WASHINGTON, June 8, 2010 - Retransmission consent rules were established decades ago and many communications experts are arguing that it’s time to reevaluate them.
At a BroadbandBreakfast.com Intellectual Property Breakfast Club this morning, members of the broadband environment voiced their opinions and concerns about retransmission consent fees.
Sarah Lai Stirland, the event moderator and BroadbandBreakfast.com’s assistant managing editor, guided the debate, which largely centered around the impact that retransmission fees have on consumers.
Fernando Laguarda, vice president of external affairs and policy counselor with Time Warner Cable, said the threat of blackouts devalues what is being transmitted to customers. When cable system operators and stations debate fees, programming blackouts can occur on contested channels, he said.
However, Antoinette Cook Bush, a partner with Skadden Arps focusing on communications and legislative matters, said there were very few instances of actual blackouts, adding that “the whole focus of the Cable Act was to increase competition, and it has succeeded beyond our wildest expectations.”
In 1992, when the Cable Act was established, there were not as many cable providers as there are today. Bush argued that there is market competition, and that customers dissatisfied with their providers are free to switch to another cable company.
American Cable Association President and CEO Matt Polka said the fees give broadcasters more leverage over smaller cable operators, and that there is a need for consumers to be able to shop for cable providers.
He also said that while the retransmission rules were relevant in 1992 when smaller businesses were competing with the growing cable companies, now cable prices are lower in locations where providers are exempt from those rules. The American Cable Association wants the Federal Communication Commission to reevaluate the retransmission consent rules.
Ovation Executive Vice President Chad Gutstein also advocated reworking the rules governing retransmission consent. He said that independent networks deserve a fair playing field, and that higher fees threaten this.
Michael Calabrese, a vice president of the New America Foundation, also wanted FCC involvement in reforming the retransmission rules, saying that broadcasters already get government subsidies with the expectation that they will air news, weather, alerts and children’s programming.
John Hane, a counsel with the Communications Practice Group at Pillsbury, said in order for broadcasters to charge money, they would have to devalue the idea of “free” and convince people to pay.
- UTOPIA Fiber Announces Completion of Latest Round of Funding, a $48 Million Network Expansion
- Prakash Sangam: China’s Huawei Clones Are Greater Threat to National Security than Huawei
- The California Consumer Privacy Act Lets People Know What Information is Collected, But Can’t Stop It
- FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Announces Public Auction of C-Band, Connecticut Peels Back Broadband Barriers
- Commerce Department Extends Huawei Temporary General License For 90 Days
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Intellectual Property4 months ago
In Congressional Oversight Hearing, Register of Copyrights Says Office Is Responding to Online Users
Broadband Data5 months ago
California Report: Income Most Significant Factor in Low Broadband Adoption
Broadband Data6 months ago
Pennsylvania Broadband Speeds Worse Than Previously Believed, According to State Report
Privacy and Security3 months ago
Comparing Privacy Policies for Wearable Fitness Trackers: Apple, Fitbit, Xiaomi and Under Armour
Antitrust2 months ago
Addressing the Impact of Big Data Upon Antitrust is More Complicated Than a Big Tech Breakup
Expert Opinion4 months ago
Geoff Mulligan: A ‘Dumb’ Way to Build Smart Cities
Antitrust2 months ago
Broadband Roundup: Everyone (Almost) Gangs Up on Google, Muni Broadband Fact Sheet, SHLB Anchornet Conference
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
Cable Industry Touts Energy Efficiency, Next Century Highlights Open Access Fiber, Aspen Forum Set