Must Carry

[shilton]

Ok...by now we all know what Must Carry means for satellite tv. Ultimately it means a crunch of available space for the satellite providers. In my case,it means most likely no locals for me, since all the space is hogged by Pittsburgh, Philly and Harrisburg. Whether you argee that market 95 and market 195 and market 220 all deserve a crack at their locals or not, I think I have read enough in this forum to know that we all would like to see more bandwidth available for more channels and services, etc. The merger is pretty much dead, so as long as Must Carry exists, E* and D* will have to carry 10,000 local home shopping channels and religious channels, etc and than means no extra bells and whistles for the rest of us. This forum is pretty large and pretty active, so why not use that to our advantage. I urge everyone wo can read this, who believes in the benefits of Satellite TV to visit www.congress.org and opt to "write to your elected officials" to tell them that if they believe in what the SHVA is to stand for, then the time is now to amend it by repealing the Must Carry requirement thus opening the way for more products and services to ALL OF AMERICA. We all deserve that much even if you din't think those of us in the small cities and towns deserve locals. So please, lets band together to make our feelings known. I have written my officials, but one person can't do this alone. We all know Must Carry is a load of crap, so please lets work together to wipe it out. Visit the site and write today!!! Thanks....now I will gladly step off my soap box for the day!

[shilton]

Hey...look at me...I am a registered user now!!!
Thought it is about time since I am posting so frequently lately!

[FTA Michael]

I agree in spirit. Shopping channels are a waste, but at least ABC has Monday Night Football. The tough question is where to draw the line in-between.

There's a local in Denver that shows religious programming 70% of the time, ancient reruns 25% of the time, and the occasional regional college sports event. Should it be dropped?

In Denver, we have a secondary PBS station, which wasn't included in our locals before must-carry. It carried some quirky, fun shows (think Dr. Who or Britain's Robot Wars), especially on weekends, and I had to stick one of those *%$% Terk OTA dish add-on antennas to get halfway decent reception. Should that channel be dropped?

IMHO, what needs to get wiped out are the OTA shopping channels. A quick way to do that would be to go back to the old FCC rules regulating commercial length and other public service. Shopping channels would either have to provide meaningful community-serving content or they'd get their licenses yanked. (I mean, aren't we all the co-owners of the public airwaves?)

Imagine how cool it would be to ban all infomercials! If they extended the idea to cable/satellite channels, there'd actually be programming to choose from at 3 in the morning!

And that's when I woke up.

[Mike123abc]

Sad part about this is that people actually like to watch the shopping channels. They sell tons of stuff. They make a lot of money... Would not doubt the home shopping channels have more viewers than some of the obscure channels in many markets.

[dbronstein]

I agree it's a great theory but as carload said, where do you draw the line. My feeling is they should let you subscribe to any locals you want from any city.

If I understand it correctly, the reason the networks/local channels don't want you to be able to get out of town locals is because it would decrease their ratings, costing them ad revenue. So the simple solution is to allow people to subscribe to locals in any market, and then give a cut of that fee to the locals in their home market. For example, I live in Denver and if I subscribed to the New York locals for $6 a month or whatever, the Denver local stations would get a cut of that $6.

That doesn't sound like much money, but how much revenue do they really lose when 1 person in a market of 2 million people doesn't watch? And one of two things would happen: either a lot of people would get other cities' locals, in which case the stations would get a decent chunk of money, or not many people would do it, in which case their argument against it goes out the window.

I know it will never happen, but I can dream.

Dennis

[bryan27]

I'd like to know how Pittsburgh is hogging space.
ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX,WB,UPN,PBS are on the spot beam and Cornerstone is on 61.5 That's it Pittsburgh has no other stations! There is no PAX, Shopping Ch., UNI, TEL, FUT, and no indys either. Pittsburgh has far fewer stations than all the other major markets! Just "move" to Pittsburgh WJAC and WPXI have the same owners anyway. I've seen the Johnstown/Altoona stations and your better off with Pittsburgh.

