Connect with us

#broadbandlive

Will This Signal Be Televised? ‘Retransmission Consent’ Unscrambled At Breakfast Panel Of Broadcasters, Cable Industry and Public Interest Reps

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2010 – If you missed Broadbandbreakfast.com’s panel session on retransmission consent fees, here’s your chance to catch up and re-examine the issues in a complex debate that’s been controversial since the enactment of the regime in the 1992 Cable Act.

Published

13 years ago

on

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2010 – If you missed Broadbandbreakfast.com’s panel session on retransmission consent fees, here’s your chance to catch up and re-examine the issues in a complex debate that’s been controversial since the enactment of the regime in the 1992 Cable Act.

Top-level industry executives from the worlds of cable and broadcasting sparred Tuesday morning over the question of whether the Federal Communications Commission needs to revise the rules governing how retransmission consent fees are negotiated between broadcasters and video distributors such as cable and satellite networks.

The fees are a form of compensation either in cash — or some other non-cash deal — that the video distributors (MVPDs) pay for broadcasters’ programming.

Early this March, a coalition of 14 entities that include the American Cable Association, Cablevision, Charter Communications, DIRECTV, Dish Network, Public Knowledge, The New America Foundation, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon petitioned the FCC to change the rules.

The group wants the FCC to allow distributors to carry the broadcasters’ signals on an interim basis during negotiations, even if contracts have expired. They also want the FCC to step in to arbitrate if the two sides cannot arrive at a new agreement, which must be re-negotiated every three years.

The petitioners argue that these steps would prevent the showdowns that can lead to service interruptions for consumers at critical television viewing moments, such as the Oscars and during sporting events.

To help you make the most of the video, below is a cheat-sheet and notes on what was discussed when during the panel so that you can fast forward to the most relevant part to you.

2.11 min — Quick summary of the legislative and factual background of the retransmission consent fee controversy between video distributors  (cable and satellite companies) and the broadcasting industry.

8.15 min — Panelists start to introduce themselves and to state their company’s position in the debate.

8.30 min — Fernando Laguarda, vice president, external affairs and policy counselor, Time Warner Cable:  “Time Warner Cable is here as one of the petitioners … who’s interested in fixing what we and a whole other coalition of video distributors and other public interest groups believe are the problems with the retransmission consent framework.

The problems are evidenced by broadcaster tactics that lead to brinkmanship, and threats of blackouts and actual blackouts in the service that is provided to consumers — who are otherwise entitled to receive broadcast programming in the marketplace.”

9.40 min — Chad E. Gutstein, executive vice president, Ovation: “We support a reform of the retransmission consent regime because we believe that having independent voices in the media landscape is a public interest, and without a reform of the retransmission consent regime that this interest is threatened.”

11.07 — Antoinette “Toni” Cook Bush, partner, communications and legislative matters, Skadden Arps, representing the four television networks in the proceeding. Worked on the Senate Commerce Committee between 1987 and 1992 when Congress debated and enacted the Cable Act:  “At the time, Congress did expressly intend for broadcasters to have the right to charge for their signal, or to negotiate just like any other programmer for carriage on their system.”

13 min — Matt Polka, President & CEO, American Cable Association: “We as small companies pay more [for broadcaster programming] simply because we are smaller, and that impacts the ability of our companies to provide advanced services to our customers, services that they want — particularly today when we talk about broadband.”

16 min — John K. Hane, counsel, communications practice group, Pillsbury, [representing broadcasters:] ” … the MVPD business is rapidly maturing, it’s at 90 percent. “Retrans” is one of the many ways that MVPD providers are looking for growth to deliver to their investors. … “Retrans” is great because it attacks two avenues of growth. If successful, you can lower your prices, and you can also devalue the free option … which leads to migration of programming to the pay platform … ”

19.00 — Michael Calabrese, Vice President, New America Foundation Director of the Wireless Future Program: (joined the petition to revising the retransmission consent rules:) “We have this position for two primary reasons — first, the actual consumer harm, … the disruption of consumer programming, particularly programming that’s freighted with public interest value, such as news, weather, emergency alerts and public affairs programming, and the upward pressure on cable prices and the negative effect on broadband adoption, because so many families are taking broadband because of the marginal cost as part of the bundle with cable TV, and high switching costs even if there is general competition in the MVPD marketplace.

