Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Are broadcast networks needed? (spin off conversation)


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#41 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:17 AM

You do realize at the time, there was a study put forth regarding local channels on cable. It was found that if a cable company no longer had their local channels on cable, over 50% of consumers would demand their cable bill be halved, and another about 25% would ditch cable altogether? It appeared that cable was built on the back of the local broadcaster, and they weren't receiving anything from the cable company.Yep. Let's have Charlie Ergen and Brian Roberts and the lke make all the money selling monthly subscriptions to programming and have NONE OF IT go to the broadcast networks which still provide the most-viewed programming.

Cable TV was still in its infancy; it was the Wild West of TV throughout the 1980's. The Cable Act of 1992 was enacted to right the wrongs of allowing one company to build their business on the back of another without compensation.


I couldn't care less what some study said. It's irrelevant. What people say in a study and what they will actually do are two different things. Besides, "studies" are routinely rigged to achieve the result that the organization doing the study wants.

Also, I have never advocated deleting local stations from cable. I am advocating importing distant stations in addition to continuing with the local stations. Advertising will continue to support the networks and the stations. Why should broadcasters, who are transmitting a "free" product, then be allowed to charge for it when it is rebroadcast by a satellite company or cable company? The satellite company or cable company is already conferring a benefit on the broadcaster by ensuring that viewers who could not receive the signal OTA will now receive it. Remember, not everyone with a rooftop antenna can receive every local station. Local reception is highly dependent on terrain. The viewer may be five miles or less from the transmitter, but, if there is a mountain in the way, the viewer may not receive the signal OTA. The viewer will receive it via cable or satellite.

Ok, so if the networks want their OTA, then, let them have it. However, we need to stop protecting certain stations. The law should be changed so that once a signal is OTA, any pay TV provider can take that signal and freely broadcast it anywhere they want to, so long as it is unedited (except for resolution/ compression scaling).


I agree a hundred percent. Try it, people will like it, and the sky won't fall. Rates are the only thing that will fall, and viewer choice will go up. Stations will have a strong incentive to produce programming for their local market when they face real competition.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#42 OFFLINE   Herdfan

Herdfan

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 6,081 posts
  • LocationTeays Valley, WV
Joined: Mar 18, 2006

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:19 AM

While there are good arguments on both sides of this issue, the one thing that is broken is the antiquated DMA system used to determine "markets". There is a DMA in Parkersburg WV that consists of 3 counties. Three counties (2 in WV, 1 in OH) and about 63,000 households.

The one affiliate in the DMA (WTAP) is a dual NBC/Fox and is basically a satellite of WSAZ from Huntington. Cable, but not satellite, provides CBS and ABC from Charleston.

Why does this DMA even exist? The 2 WV counties should be moved to the Charleston DMA and the OH county to either the Columbus or Stuebenville DMA. Or maybe even expend the one county Zanesville DMA.

Since the current station is owned by the same company that owns WSAZ, they could just use the existing station as a repeater and maybe do a local news show with area specific stories and provide locally inserted ads.

As for the consumer benefits, they would be in a DMA that would have all locals via satellite. The current spot beams for Charleston do reach those 3 counties. Having a 3 county DMA is not really good for anyone.

My Setup

 

 


#43 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 40,295 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:35 AM

Imagine a national business that owns exclusive rights to a product. No other business in the US can sell that product. To distribute their product they have decided to set up a network of local affiliate distributors ... and to keep the product valuable they have decided to grant exclusive rights to each affiliate within their own territory to distribute their product. It is an agreement that all the affiliates and the national business have agreed to honor. The affiliates are not allowed to deliver the product to retailers outside of their territory.

Which means that if you are in Michigan and want that product your retailer must get that product from the distributor that has rights for Michigan. The retailer cannot get the product from a distributor in Iowa because the Iowa distributor has agreed not to compete with the Michigan distributor. (Generally the retailer would not want to go that far due to the increased shipping costs - but if the savings were great enough it may make economic sense to go from Michigan to Iowa for their product.)

And thus even though an individual may drive from Michigan to Iowa to buy a case of cola a distributor in Iowa cannot supply a retailer in Michigan with the same product.

