Multicast & Must Carry - A Marriage Made In Hell

[Nick]

I've been thinking about what the broadcast landscape will look like a few years down the road, and the view doesn't look good. The transition to DTV has opened a can of worms when it comes local broadcasters putting up new channels. In the first place, broadcasters aren't very good at creating content. Once they do the local news, weather and sports, there isn't much left to do. Perhaps a 24/7 radar channel like cables used to do, but beyond that, what? Syndicated reruns, more network feeds, PI programming? Not likely.

What is the cash flow darling of all programmers? Infomercials, of course. Broadcasters are foaming at the mouth to put up as many digital sub-channels as they can under the guise of serving the needs of their respective communities. But instead of a local station paying for canned content, those ubiquitous 30 minute ads are too temptng because they actually pay to be carried. In the past, with good old analog and only one lonely channel, local broadcasters, with were loathe to carry infomercials for fear that the FCC (and local viewers) would count any such programming against a station's obligation to serve the public interest.

Now comes the rub, or rather two, no, make that three rubs.

Rub #1 - In order to maximize revenues, local stations will surely fill these new digital sub-channels with paid infomercials, at ad rates based on a station's "book", the Nielson ratings which ultimately determine advertising rates, thus revenues.

Rub #2 - Since broadcasters want all the 'eyes' they can get for their new channel capacity, they, through the NAB, are pushing the FCC to marry multicast to must-carry so that satellite and cable providers will be forced to carry every single POS sub-channel a broadcaster puts up. Not only that, but DBS and the cablecos will have to pay the broadcaster to carry these sub-standard sub-channels.

Rub #3 - DBS providers will have to provide the additional bandwidth to carry the additional channels which they are being forced to carry and pay for, to boot! Now, see if you can guess who, ultimately, is going to have to pay for the additional bandwidth needed to serve up these additional channels? We, the subscribers, of course.

So, to review, local broadcasters are putting up new sub-channels which DBS and cable providers will be forced carry and forced to pay for, while the broadcasters make a ton of money from the infomercial sponsors and, under force of federal regulation, another ton of money from the DBS and cable carriers, while the multi-channel carriers have no choice in the matter and no one else but subscribers to turn to for compensating revenues.

In other words, the added costs of multicast must-carry will be ultimately be paid by you and me. Our satellite and cable rates will go up and what do we get in return? More infomercials and other such substandard programming that none of us want in the first place.

Multicast must-carry is a really bad idea.

[FTA Michael]

In the past, with good old analog and only one lonely channel, local broadcasters, with were loathe to carry infomercials for fear that the FCC (and local viewers) would count any such programming against a station's obligation to serve the public interest.In those good old days, the FCC also had restrictions on the length of commercials, and that effectively outlawed infomercials as we know them. The deregulation wave of the 1980s opened this door as is did so many others.

If the FCC would restore a reasonable maximum commercial length (2 minutes? 5 minutes?), paid programming would disappear from OTA. Even better would be if the FCC would require a certain percentage of non-paid programming.

[Nick]

SkyFILES: Give Consumers What They Want
by Michael Hopkins

Broadcasters don't need a requirement handed down from the
Federal Communications Commission that would force cable and
satellite TV companies to carry their multicast content.

What broadcasters need is compelling multicast content in
order to gain carriage.

In Denver, Comcast is carrying extra channels from two of the
town's local TV stations. KUSA, an NBC affiliate providing a
"Weather Plus" channel on Comcast digital cable channel 249.
KMGH, the local ABC affiliate, has a similar weather service
on Comcast digital cable channel 247.

The content provided by the stations is local in nature,
updated regularly throughout the day, and it delivers the
programming cable customers want to watch.

This week, talk of multicast requirements for cable and
satellite TV surfaced again at the Portals. Surprisingly, not
a lot of broadcasters commented on the FCC effort, which is
taking a look at service issues for Alaska and Hawaii.
Television stations have said the FCC made a mistake in
February when it said cable wasn't required to carry multicast
material from broadcasters.

Instead of having a FCC multicast mandate, how about
broadcasters create additional streams of content that viewers
want to watch? That's what the Denver stations are doing, and
they're on a growing digital cable platform. PBS is doing that
stuff as well, and has managed to gain cable carriage for its
extra content.

Through a deal struck between PBS and the National Cable and
Telecommunications Association, upgraded cable systems with
HDTV are poised to carry free, non-commercial digital
programming for each local must-carry public TV station. The
carriage may include four streams of free non-commercial
digital TV and associated material, subject to reasonable
programming duplication parameters, the association said.

How did PBS get the deal? Public broadcasters deliver public
affairs programming, and a lot of the public stations' content
has a local angle.

If all TV stations were given regulations forcing carriage of
their multicast content, most consumers would be inundated
with infomercials. But give consumers what they want, such as
local news and weather, and broadcasters will soon learn that
they have a winner for their additional content.

www.SkyReport.com - reprinted with permission

[kenglish]

What people don't realize is, most stations can't afford to buy any programming any more. Since the networks got the rights to sell all of their old programming on the VHS/DVD market (after, of course, running them to death on their owned & operated Cable networks), they won't sell anything to individual stations.