The second is that we see huge public subsidies  in exchange for transmitting a primary video stream over the air [for free] … in exchange for transmitting [public interest programming for free to consumers.]

… imagine if the federal government had built out the networks for the cable and telco companies — we’d probably expect something in return. They also receive must-carry, which means that th threat of a black-out in programming is not reciprocal, and exclusive distribution rights in a local market, so if an MVPD cannot reach an agreement with one Fox affiliate, they can’t go and get a substitute signal from another market, because Congress has tilted the playing field.”

22 min — Panelists discuss the relationship between retransmission consent fees, video distributor package pricing, and the nature of competition in the video distributor and broadcast marketplace.

38 min — Ovation’s Gutstein argues that the current structure of the marketplace is squeezing out independent programmers, such as Ovation’s arts and culture programming. He says that Ovation has been refused carriage from MVPDs because of their retransmission agreements with broadcasters.

Gutstein: “Have the retransmission consent fees being paid been specifically talked about as a reason for reducing programming fees, or reducing carriage? Absoulutely. … this is not theoretical.”

41 min –Cook Bush: ” … when retransmission consent first kicked in, the united response of the cable industry was: ‘we’ll never pay broadcasters a nickle for their programming’ …  there was this concerted effort, but all of a sudden, when competition developed,  as the marketplace changed, and the proliferation of cable programming dramatically increased,  once broadcasters put their foot down, and said: ‘You are going to pay us,’ all of a sudden, it’s [deemed] not fair.

Basically, the argument is that people who have popular programming shouldn’t be able to negotiate, that there should be some sort of harness put on them ...”

43 min — Polka: Nobody is arguing about the ability to negotiate. It’s about “negotiating in a legitimate market.”

47 min — Hane argues that MVPDs can simply drop network programming to try and distinguish themselves with lower pricing in the marketplace, and pick up more subscribers.

“CBS has great programming. It’s a great network. It’s a national brand, but it’s not essential. We can all live without it.  It’s not an essential input to an MVPD.”

48 min — Laguarda: “I find it remarkable that the broadcast argument is that the product is either worthless, or comparable to garbage, or that it’s unnecessary, and it has no value. I think that the marketplace … “

Cook Bush: “That is a complete mis-characterization of what I said, and I resent that. I will not let you sit there and say that. I am talking about a competitive marketplace, and I am saying that cable operators should have to pay for broadcast programming, just like they pay for other programming.”

Laguarda: “You were analogizing to the marketplace when you were talking about it, and the marketplace you analogized to was to municipal trash — that was your example, not mine — the problem is that Congress already decided that this is not a marketplace, so it is too cute by half to look at the situation as it exists today and the consumer disruption and harm that is demonstrated today, and to say: Well now it’s a marketplace, and now, because there’s competition at the distributor level, that marketplace can be leveraged and taken advantage of by broadcasters in a way that harms consumers. …”

Cook Bush: “Well I would just go back and say that Congress did intend to create a marketplace,  and they expressly gave broadcasters the right to control their signals, and to give them the right to seek payment or other compensation from cable operators. That was the express intent, and there is no equivocation about it.”

51 min — Calabrese on the public interest aspect of the 1992 Cable Act:

He says that broadcasters can’t ignore the fact that Congress gave FCC the power to regulate and enforce the public interest obligations of the broadcasters, who get to use their means of distribution — the spectrum — for free.

“Broadcasters just can’t walk away from the fact that they took a bargain, decades ago, that they’re being paid by the public to deliver a free stream of content with a whole variety o things that are so special.”

They’ve been arguing that the spectrum can’t be taken away from them because localism, local news, weather and emergency alerts, is so important.

The debate isn’t just about the marketplace, and how much cable operators and broadcasters can wring out of each other.

It’s about the interruption of service, which is “completely contrary to the bargain that the broadcasters have with the public.”

