RETRANS WARS

Broadcasters Keep Upper Hand In Disputes

A recent spate of TV blackouts and the lack of government intervention suggests that broadcasters have the upper hand over TV signal providers when it comes to negotiating fees, at least until Congress decides to act.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A recent spate of TV blackouts and the lack of government intervention suggests that broadcasters have the upper hand over TV signal providers when it comes to negotiating fees, at least until Congress decides to act.

New York-area cable TV operator Cablevision Systems Corp. tested the limits of government intervention in October, calling early and often for the Federal Communications Commission to step in and force News Corp.’s Fox to keep providing its broadcast signal while it pressed for arbitration in a fee dispute.

Fox declined and the FCC did little more than suggest mediation if both parties were willing to participate. When the two sides couldn’t reach a deal, Fox blacked out its signals to 3 million Cablevision subscribers for 15 days, through two games of baseball’s World Series. On Saturday, Cablevision finally accepted terms it said were “unfair” for the sake of its customers.

Ultimately, the FCC said that its hands were tied.

“Under the present system, the FCC has very few tools with which to protect consumers’ interests,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a letter to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in a letter Kerry’s office released Friday. “Current law does not give the agency the tools necessary to prevent service disruptions.”

Some analysts said Cablevision’s move was mainly intended to draw the government out. Its battle had the support of other cable and satellite TV signal operators through such groups as the American Television Alliance, which counts Dish Network Corp. and DirecTV Inc. among its members.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

Fox said in a statement Sunday that “this entire dispute was solely about Cablevision’s misguided efforts to effect regulatory change to their benefit.” Cablevision did not respond to a request for comment.

But the distributors are also competing with one another, rather than presenting a united front.

Dish Network announced Friday that it had settled its dispute with Fox, two days before Fox broadcast signals could have been blacked out to some of its 14.3 million subscribers. That would have made its service more attractive to Cablevision customers still stuck without Fox, and hurt Cablevision’s position as the lone holdout.

It gave in just one day later.

Battles between TV signal providers and broadcasters have been raging for years and the latest dispute wasn’t the longest.

In 2005, about 75,000 Cable One Inc. subscribers in Missouri, Louisiana and Texas went without signals from local NBC and ABC affiliate stations owned by Nexstar Broadcasting Group Inc. for almost the entire year.

In March, Cablevision also attempted a high-profile negotiating strategy and its customers lost their ABC station in New York in the hours leading up to the Oscars. Viewers missed the first 15 minutes of the awards show before Cablevision and The Walt Disney Co. reached a tentative deal.

The law at the center of the debates is the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

It allows broadcasters like Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC to choose between forcing a TV signal distributor like Cablevision to carry its local TV station, thus boosting its audience, or bargaining for the best rate it can for so-called “retransmission consent.”

Because broadcasters bought the rights to such high-demand programming like football, baseball and the Oscars, they have chosen to bargain and have recently been pressing for higher fees.

The law heavily favors broadcasters in such negotiations because they have the ability to black out signals and subscribers are hard to win back if they switch TV signal providers.

David Bank, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets, said it was in the best interests of the FCC to keep the balance tipped in broadcasters’ favor. The FCC regulates the airwaves and it has authority over what broadcasters can send out over them. There are rules over obscenity and local content that don’t apply to pay cable channels, which escape the FCC’s grasp.

“That’s what the FCC really cares about: minority voices on air, localism, childhood early education initiatives, obscenity,” Bank said. If the balance of power were shifted to distributors, media giants could pull back from the broadcast model and move to an all-cable channel lineup. TV stations might disappear and the FCC would “lose the ability to regulate all that,” Bank said.

The American Cable Association, a grouping of smaller cable operators representing 7.6 million subscribers, argued Sunday that the fight to change an 18-year-old law wasn’t over and it said it remains within the FCC’s powers to adopt regulations to prevent signal blackouts now. “Despite these deals being done, retransmission consent needs to change,” its president Matthew Polka, said Sunday.