And thus a regional sports network serving Iowa cannot distribute a professional sports game to viewers in Michigan without first obtaining rights for that distribution from the national company that owns the rights. (The league owns the rights and will most likely sell the right to view as part of a special package.)

And thus an Iowa television station cannot distribute broadcast network programming to viewers in Michigan without first obtaining rights for that distribution from the national company that owns the rights. (The network owns the rights and has most likely sold those rights to local broadcasters in Michigan.)

And thus ... it is the way the national company has decided to distribute a product that they have FULL RIGHTS to distribute any way they want - or not at all.



Those that want to break the system are just interfering with free enterprise. There isn't a compelling reason for the government to override the affiliation contracts of the networks/affiliates. There is no constitutional right to view the product being offered.

#44 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 40,295 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 11:50 AM

While there are good arguments on both sides of this issue, the one thing that is broken is the antiquated DMA system used to determine "markets".

This is one area where I believe change IS needed. DMAs do not match the actual distribution areas where the affiliates have the right to broadcast the content. Cable doesn't follow the same rules as satellite ... they don't worry about DMAs and can (and in some cases MUST) carry stations from what would be another DMA.

Leveling the rules between cable and satellite so satellite at least carry the same channels that cable carries is important. A local station should be defined not only as any station within the reasonably arbitrary DMAs but any station that has predicted coverage of the customer. This could be broken down to zip code or county but technology has reached the point where it is possible to be more granular than 210 markets.

This would not violate the private affiliation contracts ... it would not extend the stations any further than they already have the right to broadcast. It would just deliver the content via satellite to the same people who could get it OTA or via cable.

#45 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:00 PM

This is one area where I believe change IS needed. DMAs do not match the actual distribution areas where the affiliates have the right to broadcast the content. Cable doesn't follow the same rules as satellite ... they don't worry about DMAs and can (and in some cases MUST) carry stations from what would be another DMA.

Leveling the rules between cable and satellite so satellite at least carry the same channels that cable carries is important. A local station should be defined not only as any station within the reasonably arbitrary DMAs but any station that has predicted coverage of the customer. This could be broken down to zip code or county but technology has reached the point where it is possible to be more granular than 210 markets.

This would not violate the private affiliation contracts ... it would not extend the stations any further than they already have the right to broadcast. It would just deliver the content via satellite to the same people who could get it OTA or via cable.


Why should affiiliates be protected when their programming is not even available OTA throughout the market? The Monterey-Salinas market is a large and hilly market, although sparsely populated. There are areas where a viewer is many miles away from the transmitter and cannot receive reception. There are other areas where a viewer may be only five miles away from the transmitter, yet still cannot receive a signal. Yet the local stations will claim these locations, even though they are not really providing service to the locations. Those viewers are forced to purchase and pay for satellite or cable in order to receive "free" tv, with some of that money going to the local station. Ethically and morally, the local station deserves no money in that situation. They are supposed to be providing a free service to the viewer. Viewers are burned time and time again by these rules that protect local stations far beyond what is reasonable.

#46 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:06 PM

And then Dish Network can get a subscription to DirecTV, pick up DirecTV's channels and rebroadcast and repackage them onto the Dish Network system.

So instead of paying millions of dollars to ESPN, they just need to spend about $100 a month on DirecTV and rip and rebroadcast. That should save Dish Network a good $42 million a month, which is probably much more than what the local stations are receiving in agregate. After all, "we need to stop protecting certain stations."

And the only entities protecting "certain stations" are the networks themselves.


The comparison is not on point. DirectTV is not a free service, so taking it and retransmitting it without permission would be video piracy. OTA is free, or at least it used to be. The local stations and the networks are doing their best to say that it is free, but at the same time to make sure that it really is not free.

Gee, the local stations and networks talking out of both sides of their mouth? What a surprise! Just like Congress and the courts, who have been talking out of both sides of their mouth on this and every other issue for years.

#47 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:21 PM

I couldn't care less what some study said. It's irrelevant. What people say in a study and what they will actually do are two different things. Besides, "studies" are routinely rigged to achieve the result that the organization doing the study wants.

And although I can somewhat agree that studies can be rigged, the reality is that people expected their cable system to provide the local channels. Ditch the antenna and get all these local channels, as well as some of this other programming. Yet none of the money paid by subscribers to the local cable company was going to the local channels...