The FCC can put in place mandatory interim carriage as long as there is good faith bargaining, they can put in place binding arbitration, and/or some sort of administrative law panel that would resolve these disputes, so you can still have the negotiations, but you can do it without disruption of service, he says.

52 min — Discussion among participants about the nature of what kind of notice should be given to consumers about potential programming interruptions.

62 min — John Mansell, an independent consultant and audience member asks: “If this marketplace is truly competitive, why don’t you make it a little bit more competitive and allow the cable operator to import a distant network affiliate? After all, they can receive copyright royalties for it. Second question is: Why not let a cable operator become a network affiliate? Why do you need exclusivity?”

Hane: “The network non-duplication rules do not give a single broadcaster any advantage. I think probably the entire broadcast industry would be quite happy if the entire non-duplication rules were eliminated. …”

Polka: “Those rules are walls that prevent competition. That’s what happens.”

Cook Bush: But that doesn’t compel broadcasters to make their signals available to you. They could still say no.

70 min: More discussions about proposed solutions to the current situation. ###

Related Topics:

Sarah Lai Stirland is the Director of Digital Community at Broadband.Money. Sarah previously worked with Breakfast Media's CEO, Editor and Publisher Drew Clark at National Journal's Technology Daily. She has covered business, technology, government and civic engagement, finance, and telecommunications and tech policy from New York, Washington and San Francisco. Her work has appeared in Personal Democracy Media's Civic Hall, Wired, Red Herring, and Portfolio.com. She's also a radio and podcast producer, and she's worked at KALW Public radio in San Francisco. She's a native of London and Hong Kong, and is currently based in the Bay Area.

Continue Reading
5 Comments

#broadbandlive

Experts Still Disagree on FCC’s New Digital Discrimination Rules

The FCC rules have drawn strong pushback from industry groups and praise from Democratic leadership.

Published

5 days ago

on

November 29, 2023

By

Screenshot of the panel.

WASHINGTON, November 29, 2023 – Experts disagreed on Wednesday on the potential impacts of the Federal Communications Commission’s new digital discrimination rules.

The 2021 Infrastructure Act mandated that the FCC develop rules to address gaps in broadband access based on race, income level, and other characteristics, known as digital discrimination. The commission approved such rules on November 15, adopting a “disparate impact” standard for identifying digital discrimination. That means it will scrutinize practices that result in disparate broadband access for protected groups, regardless of whether that result was intended by providers.

Harold Feld, senior vice president at public interest group Public Knowledge, said at a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event that the rules would remedy the  “worst and most visible disparities” in broadband access.

“The situation where you have an ISP offering fiber in the suburbs and 25-year-old DSL in the urban core, I think that is the sort of situation that will be addressed,” he said.

The commission will have its full suite of enforcement actions available to sanction companies it finds to be in violation of the rules. Those investigations will be initiated through an informal complaint process.

Randy May, founder of the conservative Free State Foundation, said he thought the rules would result in the FCC “micromanaging” broadband providers and discouraging investment at a time when the government is making a historic effort to expand internet access.

That’s an argument that AT&T, Verizon, and multiple industry groups made to commission staff in a lobbying push throughout the rulemaking process. They said a disparate impact analysis would result in companies being sanctioned for routine business practices and disincentivize broadband deployments.

Feld said fears about the rules impacting the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, the Biden administration’s $42.5 billion broadband expansion effort, were unfounded. The rules exempt companies receiving money from BEAD or the Universal Service Fund, an FCC subsidy, under the assumption that the terms of those programs already prevent disparate deployments.

“If anything, the order has created an incentive to participate in these federal programs,” he said. “If you think you’re going to be stuck in some kind of rate proceeding, then take BEAD money and provide service to these communities.”

