FCC figures show that between 2013 and 2014, the fees cable operators paid to broadcasters increased from 75 cents per sub per month to $1.07.
Cable Retrans Payments To Stations Up 43%
TV stations have seen a 43% annual increase in their average monthly retrans fees per cable sub per month according to the FCC’s latest basic cable rate report that is for 2014.
That fee rose from 75 cents in 2013 to $1.07 in 2014.
The study broke down retrans compensation in four other categories:
- Aggregate average retrans compensation fees paid per year per cable system: +63.2%, from $7.8 million in 2013 to $12.7 million in 2014
- Aggregate average total per year per cable sub: +50%, from $24.06 to $36.10
- Average number of subs per cable system that were subject to retrans consent compensation: -1.7%, from 449,888 to 442,152
- Average number of TV stations per cable system carried pursuant to retrans consent fees: +1.2%, from 4.475 to 4.530
The FCC survey also examined cable programming services, cable programming channels and customer premises equipment. The full document is available here.
Comments (8)
Don Thompson says:
October 12, 2016 at 6:13 pm
In fairness, these FCC numbers don’t account for … “Sinclair fined $9.5M by FCC for violating good-faith retrans bargaining obligations.” Please Follow Me On Twitter: @TedatACA
Veronica Serrano Padilla says:
October 12, 2016 at 10:53 pm
Time for cable to: A) get broadcast moved to its own optional tier, B) develop a box which will receive OTA broadcasts via a subscriber’s antenna alongside other cable programming, so that C) the problem can be solved (but then broadcasters would have to be broadcasters instead of glorified cable casters).
Wagner Pereira says:
October 13, 2016 at 4:26 am
shows what you, a glorified part time analog local cable caster knows. If people can receive the programming they watch 35% of the time for free, no reason to keep cable in the first place. Also, lots of luck getting OTA to optional while Politicians get their discount on Political Advertising. That would only shoot themselves in their wallet.
Veronica Serrano Padilla says:
October 13, 2016 at 1:12 pm
Uh…. that still leaves the other 65% of their viewing time on cable channels… (shouldn’t a broadcast-wannabe beancounter know that???) Apparently you think no one watches ESPN, Disney, CNN, TBS, Fox News, etc… Here’s a hint: yes they do and, yeah, they still need and want cable. It’s a strange argument you have anyways… if OTA is free, why would people pay just to get broadcast on cable and watch nothing else?? Not a well thought out statement… Oh, but I will give you kudos: the last sentence was right on – politicians value themselves far more than their constituents.
Wagner Pereira says:
October 13, 2016 at 4:48 pm
Wow. You can count! Take away 35% of the content and the price doesn’t go down 35%, guess what get dropped? They can get the other channels from other sources than cable for far less! Clearly you are also clueless to the studies the major MVPDs have done on just this scenario. That’s not a surprise.
Veronica Serrano Padilla says:
October 13, 2016 at 6:46 pm
Why, yes, I can count. But you’re making wrong assumptions again. If broadcast channels were broken into a separate tier then that tier would have a cost associated with it. If a subscriber used their own antenna to get OTA for free and didn’t want the broadcast package, they’d drop it – and thus reducing their monthly cable bill by that tier amount. And of course their bill wouldn’t drop 35% – even a silly broadcast wannabe beancounter like you should know that a customer’s TV bill is not based on viewership percentages (otherwise, ESPN wouldn’t get the dollars it receives). As for your other comments… bunk…
Wagner Pereira says:
October 14, 2016 at 3:25 am
Again, you prove yourself clueless. Clearly you are unaware of the different scenarios the MVOD have done research on. When you have 35% of a consumers viewing concentrated on less OTA channels than you have fingers…and the other 65% spread over 10-15 others, when that 35% is taken away and the bill not reduced 35%…..or worse yet, optional for $5 or $10 and again, the other bill not going down 35% – 50%, people will cancel cable. They can get CBS for $5. The other nets wouldn’t be far behind. Comical your position will be the death if your own Cable Channel, ROFLMAO. What an idiot!
Veronica Serrano Padilla says:
October 14, 2016 at 7:15 am
Let’s do some simple math here (and I’ll type slowly so you can follow)… an average broadcast station is getting well over a dollar per month per sub. Let’s just use $1 so you’re not confused. An average DMA probably has, say, 10 stations. That’s $10 a month a cable subscriber is paying for broadcast TV. Perhaps that’s even a low estimate, but let’s go with it. If the average consumer could put up a fairly cheap antenna and immediately remove $10 per month from their cable bill you can bet that a significant number of those consumers would be interested. They would simply see such a move as a continuance of what they already have yet at a LOWER price. And cable companies would have an easy advertising campaign to push subscribers towards saving money – hey, why pay for something you can get for free… As for buying CBS for $5??? What a dimwitted argument. What would one have to pay to get ALL broadcast affiliates online if they were priced that way… let’s see, 10 channels at $5 a pop… wow, that’s a dumb idea, you’re paying more than most basic cable packages for only 10 channels and YOU STILL have to pay for broadband!! (Not to mention they’re not all available OTT) And by the way, nothing comical about my position nor death to my channel… OTA is IMPOSSIBLE for 99% of subscribers here. While none of my suggestions are applicable in this particular area, they certainly are in metro areas.