[MikeW]

dbronstein,
One reason your idea wouldn't fly is that there are more DMAs not on satellite than those that are. Who would compensate the broadcasters in the smaller markets? Furthermore, it is not the fee paid to receive the channels, it's the advertising dollars. When a local station sells their ad time, and when an advertiser buys that air time, they are counting on anybody in the DMA watching the purchased time to be watching the program on the local channel.

[JavaMark]

I think the DMA law is rather strange, and it really seems like a law that was designed without the consumer in mind, but whoever gave the most lobbying money!

Take for example another advertising supported business, the Newspaper industry. The model is quite similar. There are national providers of content (AP, Reuters, etc) that most papers reprint. Each paper also adds their own stories and local advertisments. The model is not unlike Broadcasting where networks (NBC, CBS, etc) provide the content, and the local stations add local content.

So, why is it that I can walk into a grocery store and purchase newspapers from around the country that have the same AP stories as my local paper, but different ads, but I cannot receive the NYC affiliate of NBC. If the model were the same, i would have to prove that I live within Philly's Newspaper market in order to be allowed to buy the paper.

Something is fishy with the whole mess! Oh, and to add to it, I don't think that cable providers are held to the same standards as DBS providers are supposed to live up to. On my local cable service we get two ABC affililiates, one from outside my DMA.

arrgg.... i hate it when government tries to decide what I am allowed to do!

[FTA Michael]

Another source of the problem is the schizo rules for locals demanding must-carry or not. If it's the 24-hours-of-Pastor-Ed channel, it can force the cable/satellite system to carry it at no charge. But if it's the local ABC affiliate, it can tell the cable/satellite system that it may NOT carry it without additional fees or some other bandwidth-hogging agreement. This is the worst of all worlds for the consumer.

What if ... we allow must-carry, but everyone in the DMA gets it automatically and free. (What a concept! It's like rabbit-ears retro!) THEN, anyone who also wants distant stations gets to pay for them.

Then it's just like the newspaper analogy: Do I want to be like 99% of my neighbors and get my stories from the local newspaper, or pay substantially more to get slightly different content from out of town?

This plan hurts only the prosperous local stations, and I get back to the idea that we the people own the public airwaves. Maybe the prosperous stations should be glad we don't charge them rent on their bandwidth. ;)

Maybe if can get a Congress that represents the will of the common man, we can get changes like this. Hmm, maybe candidates should run on a platform of "cheaper, better TV". :)

[dbronstein]

MikeW, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I know it's the advertising dollars the local stations are afraid of losing, and those are directly tied to ratings. So if people subscribe to out of town stations, the ratings for the locals in that city would drop slightly, and their ad revenues would decrease slightly. Under my idea, they would be compensated for this by getting cut of the subscirption fees paid for the out of town stations.

And how much revenue would they really lose? If the ratings for a local newscast fall from 5.3 to 5.1 (and I think that's a high estimate), the ad fees don't drop very much, if at all. And it would work the same way for the DMAs that aren't on satellite. If you live in Fargo and subscribe to the Chicago locals, the Fargo locals would still get their cut.

As I said, I know it will never happen because it makes too much sense.

Dennis

[Chris Freeland]

Originally posted by dbronstein
MikeW, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I know it's the advertising dollars the local stations are afraid of losing, and those are directly tied to ratings. So if people subscribe to out of town stations, the ratings for the locals in that city would drop slightly, and their ad revenues would decrease slightly. Under my idea, they would be compensated for this by getting cut of the subscirption fees paid for the out of town stations.

And how much revenue would they really lose? If the ratings for a local newscast fall from 5.3 to 5.1 (and I think that's a high estimate), the ad fees don't drop very much, if at all. And it would work the same way for the DMAs that aren't on satellite. If you live in Fargo and subscribe to the Chicago locals, the Fargo locals would still get their cut.

As I said, I know it will never happen because it makes too much sense.

Dennis

I agree, I do not think allowing everyone who subs to either D* or E* the option of subbing to one or more out of market network tv stations would have much of an impact on the local stations bottom line. Most people will still watch local channels for local news, sports and weather. Most people who live in DMA's that D* and or E* caries their locals will not want to spend the extra money to receive distant stations that mostly duplicate what they can receive locally, the ones that do will be a minority. The buy rate of distant nets in DMA's that D* and or E* do not carry will be a bit higher, but many in those markets will continue to get their locals FREE ota and will not want to spend the extra money on distant nets. Let the market decide, however this concept will never get approved.

