Connect with us

Expert Opinion

Retrans-Consent: Be Careful What You Ask For!

With the recent battle between Cablevision and Disney over Retransmission Consent in New York regarding WABC-TV carriage on Cablevisions 3.1 million subscribers, and thereby producing a coalition of Cable Providers to petition the FCC to intervene in negotiations, is akin to the saying: (be careful what you ask for).

Avatar

Published

on

WABC-TV
Image via Wikipedia

With the recent battle between Cablevision and Disney over Retransmission Consent in New York regarding WABC-TV carriage on Cablevisions 3.1 million subscribers, and thereby producing a coalition of Cable Providers to petition the FCC to intervene in negotiations, is akin to the saying: (be careful what you ask for).

It seems to me, this is a business market negotiation best handled through competitive market forces rather than asking the FCC to get involved in a dispute between two companies. The (ax can cut both ways) when it comes to oversight of the pipeline distribution and broadcasting industries. Yes, consumers are caught in the middle, wanting pertinent and relevant programming for a reasonable price, while public negotiations and threats of signal cuts dominate the headlines; see (Cable firms seek FCC help in fee disputes).

The issue remains, how much is WABC-TV worth to Cablevision for carriage and distribution of their signal. Retransmission Consent was formulated years ago when broadcast stations wanted assurance that cable companies would carry their local signals, and be compensated for their original programming.  In the beginning most broadcasters just asked for Must-Carry, or assurance their signals would be distributed by pipeline providers for 3 years, see (Moody’s expects to see more retrans battles).

Fast-Forward to today and times have changed. Providers are paying substantial sums per month to distribute most of their programming to consumers. Cable Programmers have reaped the benefits of these carriage agreements in producing top-quality programs through carriage fees along with ad supported revenues; a dual revenue model. Broadcasters are struggling to stay afloat with the single, Ad Revenue Model. Therefore, Retransmission Consent has become a battleground for demanding monthly carriage fees, just as most Cable Programmers ask for, and receive. Broadcasters have seen a significant drop in Ad Revenues in recent years along with a lose network subsidies. Without additional revenue streams, broadcasters are looking to lucrative distribution agreements to make up the short-fall.

This is a market demand negotiation, not a regulation matter for the FCC to consider. If Cable Providers want to lessen the impact of these carriage fees, they should consider (Tiering) Broadcast signals to accommodate and moderate fee increases. Yes, if negotiations demand an unreasonable price for most customers, negotiate for the signal to be on a Tier where consumers can pay an extra cost if they value the programming. Some consumers will lose in this scenario, but overall consumer rates would be adjusted for those who can afford the additional cost.

This is not a regulatory issue, but one of market demand and supply. In my opinion the coalition of cable providers should think twice before asking the FCC to intervene in their business negotiations, or risk having regulations that regulate them into non-existence. This is a Free Market System, let it work as intended.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Len Grace is a technology industry veteran with over 18 years experience with Comcast Corporation. His insights into pertinent and relevant issues within the Broadband/Telecom/Cable/Wireless and Mobile sectors both inform and enlighten readers on current industry trends, analysis, business strategy, competitive landscape and legislative agendas. Len is the founder & editor of The Cable Pipeline, a technology blog who contributes to various technology websites including Light Reading, BroadbandBreakfast.com (Expert Opinion), SiliconAngle, Cisco Community: Service Provider Mobility, Amdocs: InTouch Community Portal, Bloomberg's bx Business Exchange, CircleID, and Sys-Con Media/Utilizer. Also see his reporting.

Big Tech

Aron Solomon: Epic vs. Apple, The Legal Battle Royale

In the lawsuit over the massively popular game Fortnite, it’s easy for people to take sides based on our attachment to it.

Broadband Breakfast Staff

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Aron Solomon, head of digital strategy for NextLevel.com.
WABC-TV
Image via Wikipedia

With the recent battle between Cablevision and Disney over Retransmission Consent in New York regarding WABC-TV carriage on Cablevisions 3.1 million subscribers, and thereby producing a coalition of Cable Providers to petition the FCC to intervene in negotiations, is akin to the saying: (be careful what you ask for).

