covering over a million subscribers. The deals cover analog, digital, multicast and high-definition rights to CBS programming.

As has been previously reported, CBS has sought 50 cents a subscriber in past dealings with cable operators and Verizon FiOS. A source familiar with the negotiations suggested that the new CBS deals are close to that figure.

CBS Corp. President and CEO Leslie Moonves, who’s long pushed for retransmission payments, hinted at future retrans battles. “Clearly there is a new paradigm in the marketplace—one that recognizes the value of the content that we bring to our various audiences,” said Moonves. “This is a trend that bodes well for us going forward as future retransmission deals are negotiated.”

CBS Corp. did not specify which cable operators it formed pacts with or the terms of the deals.

CBS was not available for comment.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6418604