I also agree with the original poster and think we should do away with "must carry". Let the market decide which channels will or will not get carried, if a Independent, secondary PBS, Spanish or other channels are popular enough then D* and E* will most likely include them in their locals package, if not, why use up the bandwidth. However this is about as likely to happen as everyone having the wright to purchase out of market locals.

[toomuchtv]

If the cable company is allowed to offer me locals from two DMA's, why not E*? Let's repeal "must carry" & let the consumer decide what he/she wants to pay for.

[shilton]

Originally posted by Chris Freeland


I also agree with the original poster and think we should do away with "must carry". Let the market decide which channels will or will not get carried, if a Independent, secondary PBS, Spanish or other channels are popular enough then D* and E* will most likely include them in their locals package, if not, why use up the bandwidth. However this is about as likely to happen as everyone having the right to purchase out of market locals.

As the original poster, I have felt for some time that must carry will not and cannot be repealed. But then one day I visited the FCC site to see the many letters sent to the FCC in support of the Echostar Merger from customers just like you and me. True, the merger has stalled and WILL FAIL...but that got me thinking as to the true magnitude of how big a base of subscribers satellite TV has. Sure, my Congressmen will not listen to me alone, but if we all contact our Congressmen all asking for a repeal of Must Carry, we stand a chance a being heard. Especially now with the blockage of the merger, as the sole driving force behind blocking the merger was the notion that it would harm Rural America. It is Rural America that is suffering due to Must Carry, as we stand little if any chance at localized programming of any kind ever given the current Must Carry Laws. Not to mention the fact that precious bandwidth is being squandered in areas like Philly with their gazillion stations which could be used to launch more channels or services for us all. I think we have the power to bring about change if we stop thinking and acting as ONE and start thinking and acting as a group. Look at the targeted focused messaged D* and E* sent to our government by putting up a web site we the customers could go to to share our views. There were literally thousands upon thousands of letters sent. You can't tell me our Congressmen will ignore thousands of letters from Satellite subscribers who want must carry repealed. If we ever hope to bring this to be, we must strike while the "iron" is hot, while the talk in DC is still "We stopped the merger because it would have hurt you". We can take that very sentiment and use it to our advantage to bring about the change. No, I don't think we will ever get the ok to pick up any channel we choose from any market we want, but I do think we can kill Must Carry.

[BrettR]

Echostar and DirecTV tried getting mustcarry overturned.

They lost.

Mustcarry is an effort to preserve broadcast television and ensure public access to information from a variety of sources. 15+ years ago, FCC found it acceptable for home shopping stations to be on over the air on public airwaves, because people were buying products from these channels. As long as these stations met their limited requirements (local and for children I think), they could do home shopping most of the schedule. Ch.65 in South Jersey flipped to home shopping, and so did Ch.61 a Wilmington DE licensed station. Now they are teamed with Univision and PAX respectively.

Cable lucks out, they can just carry the local affiliate and not have to worry about a national feed, where DBS gets stuck carrying both.

Echostar and DirecTV are allowed to carry popular VHF Network affiliated stations and satellite delivered channels. By program access law, DBS cannot be withheld from access to these stations. Cablevision would rather not sell MSG and FSNY to satellite companies but they have to. Comcast cannot withhold CCSN-MidAtlantic from the DBS providers since its satellite delivered. The FOX and CBS Network cannot withhold their owned stations from DirecTV. They have to work in good faith.

CBS and FOX were upset on the detraction of viewers to DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket. They considered DirecTV and the NFL ST a threat, but CBS and FOX had to let DirecTV carry their stations and couldn't withhold them.

Cable companies and major broadcasters own over 95% of the cable channels out there, that Dish and DirecTV sell.

One compliance Echostar and DirecTV have to meet is mustcarry , for them to reap benefits of the program access laws that lets them distribute network owned/affiliated stations and cable-owned satellite-delivered cable channels AT A 100% MARKUP without getting clearances for the copyrights the network has.