It seems to me, this is a business market negotiation best handled through competitive market forces rather than asking the FCC to get involved in a dispute between two companies. The (ax can cut both ways) when it comes to oversight of the pipeline distribution and broadcasting industries. Yes, consumers are caught in the middle, wanting pertinent and relevant programming for a reasonable price, while public negotiations and threats of signal cuts dominate the headlines; see (Cable firms seek FCC help in fee disputes).

The issue remains, how much is WABC-TV worth to Cablevision for carriage and distribution of their signal. Retransmission Consent was formulated years ago when broadcast stations wanted assurance that cable companies would carry their local signals, and be compensated for their original programming.  In the beginning most broadcasters just asked for Must-Carry, or assurance their signals would be distributed by pipeline providers for 3 years, see (Moody’s expects to see more retrans battles).

Fast-Forward to today and times have changed. Providers are paying substantial sums per month to distribute most of their programming to consumers. Cable Programmers have reaped the benefits of these carriage agreements in producing top-quality programs through carriage fees along with ad supported revenues; a dual revenue model. Broadcasters are struggling to stay afloat with the single, Ad Revenue Model. Therefore, Retransmission Consent has become a battleground for demanding monthly carriage fees, just as most Cable Programmers ask for, and receive. Broadcasters have seen a significant drop in Ad Revenues in recent years along with a lose network subsidies. Without additional revenue streams, broadcasters are looking to lucrative distribution agreements to make up the short-fall.

This is a market demand negotiation, not a regulation matter for the FCC to consider. If Cable Providers want to lessen the impact of these carriage fees, they should consider (Tiering) Broadcast signals to accommodate and moderate fee increases. Yes, if negotiations demand an unreasonable price for most customers, negotiate for the signal to be on a Tier where consumers can pay an extra cost if they value the programming. Some consumers will lose in this scenario, but overall consumer rates would be adjusted for those who can afford the additional cost.

This is not a regulatory issue, but one of market demand and supply. In my opinion the coalition of cable providers should think twice before asking the FCC to intervene in their business negotiations, or risk having regulations that regulate them into non-existence. This is a Free Market System, let it work as intended.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Continue Reading

Expert Opinion

Carri Bennet: Biden’s Broadband Plan is Key to Spurring Rural Economic Development, Jobs and Manufacturing

The American Jobs Plan, President Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan, includes $100 billion to ensure broadband availability to every single American at affordable rates. This means building more broadband in rural areas.

Broadband Breakfast Staff

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Carri Bennet of the law firm of Womble Bond Dickinson
WABC-TV
Image via Wikipedia

With the recent battle between Cablevision and Disney over Retransmission Consent in New York regarding WABC-TV carriage on Cablevisions 3.1 million subscribers, and thereby producing a coalition of Cable Providers to petition the FCC to intervene in negotiations, is akin to the saying: (be careful what you ask for).

It seems to me, this is a business market negotiation best handled through competitive market forces rather than asking the FCC to get involved in a dispute between two companies. The (ax can cut both ways) when it comes to oversight of the pipeline distribution and broadcasting industries. Yes, consumers are caught in the middle, wanting pertinent and relevant programming for a reasonable price, while public negotiations and threats of signal cuts dominate the headlines; see (Cable firms seek FCC help in fee disputes).

The issue remains, how much is WABC-TV worth to Cablevision for carriage and distribution of their signal. Retransmission Consent was formulated years ago when broadcast stations wanted assurance that cable companies would carry their local signals, and be compensated for their original programming.  In the beginning most broadcasters just asked for Must-Carry, or assurance their signals would be distributed by pipeline providers for 3 years, see (Moody’s expects to see more retrans battles).

