On this morning’s news, my local ABC affiliate (owned by Hearst Television) announced that negotiations between Hearst and cable-provider DIRECTV (hereinafter DTV) have broken down. DTV is no longer carrying Hearst stations. The newscaster announced that patrons who want to watch Local-ABC may watch for free if they receive the station over the air.
As I understand the Must-Carry rule, cable providers (CP) must carry local stations at no charge if so-requested by a local station. However, the Must-Carry allows the local station to charge a fee to local stations. This one-sided rule must be quite a revenue source for network affiliates.
One person has posted that Hearst wants a 300% fee increase. Does anyone know whether that is true. Even if it’s only a 5% increase, it sounds like a testicle-squeezing tactic. The web site for the local TV station gives the phone number of DTV for one to complain, but fails to list its own customer-service phone number if one wants to complain.
In my lifetime, prime-time network advertising has gone from 6 minutes per hour in the 1950s to 10 minutes in the 1970s to 20 minutes today. Aren’t they getting too greedy to want cable fees as well.
I don’t know how ABC would feel, or whether they side with Hearst on this issue, but could the DTV take the ABC feed from a different ABC affiliate, or from ABC itself? Then the DTV customers could still watch Grey’s Anatomy and The Goldbergs.
Subscription television is slowly dying, largely due to a series of tubes. This is just them trying to stay alive, trying to generate muc( needed revenue.
Disputes between cable/satellite companies and TV networks (or companies which own a number of OTA affiliates) have been pretty frequent over the past few years, and, yeah, it is always about money.
Sometimes they get resolved just before the stations get pulled off the air, but sometimes they linger for days or even weeks. They are a PITA, and the viewers get caught in the middle.
Alas, it’s the nature of that business these days.
In the relationship between local TV stations and cable providers,* everything* is negotiable. Examples:
One of my local stations tried to demand the cable company pay extra for the HDTV feed instead of a standard definition signal.
Some of my local stations continually try to get their X.2, X.3, X.4 subchannels included as a package deal.
The cable companies squeeze the local channels on where exactly the channel will go - Channel 6 might find themselves on cable channel 738 while the other local stations are right next to each other at channels 1-20.
Depends on how much Hearst is getting right now. If DTV is only paying a penny per subscriber, it’s not a big deal. If they’re paying 20 cents, it is.
Traditionally the broadcast networks have given their local affiliates territorial exclusivity. If ABC wants to have an affiliate in Anytown, that affiliate also exclusively carries ABC on the Anytown cable system. There are exceptions in a few areas, but I don’t know the background to them.
The local stations are getting squeezed by the networks, as well. For nearly 100 years in the U.S., the broadcast model was that the networks compensated the local stations - in exchange for the local station giving the network airtime, the network actually paid the station. The networks are trying to squeeze the local stations on compensation, or even go to “reverse compensation.” Fox has been the most aggressive about this, and has severed its ties with some local stations over it.
I’m stuck with digital.OTA TV and it’s astounding how limited the choices are. Apparently they must carry multiple channels with cowboy shows, three with the same METV show, and so on, with a focus on programming aimed at the elderly.
The way I understand it, the station can either demand that the cable company carry the station, or charge a fee - not both. Otherwise, what stops the station from demanding an outrageous fee with the threat of going to the FCC and demanding that the station lose its license if it does not pay?
It’s not clear if “must carry” applies to satellite TV.
However, a network station does have the right to demand that a cable company within a certain distance (55 miles, I think) not broadcast any of its network’s shows on another station, even if the primary station is not carried by the cable system.
You can’t force me. Anyway, my eyes and ears are bad. I’ll take any cerebral implants you’ve got. But I’ll likely only watch pr0n, and not the Fox type. Verbal turnoffs, yow!
I was once a broadcast engineer. I have a fair idea of what I’m missing. It ain’t much.
We lost our local CBS station for about 2 months in the ATT/Nexstar dispute. I think the deck is stacked too much in favor of the broadcaster. I think it would be better if the cable company got to carry the local station for free. The local station gets an extended reach for its advertisers, why should they get paid for what they put out free over the air? Why should I pay extra for the privilege of getting the station over cable when I could get it free over the air?
Yeah, that’s my position too. There should be may-carry rights alongside must-carry. The station should be able to insist on carriage for free, and the cable/satellite company should be allowed to put up an antenna and retransmit any TV signal within its legally designated market, acting as an agent of their customers who have a right to view the channel for free. If either side wants more than that, they can negotiate for it (for instance, the cable company might prefer to pay for a more reliable signal, or might want to buy some ad slots off of the station to use for its own clients).
The terrible-but-correct Aereo ruling a few years ago was, sadly, not a catalyst for any reforms, so I doubt this will ever happen.
You have to open the thread and wade into the first post before working out what this conversation is even about, it’s not a helpful thread title. It does seem like clickbait about some weird interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or something. So I think RioRico’s reaction was not unreasonable.
I have the U-verse “everything package”, and that’s all the TV I’m going to buy. All these streaming packages are worthless to me because people usually buy them because they are particularly fond of ONE show, like “Picard”. I have a Netflix subscription and under use the crap out of it.
Wait, isn’t DIRECTV a satellite provider? I was under the impression that must-carry applied only to the surface Cable-TV providers who served defined territories.
The network distribution system is terribly archaic and the dissent had the right of it in the Aereo decision. It set back innovation for years if not decades. If I can do the same thing that Aereo did with my own equipment, then why can’t I pay Aereo to do it with theirs? Most people do not need a cable provider anymore, but we are forced because of rules that were written prior to the internet. Aereo found a legitimate way around those rules and should have been encouraged for their foresight.