Why not "move"? You could get Pittsburgh locals. Without mustcarry many markets would not be getting PBS, WB, and UPN for $5.99. It'd be $5.99 for 4 meager network stations.

[TomCat]

Originally posted by JavaMark
I think the DMA law is rather strange, and it really seems like a law that was designed without the consumer in mind, but whoever gave the most lobbying money!...So, why is it that I can walk into a grocery store and purchase newspapers from around the country that have the same AP stories as my local paper, but different ads, but I cannot receive the NYC affiliate of NBC. If the model were the same, i would have to prove that I live within Philly's Newspaper market in order to be allowed to buy the paper.

Something is fishy with the whole mess!...

You've summed it up. The inequity is due to lobbyists (NAB and cable TV in particular). Special interests usurping the interests of the public consumer, who are supposed to be the owners of the airwaves in a supposedly free marketplace. Our goverment only gives them license to broadcast on our owned frequencies, yet they end up dictating who will be deprived of what.

Some are reacting as they should...exercising civil disobedience against this inequity by "moving" out of the DMA altogether.

[Geronimo]

The bottom line is that it is the stations right to be carried not your right to watch them. I am not agreeing. I am just stating what the law is based on.

[shilton]

Originally posted by BrettR
Echostar and DirecTV tried getting mustcarry overturned.

They lost.

Why not "move"? You could get Pittsburgh locals. Without mustcarry many markets would not be getting PBS, WB, and UPN for $5.99. It'd be $5.99 for 4 meager network stations.


Sure in theory its easy enough to "move" now, but how long does anything think that Gravy Train will last? D & E used to pass out the network feeds like candy years ago until the local stations got mad and someone went to court. Eventually, it will happen again and we will be forced to prove if we actually "move". Do I think I should have the option of Pittsburgh or Harrisburg, or LA channels if I want them???...you bet I do. But the silly law will not allow it. That most likely will not change, but I believe must carry is another issue. D & E could not overturn it because they are the corporate giants in the eyes of the legislators who we need to be protected from. We are the constituents who vote these people into office, so the power is in our hands. "Moving" may be a short term fix but it will not ultimately solve the problem that satallite carriers are being forced to carry trash that eats up bandwidth that is best used for something else. We live in a survival of the fittest world. If a station is good and has an audience and is in demand, D & E will carry it. If not, they won't (and shouldn't have to). History has shown that a number of weel meaning laws have been put on the books only to be later overturned or repealed because the people stood up and said "this thing is not doing what is was supposed to do". Maybe the reason that D & E had such an uphill fight is because they were doing all the talking while we the people acctually buying the services remained silent. That's all I am saying...I DO BELIEVE MUST CARRY CAN BE REPEALED IF WE BAND TOGETHER.

[Geronimo]

Of course if the current law is repealed what will the new one look like? Will they offer all locals in an area? I would think we would still be limited by the spots.

be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

Your local stations really dont want you watching out of market TV stations via satellite because it could devalue the amount the station can making selling advertising or potential number of pledges (applicable for a PBS station) the station can make, if Nielsen registered this as common among households.

If mustcarry should be completely overturned, why wouldnt FCC just go ahead and get program access overturned too. Meaning each company to his own which is more on the lines on disbanding all regulations that are there to permit competition. Then Mr. Ergen can bargain for all his programming.

Will Charlie be happy when Comcast pulls CCSN-MidAtlantic, E! Style, OLN from Dish, Cablevision pulls MSG, FSNY, AMC, WE, IFC from Dish, Cox part owner of Discovery asks Dish to drop Discovery, AOL Time Warner demands double the rate for programming from DBS or else TNT TBS and the TW channels go cable-only, and all the cable companies pull their channels from Dish? FCC asserts program access rules so Dish has access to satellite-delivered channels so satellite can be competitive.

FCC and Congress wants to make sure they can provide some support for competition in broadcasting. If Dish only carried ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX then the lesser value stations would not even be able to reach their HH on pay homes meaning they'd lose advertiser support and possibly go dark and also limit people's choices who rely on broadcast television alone. There is no perfect solution, IMO.