Both Genachowski and Sen. Kerry called for reforms of the current system. Genachowski, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said in his letter that “the current system relegates television viewers to pawns between companies battling over retransmission fees.” Sen. Kerry called the existing regime “broken.”

“Media interests have every right to play hardball,” Sen. Kerry said in a statement Sunday. “But I believe it’s incumbent upon those of us in public policy to see if there’s a way to help protect consumers and avoid the now regularly scheduled, frequent games of high-stakes chicken that leave consumers in the crossfire.”


Comments (7)

Leave a Reply

Jill Hatzioannou says:

November 1, 2010 at 9:07 am

While there MAY be some validity in the desire to protect consumers from being ‘caught in the crossfire’, there are much better ways to realize that than by interceding in the negotiations between business entities. It would be much better to insure that the consumer has a wider range of choices available and greater ability to change providers if one fails to deliver the expected service.

Matthew Castonguay says:

November 1, 2010 at 9:09 am

A few comments:
What is the basis of what appears to be an assumption by some that getting a TV channel via cable is a consumer “right” that needs to be protected…by the Federal government?! Do they essentially adhere to the viewpoint of the California congressman who recently opined that “there are NO theoretical limits to what the federal government can do?”
Obviously, taking away the right to withhold a signal absent an agreement would take away about 95% of the broadcaster’s leverage… so while it sounds innocuous to the casual observer, it’s actually a potential complete game-changer.
To the idea that FCC should not act to tip the power away from broadcasters because that’s where they can regulate “things they care about” like minority voices, obscenity, etc., and if everything migrated to cable they’d lose that power: See first comment above. The mentality of the people in power today (increasingly, both parties, btw), would, I think, feel pretty confident in their ultimate ability to assert power over cable and any other means of distribution… and ultimately, the content itself.
Moreover, getting broadcasters off the air is the not-so-secret agenda of the FCC, so we don’t really have to speculate on these issues.

Janet Frankston Lorin says:

November 1, 2010 at 9:34 am

The system worked. Senator Kerry should not screw it up.

alicia farmer says:

November 1, 2010 at 10:53 am

Yes system worked great. – except for one little problem – higher subscriber fees. Both sides are oblivious to the reality of a terrible recession and stressed out consumers. Pigs eventually get slaughtered.

    Manuel Morales says:

    November 1, 2010 at 11:15 am

    TV stations need this money going forward. The FCC likes to mention local news, sports, weather, etc. Guess what? That costs a lot of money. Where does that money come from? A fractioned advertising base and retrasmission fees.

Gene Johnson says:

November 1, 2010 at 11:07 am

If providers want to avoid raising subscriber fees (while maintaining their profit margins, of course), they could reduce the number of little watched channels that they pay for, using those funds to pay for the more popular and more expensive channels. Isn’t that the way the “free market” is supposed to work? Of course, that could reduce the diversity of channels available, or perhaps eliminate a few vertically integrated channels in which the cable operators have a financial interest. The current pay TV model of service tiers, in which subscribers get and pay for lots of stuff they don’t want along with what they do, also is, arguably, not consumer friendly or in the best interests of consumers. But, one also has to remember that consumers actually are the products that broadcasters and pay TV service operators provide to their customers. That is, broadcasters deliver eyeballs to their advertisers. Pay TV service operators similarly provide eyeballs to advertiser supported networks in addition to subscriber fees. Simply stated, the business model is not designed to benefit the individual subscriber, but rather the service and program providers.

Kate Vossen says:

November 1, 2010 at 4:26 pm

The free market is just what the gov seems to ignore time and again. Cable channels can charge all they want and illegally force cable operators to buy networks they may not want for prices they do not want to pay if they want the must have networks.

Retrans truly allows the owner of the content to charge its worth based upon viewing not a bundled contract. course bundles work for the programmers and cable operators and against the consumer.

where is Kerry on helping the consumer by eliminating the bundle sale? he is no where for he does not even come close to understanding the entire problem. I spoke to his staff person who has no clue! ho do these guys get elected? it is no wonder the cable rates are so high and unfair.

Do something about giving the choice to the user – consumer. they will appreciate this solution.