Fast-Forward to today and times have changed. Providers are paying substantial sums per month to distribute most of their programming to consumers. Cable Programmers have reaped the benefits of these carriage agreements in producing top-quality programs through carriage fees along with ad supported revenues; a dual revenue model. Broadcasters are struggling to stay afloat with the single, Ad Revenue Model. Therefore, Retransmission Consent has become a battleground for demanding monthly carriage fees, just as most Cable Programmers ask for, and receive. Broadcasters have seen a significant drop in Ad Revenues in recent years along with a lose network subsidies. Without additional revenue streams, broadcasters are looking to lucrative distribution agreements to make up the short-fall.

This is a market demand negotiation, not a regulation matter for the FCC to consider. If Cable Providers want to lessen the impact of these carriage fees, they should consider (Tiering) Broadcast signals to accommodate and moderate fee increases. Yes, if negotiations demand an unreasonable price for most customers, negotiate for the signal to be on a Tier where consumers can pay an extra cost if they value the programming. Some consumers will lose in this scenario, but overall consumer rates would be adjusted for those who can afford the additional cost.

This is not a regulatory issue, but one of market demand and supply. In my opinion the coalition of cable providers should think twice before asking the FCC to intervene in their business negotiations, or risk having regulations that regulate them into non-existence. This is a Free Market System, let it work as intended.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Continue Reading

Expert Opinion

Shabbir Bagasrawala: A Clarion Call for Supply Chain Diversity in Our Telecom Networks

Limited competition is provided by the existing trio of vendors. This worsens the supply chain problem for operators.

Broadband Breakfast Staff

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Shabbir Bagasrawala, Head of Go-to-Market Team at Altiostar
WABC-TV
Image via Wikipedia

With the recent battle between Cablevision and Disney over Retransmission Consent in New York regarding WABC-TV carriage on Cablevisions 3.1 million subscribers, and thereby producing a coalition of Cable Providers to petition the FCC to intervene in negotiations, is akin to the saying: (be careful what you ask for).

It seems to me, this is a business market negotiation best handled through competitive market forces rather than asking the FCC to get involved in a dispute between two companies. The (ax can cut both ways) when it comes to oversight of the pipeline distribution and broadcasting industries. Yes, consumers are caught in the middle, wanting pertinent and relevant programming for a reasonable price, while public negotiations and threats of signal cuts dominate the headlines; see (Cable firms seek FCC help in fee disputes).

The issue remains, how much is WABC-TV worth to Cablevision for carriage and distribution of their signal. Retransmission Consent was formulated years ago when broadcast stations wanted assurance that cable companies would carry their local signals, and be compensated for their original programming.  In the beginning most broadcasters just asked for Must-Carry, or assurance their signals would be distributed by pipeline providers for 3 years, see (Moody’s expects to see more retrans battles).

Fast-Forward to today and times have changed. Providers are paying substantial sums per month to distribute most of their programming to consumers. Cable Programmers have reaped the benefits of these carriage agreements in producing top-quality programs through carriage fees along with ad supported revenues; a dual revenue model. Broadcasters are struggling to stay afloat with the single, Ad Revenue Model. Therefore, Retransmission Consent has become a battleground for demanding monthly carriage fees, just as most Cable Programmers ask for, and receive. Broadcasters have seen a significant drop in Ad Revenues in recent years along with a lose network subsidies. Without additional revenue streams, broadcasters are looking to lucrative distribution agreements to make up the short-fall.

This is a market demand negotiation, not a regulation matter for the FCC to consider. If Cable Providers want to lessen the impact of these carriage fees, they should consider (Tiering) Broadcast signals to accommodate and moderate fee increases. Yes, if negotiations demand an unreasonable price for most customers, negotiate for the signal to be on a Tier where consumers can pay an extra cost if they value the programming. Some consumers will lose in this scenario, but overall consumer rates would be adjusted for those who can afford the additional cost.

This is not a regulatory issue, but one of market demand and supply. In my opinion the coalition of cable providers should think twice before asking the FCC to intervene in their business negotiations, or risk having regulations that regulate them into non-existence. This is a Free Market System, let it work as intended.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending