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
- - - - -

Radical TV regulation reform proposed in Congress


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,372 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 19 December 2011 - 02:21 PM

From Deadline New York (and a multitude of other sources):

Is congress prepared to deregulate television? Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) apparently think so based on the cable- and satellite-friendly bill they submitted today called the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act. It would end retransmission consent — the rules that require pay TV providers to negotiate deals with local broadcasters to carry their programming. It doesn’t stop there: The proposal also would end restrictions that enable syndicators to sell shows exclusively into different markets. And it would scrap rules that bar cable companies from importing network programming from out-of-market stations when they can’t strike deals with local broadcasters. DeMint used the trendy magic words — “job creation” — to support the bill. To promote innovation, he says, “we need to stop issuing new regulations and instead remove and modernize rules written to address the last century’s business and regulatory models.” DirecTV agrees, saying that the proposal would “eliminate byzantine regulations that shackle innovation, competition and consumer choice.”

But when it comes to wielding political clout, the bill’s supporters probably are no match for the National Association of Broadcasters which says it “respectfully” opposes the legislation. “Current law ensures access to quality local news, entertainment, sports and life-saving weather warnings. The proposed changes to the Communications Act strike at the core of free market negotiations and broadcast localism, thereby threatening a community-based information and entertainment medium that serves tens of millions of Americans each day.”

Variety comments:

Good luck with that.

Given the howls protest that can come from just a proposed change in wording in any one of the current regulations, the legislation is unlikely to get very far. But DeMint and Scalise get to burnish their brands as deregulatory crusaders.

And from Broadcasting & Cable:

The American Television Alliance, which has been pushing for major retrans reform, called it a constructive step foward.

"[ATVA] commends Rep. Steve Scalise and Senator Jim DeMint for introducing companion bills to reform the rules and regulations that govern the television marketplace. The past few decades have brought tremendous changes to how consumers view broadcast programming, how it is marketed and how it is delivered, yet the rules governing the industry have stayed the same for nearly twenty years. This legislation represents a constructive step forward and ATVA looks forward to working with the sponsors of the legislation and other Members of Congress to make the necessary changes to modernize these rules and protect consumers."

ATVA members include AT&T, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, DISH, and DirecTV.

So the lobbyists are divided based on their economic interests (big surprise).

The public would benefit from a fair discussion of the proposal. But this is the United States where the public rarely know what's going on with anything that really affects them.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


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

#2 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

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

Posted 20 December 2011 - 09:42 AM

I just wish they would outlaw ALL laws, and let everybody do whatever we want. Don't just pick on the broadcasters.:D

#3 OFFLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,547 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 20 December 2011 - 09:50 AM

As long as they ban retrans fees and severely limit the NAB, I'm all for it.
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

#4 OFFLINE   Ira Lacher

Ira Lacher

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 823 posts
Joined: Apr 24, 2002

Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:17 AM

Current laws simply perpetuate forced mediocrity on local viewers, who are free to purchase anything anywhere but cannot choose a better newscast, or view network programming a local affiliate has opted to preempt.
-- Ira

================================================
"There are no solutions to complex problems" -- Stan Littman, longtime social studies teacher at The Bronx High School of Science

#5 OFFLINE   wxguy

wxguy

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 88 posts
Joined: Feb 17, 2008

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:39 AM

This bill would move along what is inevitable. Satellite communications have outstripped the need for a land based system to distribute programming. Between sat dishes, cable and telco systems delivering tv programs almost nobody needs to get their "free" programming from an antenna.

News and weather? Internet is quickly replacing newspapers and broadcast outlets as the preferred source for information. After all, how much actual news do you get from a television station? Mostly I see stories that were already distributed through the paper or internet, and then they use the rest of the news block to repeat stories that are already on the national news feeds. Weather? Noaa weather radio, smartphones and internet can deliver the same info. Plus do we really need a half dozen "meteorologists" hyping the various storms. If just one did a decent job, that would be enough.

Sportscasts are probably the only original stuff done by a broadcast tv station and most of it is hype. Eventually we will wind up with one or two stations that deliver info in any market, so why prop up all these other outfits through inefficient distribution methods.

Imagine the reduction in greenhouse gasses if we weren't using all that coal to pump out high powered broadcasts? If you want to watch a certain station, it should be that they are providing the best service to the community, not because current law prevents you from seeing it. Right now the laws prevent competition rather than encourage it.

#6 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

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

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:48 AM

As a broadcaster, I have no clue what the NAB does anyway...other than put on a convention every year. From the comments here, I know they don't promote broadcasting to the general public.

#7 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

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

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:51 AM

This bill would move along what is inevitable. Satellite communications have outstripped the need for a land based system to distribute programming. Between sat dishes, cable and telco systems delivering tv programs almost nobody needs to get their "free" programming from an antenna......


Funny, but when I proposed that the land-based distribution system could be replaced with satellite distribution of all local broadcasting (freeing up ALL the UHF spectrum for broadband), I was told I was "an idiot" and asked if I had "any clue how broadcasting or satellite even worked".:rolleyes:

#8 OFFLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,547 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:21 PM

This bill would move along what is inevitable. Satellite communications have outstripped the need for a land based system to distribute programming. Between sat dishes, cable and telco systems delivering tv programs almost nobody needs to get their "free" programming from an antenna.


Are you going to pay the $50/mo for people who can barely put food on their own tables to replace what they now get for free?

I thought the trend was going the other way -- people dropping pay-TV in favor of OTA?
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

#9 OFFLINE   Ira Lacher

Ira Lacher

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 823 posts
Joined: Apr 24, 2002

Posted 20 December 2011 - 03:29 PM

If broadcasters could have figured out a way to charge people for watching TV when the technology first came out, you know they would have.
-- Ira

================================================
"There are no solutions to complex problems" -- Stan Littman, longtime social studies teacher at The Bronx High School of Science

#10 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

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

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:23 PM

SOMEBODY has to pay for the work it takes to do TV.

Back then, there were fewer advertising venues, and there were enough eyeballs watching any particular station, that they could make their money off commercials.

Now, with the idea that everything can be advertising, and anyone can provide TV, the ad dollars are not enough. The answer seems to be, just cut quality, cut content, and try to survive on an ever-decreasing share of the available ad money.

#11 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 23 December 2011 - 05:04 PM

Side channels can provide useful alternative content. They are granted market exclusivity, just like primary channels. Some stations in small markets have taken on a second network on a side channel. However, generally when the station does this the market does not benefit in the same way as if a new station, with a different news department, had entered the market. The news on the side channel is generally a simulcast of the primary channel. This does nothing to expand local coverage, something the NAB says that it wants to encourage.

Take a look at KSBW is Salinas. It is a long-time NBC affiliate, providing NBC programming and local news coverage in that market. To its credit, it has done a good job with local news coverage and with providing NBC programming.

The ABC programming in that market has been provided for years primarily by KGO, the San Francisco ABC affiliate in the next market to the north. KGO also covered some events in Salinas, and provided excellent news coverage from Sacramento, the state capitol.

Now that the KSBW side channel is broadcasting ABC programming, KGO is gone from the market, along with its news. In its place KSBW is just simulcasting its news from the NBC channel on the ABC side channel.

I believe that this new affiliation with ABC on the side channel is a net loss for the Salinas market. A new ABC station coming into the market, if the market could sustain it, would have been ok. This side channel, however, is worthless.




spam firewall