I am advocating importing distant stations in addition to continuing with the local stations. Advertising will continue to support the networks and the stations. Why should broadcasters, who are transmitting a "free" product, then be allowed to charge for it when it is rebroadcast by a satellite company or cable company?

The question is backwards...

Why does a satellite or cable company need to retransmit a "free" product? Could it be that without the "free" product people won't subscribe? All one needs to do is point to the passage of the SHVIA back in 1999, when DBS satellite numbers went from less than 8 million subscribers without local channels to now more than 30 million in 2010 with local channels. The reality on that point itself should be astounding. Dish Network knew they needed access to network programming in order to compete; DirecTV worked with the NAB to provide the framework to get local programming including network affiliates available to satellite consumers.

These distribution companies obviously need the local channel product. Yet these distribution companies, according to some, should be raking in billions of dollars a year and providing none of that money to these local channels. Or better yet, create laws so that not only do those local channels receive no money, but then also have all of their exclusive contracts with their programmers completely demolished so that they are no longer exclusive.

#48 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 40,295 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:21 PM

Why should affiiliates be protected when their programming is not even available OTA throughout the market? The Monterey-Salinas market is a large and hilly market, although sparsely populated. There are areas where a viewer is many miles away from the transmitter and cannot receive reception. There are other areas where a viewer may be only five miles away from the transmitter, yet still cannot receive a signal. Yet the local stations will claim these locations, even though they are not really providing service to the locations. Those viewers are forced to purchase and pay for satellite or cable in order to receive "free" tv, with some of that money going to the local station. Ethically and morally, the local station deserves no money in that situation. They are supposed to be providing a free service to the viewer. Viewers are burned time and time again by these rules that protect local stations far beyond what is reasonable.

If these OTA viewers can pick up an out of market station great ... but getting that feed via satellite or cable? If the only way to get a signal of that network is via satellite or cable why not have it be the affiliate who actually holds the distribution rights to that area?

You'd rather interfere with the network/affiliate agreements and import signals from wherever. "Ethically and morally" we shouldn't be encouraging violation of contracts. If due to terrain and RF issues the only way to get that content is via cable/satellite fine ... just let it be the affiliate who owns the rights to that viewer.

(If an out of market affiliate happens to have overlapping OTA coverage that would qualify it for carriage - if my rules were in place. Under the real rules the out of market would have to be "significantly viewed" to gain satellite carriage. Secondary to any in market station who holds the rights.)

#49 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:23 PM

DirectTV is not a free service, so taking it and retransmitting it without permission would be video piracy.

Without permission of what company?

#50 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 40,295 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:26 PM

The comparison is not on point. DirectTV is not a free service, so taking it and retransmitting it without permission would be video piracy.

Greg's suggestion was that DISH subscribes to DirecTV and uses that source for their feed. Not piracy (although a commercial subscription would be required as a regular subscription is licensed for private in home use). DISH would be paying someone for the service.

#51 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:35 PM

If these OTA viewers can pick up an out of market station great ... but getting that feed via satellite or cable? If the only way to get a signal of that network is via satellite or cable why not have it be the affiliate who actually holds the distribution rights to that area?

You'd rather interfere with the network/affiliate agreements and import signals from wherever. "Ethically and morally" we shouldn't be encouraging violation of contracts. If due to terrain and RF issues the only way to get that content is via cable/satellite fine ... just let it be the affiliate who owns the rights to that viewer.

(If an out of market affiliate happens to have overlapping OTA coverage that would qualify it for carriage - if my rules were in place. Under the real rules the out of market would have to be "significantly viewed" to gain satellite carriage. Secondary to any in market station who holds the rights.)


Why should it be the affiliate who actually holds the distribution rights to the area, if the affiliate is not actually receivable OTA in that area? I don't believe it is ethically or morally correct for an affiliate to claim an area, yet in reality not provide OTA reception to that area. That is the case in many markets, where hills or other obstructions prevent OTA reception.

I am not advocating "moving," or any violation of contracts. What I am advocating is that Congress change the law and allow free nationwide distribution of any OTA signal. Locals should be required to be carried in every market as well. It is not a violation of the contract if Congress passes a law allowing this type of distribution. The affiliates will just have to figure the new law into their contract negotiations and market modeling.