[BrettR]

Your local stations really dont want you watching out of market TV stations via satellite because it could devalue the amount the station can making selling advertising or potential number of pledges (applicable for a PBS station) the station can make, if Nielsen registered this as common among households.

If mustcarry should be completely overturned, why wouldnt FCC just go ahead and get program access overturned too. Meaning each company to his own which is more on the lines on disbanding all regulations that are there to permit competition. Then Mr. Ergen can bargain for all his programming.

Will Charlie be happy when Comcast pulls CCSN-MidAtlantic, E! Style, OLN from Dish, Cablevision pulls MSG, FSNY, AMC, WE, IFC from Dish, Cox part owner of Discovery asks Dish to drop Discovery, AOL Time Warner demands double the rate for programming from DBS or else TNT TBS and the TW channels go cable-only, and all the cable companies pull their channels from Dish? FCC asserts program access rules so Dish has access to satellite-delivered channels so satellite can be competitive.

FCC and Congress wants to make sure they can provide some support for competition in broadcasting. If Dish only carried ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX then the lesser value stations would not even be able to reach their HH on pay homes meaning they'd lose advertiser support and possibly go dark and also limit people's choices who rely on broadcast television alone. There is no perfect solution, IMO.

[shilton]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Of course if the current law is repealed what will the new one look like? Will they offer all locals in an area? I would think we would still be limited by the spots.

be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

True, we will be limited by spots but a few of the spots could serve a few more markets if every market that is served can drop a channel or 2. Take Philly for instance which is a space hog. For the most part, many markets really only need offer the Nets, PBS and the UPS's and WB's. Do we really need the religious channels or the Independents or the shopping channels? One can get a whole religious package off of the 61.5 sat if they want it and we are already overwhelmed with shopping channels (even many of the local stations air infomercials at all times of the day, so we don't really need a few more on the air).

The North American spots are already filled to the gills, so unless something gets cut, there is no room for anyone else. Lets remember that the FEDS nixed the merger because they wanted to protect little America. Its Little America that is suffering because of Must Carry.

I hope I get what I am wishing for because all I am wishing for is a fair chance at being able to see my local city get added. Let me point out that if JUST the Philly beam lost a few, there is room for me right there and that is just figuring on 1 market! If every market lost a station or 2, suddenly there is a whole lot more room on those beams for more cities...get what I mean???

Plus, lets not forget that the NAB in its great wisdom is trying for force Dish to abandon any instance where a 2nd Dish is required for local reception. If this effort succeeds (which is most likely will given the power of the NAB), Dish has no choice but to kill a few cities to fit the other in. This is further proof of the damage that Must carry can bring about. It would theoretically force Dish to scale back the total number of cities they actually serve. Must carry totally goes against the grain of the old business philosophy that says "The strongest will survive". Heck, that is like saying is a McDonald's opens up near you, then the builder MUST put a Wendy's or a Burger King RIGHT NEXT DOOR to give them a fair shake. Its ridiculous. Let the buyer decide what the buyer wants and the rest will take care of itself.

[Geronimo]

Well we dont know WHAT they will carry. Why do you assume they will carry WB and UPN? They did not originally. They may not again.

As for no choice but to drop markets. II dont agree. they could put whole marlets at 110 or 119 and whole markets at 61.5 or 148 . If you live in a 61.5/148 market you would not like it but it would be in compliance.


I don't like this law either but it is here. And I am not so sure that I know what would would happen when repeal comes.

And as for fairness well everyone has their own definition. You think it is "fair" that you get to watch what you want. I do too. But the station owners think they have exclusive rights in their markets. They think another station grabbing viewers is unfair.

[scooper]

Don't bet on that 2nd Dish requirement going away. Also Philly being stuck with 129 for the foreseeable future.

Geronimo's points about all of a market on 61.5 or 148 are also perfectly valid. E* could design and order up spotbeam birds for each location, and put all of a market on them, offer the locals and be in perfect compliance. Customers may not like that, but it would be legal. I'm kind of surprised they haven't put entire markets on the sides already.

Let's not forget that the big crunch that will come with DTV/HDTV.