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
- - - - -

Rethinking Retrans

l545

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Nick

Nick

    Keep going - don't give up!

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,220 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Coastal Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:53 PM

From SkyReport's SkyLog

Lots of folks are signing up against the current retransmission consent regime. Late last week, two New York Congressmen, Steve Israel (D-NY) and Peter King (R-NY) made a pitch for a rethinking of retrans. Say they in a letter to fellow members of Congress, "The real losers under the existing retransmission consent system are television viewers, who either lose access to broadcast programming or must bear the increased costs of such programming the the former of higher cable and satellite rates." They want their fellow politicos to sign a letter urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to "quickly issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" on the matter. --- For that matter, the Big Apple itself doesn't think much of retransmission consent. One resolution before the NYC Council states: “Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York calls upon the United States Congress to repeal the retransmission consent option of the Cable Act of 1992 for television broadcast stations.”


.


~ 12 Year Anniversary Month ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 972 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: Oct 02, 2004

Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:59 AM

They lost access to programming when they first bought Cable or satellite (which does not carry all the local channels), and they increased their costs when they chose to go with pay tv services, rather than free, OTA TV.

Someone should introduce most Congressmen to the concept of an "antenna".:D

#3 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,371 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:36 AM

They want their fellow politicos to sign a letter urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to "quickly issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" on the matter.

Retrans consent is a law ... if the reps want to change a law they need to write and pass a bill. Perhaps Mr Israel and Mr King missed that episode of Schoolhouse Rock?

#4 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 05 August 2010 - 07:11 AM

It floors me.

Companies are expected to produce better-than-inflation revenue and profit numbers for their shareholders. So when media companies such as the channel providers and the multichannel distributors raise their rates, it is a "travesty". :rolleyes:

We've been down this philosophical discussion before. The network affiliates aren't asking for much (as of yet), and there are plenty of other channels that are receiving much more money than these terrestrial broadcasters, yet the proverbial shotgun is now pointed directly at the affiliates and the retransmission agreements as being "the problem". This is not a problem the terrestrial broadcasters created.

I'm fairly certain that if "retransmission consent" is gutted that the rates of your local cable company won't decline.

#5 OFFLINE   Terry K

Terry K

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 231 posts
Joined: Sep 13, 2006

Posted 18 September 2010 - 11:56 PM

Nexstar. Need I say more? They provide substandard programming (they refuse to do HD since they think SD is good enough outside of the network stuff) and they extort cash from cable operators. Enough already. Put these jokers out of business and let the free market teach them they have to compete for viewers and not use a monopoly position.

#6 OFFLINE   BenJF3

BenJF3

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 308 posts
Joined: Sep 12, 2008

Posted 19 September 2010 - 12:42 AM

Ala Carte = Problem Solved (or at the very least Tier based offerings)
BAN the FCC!

#7 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,371 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:09 AM

Ala Carte = Problem Solved (or at the very least Tier based offerings)

A la carte is breaking packages into smaller packages or individual channels, not allowing customers access to local affiliates with no payment or limited payment to said affiliates.

A la carte within locals (where one could theoretically choose to buy their local ABC and not their local FOX) just reinforces the idea that stations can charge cable/satellite customers for receiving their free OTA feeds. We need to break that concept - not reinforce it.

Required carriage of all local channels on an equal basis with either no payment or a statutory license similar to the distants license is the solution to the retransmission consent problem of stations overcharging and refusing carriage of their feeds.

#8 OFFLINE   BenJF3

BenJF3

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 308 posts
Joined: Sep 12, 2008

Posted 19 September 2010 - 03:26 AM

A la carte is breaking packages into smaller packages or individual channels, not allowing customers access to local affiliates with no payment or limited payment to said affiliates.

A la carte within locals (where one could theoretically choose to buy their local ABC and not their local FOX) just reinforces the idea that stations can charge cable/satellite customers for receiving their free OTA feeds. We need to break that concept - not reinforce it.

Required carriage of all local channels on an equal basis with either no payment or a statutory license similar to the distants license is the solution to the retransmission consent problem of stations overcharging and refusing carriage of their feeds.


Your talking about locals only, I'm talking about carriage in general. My stance on locals is they should be freely available to all MSO's as they are freely available OTA. No compensation required other than number of subs which would indicate penetration and thus allow for ratings to derive advertising rates. Programmers got too entrenched and sports costs got completely out of control under the current system (probably so much so that there is no going back). However, free market would dictate what channels survive and which fail. It would be nice to this the heard and consolidate programming.
BAN the FCC!

#9 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 972 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: Oct 02, 2004

Posted 28 September 2010 - 07:01 AM

As long as the Cable networks are willing to provide their programming for free to any local station that wants to carry it, I'm sure most broadcasters would be happy to reciprocate, and allow Cable systems to profit from re-broadcasting their programming.




spam firewall