If I am in Los Angeles, I can buy a San Francisco Chronicle. I don't have to first ask the LA Times if they will allow me to buy a Chronicle. Even if LA Times has exclusive access in the LA market to a wire service, say Pacific News Service, and if the Chronicle also has exclusive access to Pacific News in SF, I can choose either paper in LA, or SF, or anywhere. We must get over the idea that broadcast TV is different. It's not. It just has a very strong lobby, the NAB, that newspapers lack.

#52 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 40,295 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:43 PM

Yet none of the money paid by subscribers to the local cable company was going to the local channels...

Most of it was used for the infrastructure needed to deliver signals to their customers. Equipment, overhead, etc. Eventually "cable" systems made a profit but their service is providing a common antenna (community antenna).

None of the money paid to Radio Shack or Wiengard or Jampro or any other OTA antenna provider goes to local channels. Perhaps we need to institute some sort of fee for those who buy their OTA reception instead of renting it?


All one needs to do is point to the passage of the SHVIA back in 1999, when DBS satellite numbers went from less than 8 million subscribers without local channels to now more than 30 million in 2010 with local channels.

You're right. Nothing else has changed in the satellite industry. No new channels or services have been added to either satellite provider in the past 11 years that would account for the increase in subscribers. The systems have been stagnant except for the addition of locals.

Locals are an important part of pay TV - a required part of cable systems (thanks meddling Congress!) but not a required part of satellite systems. I'm embarrassed about how much of my satellite TV viewing is OTA signals ... why am I paying for "free TV"? But then the weekend comes and I watch stuff that is not on OTA ... I use my satellite system to better manage my OTA viewing (currently watching The Late Late show from last Wednesday with Thursday and Friday still waiting to be viewed) ... and even though I can receive OTA reception is more stable via satellite. So there is value added.

But I subscribed to the same level of programming before my locals were available. DISH managed to collect $5 more from me and exchange paid for a fiber link from an antenna nearby to their network and a lot of equipment to receive and move that signal around. If it were not profitable they wouldn't do it, but delivering "free TV" via satellite or cable isn't free.

#53 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 40,295 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:05 PM

Why should it be the affiliate who actually holds the distribution rights to the area, if the affiliate is not actually receivable OTA in that area?

Because that is what the contract says. Station KAAA holds the right to air network ACN's programming within their broadcast market. No other station of that network holds that right.

And that right holds even if the local station decides not to air the network programming they hold a right to. (Although at some point the amount of deleted programing will become an issue and any content refused may be offered to another station or secondary affiliate covering the area.) The local station paid for it ... it is theirs.

I am not advocating "moving," or any violation of contracts.

The contract you want violated is between the network and the affiliate and all other affiliates of that network. "Any OTA signal nationwide" is certainly advocating bringing in an affiliate that has absolutely NO RIGHT to deliver their signal to that customer.

If I am in Los Angeles, I can buy a San Francisco Chronicle. I don't have to first ask the LA Times if they will allow me to buy a Chronicle. Even if LA Times has exclusive access in the LA market to a wire service, say Pacific News Service, and if the Chronicle also has exclusive access to Pacific News in SF, I can choose either paper in LA, or SF, or anywhere. We must get over the idea that broadcast TV is different. It's not. It just has a very strong lobby, the NAB, that newspapers lack.

Their affiliation agreement is not the same as the one that network television stations have agreed to. Nor regional sports networks. Nor carbonated beverage distributors.

Obviously something has been worked out with these affiliates that allows the papers to be available in each other's markets. Otherwise the news service would pull their content from the paper violating the contract. It isn't that the newspaper lobby is weak (or non-existent). It is that their agreements allow for the behavior of their affiliates. TV broadcast networks do not have the same affiliation agreements for network programming as newspapers have for wire feeds.

#54 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:42 PM

Because that is what the contract says. Station KAAA holds the right to air network ACN's programming within their broadcast market. No other station of that network holds that right.

And that right holds even if the local station decides not to air the network programming they hold a right to. (Although at some point the amount of deleted programing will become an issue and any content refused may be offered to another station or secondary affiliate covering the area.) The local station paid for it ... it is theirs.

The contract you want violated is between the network and the affiliate and all other affiliates of that network. "Any OTA signal nationwide" is certainly advocating bringing in an affiliate that has absolutely NO RIGHT to deliver their signal to that customer.