That, basically, leaves "Oprah", "Doc Phil" and "Jerry"......and they cost a fortune to buy rights to. Some stations try to do local (non-news) production, but those cost as much to produce for one station as they do for a whole network.

So, stations get stuck with producing news, news, news, news.....or running infomercials.

Life (in TV) sure was better back in the old days!

[Nick]

Putting up additional digital sub-channels for the sole purpose of airing infomercials is contrary to the public interest and serves no purpose other than to generate revenue for the broadcaster. For this less than noble purpose we have been forced to surrender our analog bandwidth forever.

[FTA Michael]

most stations can't afford to buy any programming any more. :rolling:

Need a counterexample? One word: Movies.

Remember in the pre-cable days when some TV stations would show movies during the day, and most of them would show some after the news? Those movies, and many more, are still out there in syndication packages. If you want to get really cheap, there are even public domain movie syndication packages.

One Equity FTA station, which shows mostly infomercials, shows several episodes of Cheers every weeknight. There's a local independent station here in Denver with a late afternoon block of Lassie, The Lone Ranger, Mister Ed, Leave It to Beaver, Green Acres, and The Rifleman. All these shows must be available somehow, and at modest prices.

No, stations show Oprah and Jerry Springer and all those other daytime staples because they make money. Each and every one of them. You might find a few stations that claim to lose money on Oprah, but they make it back on increased ratings on the local news show that follows.

[Paul Secic]

I've been thinking about what the broadcast landscape will look like a few years down the road, and the view doesn't look good. The transition to DTV has opened a can of worms when it comes local broadcasters putting up new channels. In the first place, broadcasters aren't very good at creating content. Once they do the local news, weather and sports, there isn't much left to do. Perhaps a 24/7 radar channel like cables used to do, but beyond that, what? Syndicated reruns, more network feeds, PI programming? Not likely.

What is the cash flow darling of all programmers? Infomercials, of course. Broadcasters are foaming at the mouth to put up as many digital sub-channels as they can under the guise of serving the needs of their respective communities. But instead of a local station paying for canned content, those ubiquitous 30 minute ads are too temptng because they actually pay to be carried. In the past, with good old analog and only one lonely channel, local broadcasters, with were loathe to carry infomercials for fear that the FCC (and local viewers) would count any such programming against a station's obligation to serve the public interest.

Now comes the rub, or rather two, no, make that three rubs.

Rub #1 - In order to maximize revenues, local stations will surely fill these new digital sub-channels with paid infomercials, at ad rates based on a station's "book", the Nielson ratings which ultimately determine advertising rates, thus revenues.

Rub #2 - Since broadcasters want all the 'eyes' they can get for their new channel capacity, they, through the NAB, are pushing the FCC to marry multicast to must-carry so that satellite and cable providers will be forced to carry every single POS sub-channel a broadcaster puts up. Not only that, but DBS and the cablecos will have to pay the broadcaster to carry these sub-standard sub-channels.

Rub #3 - DBS providers will have to provide the additional bandwidth to carry the additional channels which they are being forced to carry and pay for, to boot! Now, see if you can guess who, ultimately, is going to have to pay for the additional bandwidth needed to serve up these additional channels? We, the subscribers, of course.

So, to review, local broadcasters are putting up new sub-channels which DBS and cable providers will be forced carry and forced to pay for, while the broadcasters make a ton of money from the infomercial sponsors and, under force of federal regulation, another ton of money from the DBS and cable carriers, while the multi-channel carriers have no choice in the matter and no one else but subscribers to turn to for compensating revenues.

In other words, the added costs of multicast must-carry will be ultimately be paid by you and me. Our satellite and cable rates will go up and what do we get in return? More infomercials and other such substandard programming that none of us want in the first place.

Multicast must-carry is a really bad idea.
Basically in the future those sub channels will probably carry HSN, QVC and the like. What did you expect to see? Compelling content?

[Nick]

Well, going back to 'must-carry', you seem to get my initital point. MCVPs shouldn't be made to carry this garbage, the expense of which will be borne by subscribers.Basically in the future those sub channels will probably carry HSN, QVC and the like. What did you expect to see? Compelling content?Perhaps you should reread the thread. Your point has already been made several times, starting with my comment "...while the broadcasters make a ton of money from infomercials"

[kenglish]

Most stations quit printing money long ago :( .

We have programmed all the old stuff you mentioned ("Retro TV", a daily hour long show that ran a rotation of "Mr. Ed", "Green Acres", etc.).
Unfortunately, not enough people watched it, to pay the costs involved. We also used to do "Big Money Movie".....now, the movie packages are so expensive and have so many restrictions on times, replays, etc..........

I guess the problem is: It's not as easy as it looks to the viewers. I wouldn't want to work in Programming