Import Distant Networks?

[Tampa8]

http://www.commlawcenter.com/2015/08/fcc-chairman-signals-mixed-bag-changes-media-rules.html

Discuss among yourselves...

"the Chairman is proposing to his fellow Commissioners that the FCC adopt an order eliminating what he termed "outdated exclusivity rules"–the FCC's network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. These "non-dup" and "syndex" rules, as they are more commonly known, essentially provide a process by which TV broadcasters can efficiently implement the geographic exclusivity they negotiated in their programming agreements without the need for expensive court actions. The purpose of these rules is to prevent multi-channel video program distributors (MVPDs) from violating that exclusivity by importing the exclusive programming from out-of-market TV stations.

These rules are of particular importance during retransmission negotiations, since without such rules, MVPDs could import, for example, a distant affiliate of the same network (one which obviously did a poor job of negotiating its own retransmission agreement) to violate the local station's exclusivity. With the rule change proposed by the Chairman, the local station could no longer quickly and efficiently resolve the problem by filing a complaint at the FCC. Instead, it would need to initiate a long and costly court battle that would inevitably pull in (1) the distant affiliate, and (2) the network whose contract the distant affiliate breached by entering into a retransmission agreement exceeding that affiliate's geographic right to the network's programming."

 

[Deadlocked]

They can easily monetize this too. Want to change your locals? $2 extra. Want two DMAs? $5 extra (or whatever).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bobby]

They can easily monetize this too. Want to change your locals? $2 extra. Want two DMAs? $5 extra (or whatever).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In the old days, I had my San Francisco locals for $5 a month. I also had the Los Angeles and New York locals for $5 each. I'd like that but it is less necessary with multiple tuner DVRs today...

 

[MikeD-C05]

In the old days, I had my San Francisco locals for $5 a month. I also had the Los Angeles and New York locals for $5 each. I'd like that but it is less necessary with multiple tuner DVRs today...

That was the only reason I had New York and L.A. distant networks back in 99. Because the webtv/dishplayer 7100 model could only record like one network at a time. So we recorded one network on east coast and one on west coast and we would watch live on our ota atenna for the other network. With the hopper I can record all 4 networks + Cw on the ota tuner at the same time. There really is no reason to have west coast networks now.

 

[Deadlocked]

It's not even for west coast feeds, I just want Raleigh and Greenville DMAs both on sat.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[n0qcu]

The real reason to have out of area networks is to have a source of network programming when your local decides to pre-emt the network to show the local high school/collage "name the sport" game.

 

[rvvaquero]

The real reason to have out of area networks is to have a source of network programming when your local decides to pre-emt the network to show the local high school/collage "name the sport" game.

Or, to be able to watch your favorite sports team which has been blacked out in your primary area.

 

[dishrich]

Or if your locals do NOT even put out an HD signal OTA, &/or even offered on satellite. Or if the picture quality of your locals sucks.

 

[rvvaquero]

Of course, the limitation of all this is that 99% of locals are on spot beam so you wouldn't be able to choose just any set of locals to buy as a secondary.

For example, I am an RV'er and travel the country. I have no problem changing my service address and getting locals for where I am. However, I'd love to be able to get the locals from my home town and enjoy them wherever I travel. But, they are on spot beams so I couldn't get them anyway. Right now, my only choices for getting a second set of locals would be New York or Los Angeles, neither of which holds any interest for me.

I doubt that Dish will be inclined to find and use the space to put all locals on CONUS even if the law allowed.

 

[RONZ]

I think this will help eliminate channels being blanked due to disputes

 

[DishSubLA]

Well, these are pro-MVPD ideas (coincidentally better for the consumer) and considering Mr. Wheeler represented the Cable TV industry in his previous private sector life, this is no surprise. And I thought the Chief Executive who placed him at the FCC wanted a "hands off" FCC? I guess not when it comes to anything favoring Wheeler's old buddies.

 

[ChadT41]

I am not a fan of Tom Wheeler after his approach on the ATT/DTV situation. Also, some of the things he has done with the internet deals.... It appears as though he has an agenda that is behind the purview of his actual government job. I would rather see more regulations thrown out entirely, and then let business operate appropriately in a more free market.

 

[sam_gordon]

Another problem with this is the "market exclusivity" locals have with their syndicated shows. Let's say Jeopardy is on your local ABC. Dish has a fight with the NBC and imports a distant NBC that also airs Jeopardy. That's going to violate the exclusivity contract between the ABC and Jeopardy. There are also similar contracts on some commercials and voice talent. So you need a solution to that.

Also, what keeps the MVPD "negotiating in good faith" if they can replace the product of a local?

I still think the easy solution is to use the ratings numbers and have it as a "cost/point". It could be adjusted quarterly, yearly, multi-yearly, etc. You find a 3rd party arbitrator to determine the cost/point. A local that does well in the ratings would get more money than one that doesn't, which is how it should be.

 

[harshness]

It's not even for west coast feeds, I just want Raleigh and Greenville DMAs both on sat.

Making most markets available to everyone would swamp the available CONUS bandwidth.

It would also give DISH, with their larger Ku spot beam footprints, a major competitive advantage over DIRECTV with their relatively petite Ka spots.

 

[ChadT41]

Another problem with this is the "market exclusivity" locals have with their syndicated shows. Let's say Jeopardy is on your local ABC. Dish has a fight with the NBC and imports a distant NBC that also airs Jeopardy. That's going to violate the exclusivity contract between the ABC and Jeopardy. There are also similar contracts on some commercials and voice talent. So you need a solution to that.

Also, what keeps the MVPD "negotiating in good faith" if they can replace the product of a local?

I still think the easy solution is to use the ratings numbers and have it as a "cost/point". It could be adjusted quarterly, yearly, multi-yearly, etc. You find a 3rd party arbitrator to determine the cost/point. A local that does well in the ratings would get more money than one that doesn't, which is how it should be.

I don't think much people care. What would keep the MVPD from bringing in another station to stick it to the other... Easy, the station asking for to much money and extortion game being over. Prices have skyrocketed so high now, and they have been abusing this, so why not let the MvPDs do the same? Hundreds of networks out there, screw them if they do not want to offer a fair and competitive price. That is how business should work.

 

[harshness]

This isn't about the citizenry. This is about the relationship between the networks and their franchisees. Franchises are designed to protect those that undertake them and if they no longer have their guaranteed exclusivity, they'll go somewhere they can get it.

That the FCC is considering a complete reversal of policy is not going to sit well with the NAB and we all know who wins those battles.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't think much people care. What would keep the MVPD from bringing in another station to stick it to the other... Easy, the station asking for to much money and extortion game being over. Prices have skyrocketed so high now, and they have been abusing this, so why not let the MvPDs do the same? Hundreds of networks out there, screw them if they do not want to offer a fair and competitive price. That is how business should work.

Yea, prices have skyrocketed because of the locals. OK.

 

[ChadT41]

Prices have skyrocketed because of all the channels doubling their rates year after year and customers jumping ship because of high prices and lost channels. This settles both issues on the local side. Now if only there was an option for the other channels b

 

[sam_gordon]

Prices have skyrocketed because of all the channels doubling their rates year after year and customers jumping ship because of high prices and lost channels. This settles both issues on the local side. Now if only there was an option for the other channels b

I wonder if there are charts anywhere (maybe someone here kept some) showing what the channels owners used to charge vs. what they're charging now. It would be interesting to see the year of year increases for the channels vs. the year over year increases viewers are paying to MVPDs.

 

[Tampa8]

You know you can't compare Cable/Online only channels to the Networks. The Networks, who are supposed to be giving us the programming for no charge...