Their affiliation agreement is not the same as the one that network television stations have agreed to. Nor regional sports networks. Nor carbonated beverage distributors.

Obviously something has been worked out with these affiliates that allows the papers to be available in each other's markets. Otherwise the news service would pull their content from the paper violating the contract. It isn't that the newspaper lobby is weak (or non-existent). It is that their agreements allow for the behavior of their affiliates. TV broadcast networks do not have the same affiliation agreements for network programming as newspapers have for wire feeds.


I understand that the station as the law and contracts currently stand holds the exclusive right to the content in the market, even if the station chooses not to offer it. However, is that really moral or ethical when the station holds the exclusive right, yet does not make its signal available OTA to any subscriber with a rooftop antenna?

This is where government and private enterprise run into trouble--when they try to engage in one-sided activity that is clearly not fair. Most people will accept the rule of government and the right of private enterprise to engage in free market activity. However, when things are not fair and defy logic, such as having a monopoly on OTA broadcast of a network or syndicated program, and then not even distributing the network or program OTA to all viewers, and not allowing any distant station to be available, people begin to sense that something is not fair, something is not right.

The contract is not violated if Congress passes a law allowing the stations to be distributed nationwide. It is just a factor that the stations must include in their contract negotiations and market modeling.

If there were any law prohibiting distribution of newspapers outside of their market, the federal judges would be lining up to strike it down on First Amendment grounds. Why not with broadcasting? When will some judge have the guts to strike down the distribution restrictions that apply to signals of OTA broadcasters distributed by cable and satellite?

#55 OFFLINE   kevinturcotte

kevinturcotte

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,942 posts
  • LocationOutside Portland, ME
Joined: Dec 19, 2006

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:56 PM

What about people who ONLY have OTA?

#56 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 02:02 PM

Why should it be the affiliate who actually holds the distribution rights to the area, if the affiliate is not actually receivable OTA in that area? I don't believe it is ethically or morally correct for an affiliate to claim an area, yet in reality not provide OTA reception to that area. That is the case in many markets, where hills or other obstructions prevent OTA reception.

In reality, the affiliate has held the distribution rights to the area since the beginning of broadcast TV.

None of the money paid to Radio Shack or Wiengard or Jampro or any other OTA antenna provider goes to local channels. Perhaps we need to institute some sort of fee for those who buy their OTA reception instead of renting it?

The point being made here is that as a person, you have the right to improve upon your reception. You can buy powered antenna or towers to improve the reception of stations in your area and that was always a choice, since the beginning of TV.

The problem is that it changes once you outsource your responsibility to another party. And here is where it gets dicey:

Yet none of the money paid by subscribers to the local cable company was going to the local channels...

Most of it was used for the infrastructure needed to deliver signals to their customers. Equipment, overhead, etc. Eventually "cable" systems made a profit but their service is providing a common antenna (community antenna).

And once the community antenna started providing more stations from other sources, such as satellite-delivered programming, they ceased to be a community antenna. It is no coincidence that "CATV" left the vernacular at about the same time all of these cable networks started to pop-up. It's also no coincidence that these cable networks started to scramble their satellite signals in the mid-1980's; both cablers and the programmers saw people defecting to BUD's which meant that people could receive their locals and basic cable programming for free.

Cable TV profited once they had a 60 channel universe, but it was all predicated on not paying for OTA content.

All I have pretty much been trying to argue is that it is CONTRACTS that make the business run. Some want to hasten the demise of the network/affiliate model, the same model that still provides the most-watched programs to the general public, on the grounds that it is "outdated". Technologically, it may be outdated. Economically, it is far from outdated, as there has been no groundswell from the existing networks to abandon the network/affilate model.

So I argue that since the most-watched programming is available on local channels that they should be entitled to some compensation from rebroadcasters, those same rebroadcasters that need local channels and their exclusive network programming in order to survive.

#57 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 02:27 PM

Let's have this discussion take a different tact...

If there were any law prohibiting distribution of newspapers outside of their market, the federal judges would be lining up to strike it down on First Amendment grounds. Why not with broadcasting? When will some judge have the guts to strike down the distribution restrictions that apply to signals of OTA broadcasters distributed by cable and satellite?

Strike down what law? There is no law restricting the distribution of OTA signals. There is a law that allows for a channel to be rebroadcast in-market on satellite, but there is no law that forbids a channel from being carried outside of its market.

#58 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 40,295 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 02:38 PM

However, is that really moral or ethical when the station holds the exclusive right, yet does not make its signal available OTA to any subscriber with a rooftop antenna?

They are making the attempt required by their contract. Any failure to perform should be handled within the terms of their contract, not by ad hoc decisions made by people who are not parties to the contract.

This is where government and private enterprise run into trouble--when they try to engage in one-sided activity that is clearly not fair.

What is fair about interfering with the private contract between network and affiliate? We're not talking about a life or death issue here ... there is no need for a government taking.

The contract is not violated if Congress passes a law allowing the stations to be distributed nationwide.

NEWS FLASH! No such law is needed. The current law offering statutory carriage are not the only way a network can get their programming carried. If some station in Iowa wants nationwide coverage there is no law that prevents them from working out an agreement outside of the statutory carriage laws. What prevents such an outside agreement with a network station is the station's own affiliation agreements not to deliver the content outside of the market they have paid for.

If there were any law prohibiting distribution of newspapers outside of their market, the federal judges would be lining up to strike it down on First Amendment grounds. Why not with broadcasting?

Because broadcasters themselves wrote those laws, campaigned for those laws and went to court to PREVENT satellite companies from carrying their signals without compensation or permission. The compromise written into the law is that if there is no other way of getting the content a distant can be provided. If there is another way the distant cannot be provided without permission from (guess who) the stations with the rights to that content.

The law you seek to overturn has been upheld by the courts. If a newspaper went to court to prevent someone else from distributing their papers outside of their area they might win. Say an Indianapolis and Fort Wayne newspaper (cities about 100 miles apart) made a non-compete agreement where in order to sell Fort Wayne newspapers the Indianapolis paper would feed them statewide stories via a wire service and not sell their Indianapolis papers in Fort Wayne. It all works out fine until one day when an enterprising paperboy picks up bundles of Indianapolis papers, drives them to Fort Wayne and sells them in gas stations and convenience stores. As his business grows the Fort Wayne newspaper notices and asks the Indianapolis paper to stop providing bundles of newspapers to that carrier. He sues - using your assumed right to sell an Indianapolis newspaper anywhere he desires. When the case reaches court he will stand against BOTH the Indianapolis and Fort Wayne newspapers who want their contract honored. Just like satellite companies stood in court against ALL of the major networks and their affiliate organization. I believe that news carrier would lose.

#59 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 40,295 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 July 2010 - 02:48 PM

And once the community antenna started providing more stations from other sources, such as satellite-delivered programming, they ceased to be a community antenna. It is no coincidence that "CATV" left the vernacular at about the same time all of these cable networks started to pop-up. It's also no coincidence that these cable networks started to scramble their satellite signals in the mid-1980's; both cablers and the programmers saw people defecting to BUD's which meant that people could receive their locals and basic cable programming for free.

Note what they were protecting ... the 'cable' channels. One can still get OTA for free. These companies EXPANDED their service offerings beyond a shared antenna and charged for those expanded offerings. The infrastructure was there from the days of being a simple community antenna. Improvements have been made but those improvements support the provision of more pay TV services (on demand, internet, phone) and really don't help OTA.

The basic monthly cost of delivering locals via cable is no where near the average cable bill. People are paying for things other than locals. And when (as required by Congress) people are given the option to subscribe to "lifeline" service they pay an infrastructure fee - and whatever fee the local broadcasters have managed to get out of the cable system for rebroadcasting their "free" signal. Lifeline services should be a reference for how much it would cost to return to the days of "CATV" with locals and community access only. Consider everything else a separate product and the money earned from that separate product NOT payable to OTA broadcasters.

#60 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 19 July 2010 - 03:59 PM

Let's have this discussion take a different tact...Strike down what law? There is no law restricting the distribution of OTA signals. There is a law that allows for a channel to be rebroadcast in-market on satellite, but there is no law that forbids a channel from being carried outside of its market.


The current STELA law, as well as the previous SHVIA, prohibits the distribution of any OTA signal outside of its market except in very limited circumstances.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...