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, November 29, 2023 – FCC’s Digital Discrimination Order

The FCC just struck the gavel on a set of rules aimed at holding telecom companies accountable for business practices that result in digital discrimination, whether intentional or not. This decision has intensified an ongoing debate that began when the rule proposal was initially released for public comment in December 2022. Congressional Democrats, civil rights groups, and internet advocacy organizations support the Democrat-led agency, emphasizing the “disparate impact” standard of the rules to ensure universal access to broadband. On the other hand, telecom companies, trade groups, and their allies express concerns about the potential chilling effect these rules might have on broadband investment nationwide. What are the practical impacts of digital discrimination rules on broadband rollouts? Will the rules ensure equitable internet access for all Americans?

Panelists

  • Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge
  • Nicol Turner-Lee, Director of the Center for Technology Innovation, Brookings Institution
  • Randy May, Founder and President, the Free State Foundation
  • Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

Panelist resources

WATCH HERE, or on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

Continue Reading

#broadbandlive

Broadband Breakfast on December 6, 2023 – Space Wars: What to Expect from Satellite Broadband

SpaceX and Amazon are poised to blanket the skies with thousands more satellites.

Published

1 week ago

on

November 26, 2023

By

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, December 6, 2023 – Space Wars: What to Expect from Satellite Broadband

As satellite internet providers like SpaceX’s Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper continue expanding, the race for space-based broadband is heating up. With the FCC approving SpaceX’s Gen2 satellite deployment and Amazon testing prototype launches, these companies are poised to blanket the skies with thousands more satellites. What are the implications of this new phase, particularly the potential for interference issues, orbital debris concerns and 5G backhaul capabilities? What about the regulatory and policy questions surrounding mega-constellations and space commercialization? Will satellite broadband address the current digital divide, potentially on a global scale? Join the discussion for informed perspectives on the path forward amid the space broadband boom.

Panelists

  • Panelists have been invited
  • Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

WATCH HERE, or on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

Continue Reading

#broadbandlive

One Year After ChatGPT, Washington Still Working Out its Relationship to AI: Experts

The recent drama at OpenAI reflects the ongoing debate on AI development, panelists said.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 22, 2023

By

Photo of the panel Wednesday.

WASHINGTON, November 22, 2023 – One year after ChatGPT drew attention to large language models and artificial intelligence, there is still uncertainty on the regulatory approach Washington will ultimately take on AI, experts said on Wednesday.

Sam Altman, CEO of the company behind ChatGPT, was fired on Friday before rejoining the company on Wednesday with a new board of directors. The now-ousted board members who forced out Altman reportedly clashed with him on the company’s safety efforts, with the board favoring slower, safer development and Altman focusing on expansion.

More than 700 OpenAI employees signed a letter threatening to quit if the board did not agree to resign.

“There was, in the backdrop, a little bit of a policy angle to this,” said Adam Thierer, a Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute, on a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event. “This accelerationism versus de-celerationism.”

President Joe Biden’s October executive order on AI safety includes measures aimed at both ensuring safety and spurring innovation, with directives for federal agencies to generate safety and AI identification standards as well as grants for researchers and small businesses looking to use the technology. 

“In an ideal world, they would go hand in hand,” said Camille Crittenden, co-founder of the University of California’s Expanding Diversity and Gender Equity in Tech Initiative. “Safety protections and safeguard would accelerate at a pace equal to that of technological innovations.”

But it’s not clear which side legislators on Capitol Hill might take in the future, panelists said.

Democratic lawmakers and witnesses at Congressional hearings have pushed for stronger legal guardrails and reporting requirements for companies using AI. They’re largely looking to prevent private information being used in training data and mitigate the effects of bias in language model output.

There’s reason to expand those guardrails, Crittenden said. She pointed to AI’s ability to generate pornographic images of people without their consent.

“That’s causing real social harm,” she said. “There’s very little recourse or responsibility being taken by the platforms that enable this.

Tech companies have advocated for fewer reigns on AI, citing a need to remain competitive as other nations race to develop their own large language models.

“We could undermine the engine of our success and potentially shoot ourselves in the foot as we face really stiff competition internationally,” Thierer said.

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, November 22, 2023 – AI One Year After ChatGPT

Nearly a year has passed since ChatGPT became accessible to the public, seamlessly integrating into our daily lives. It has proven invaluable for tasks ranging from brainstorming to coding and composing essays or emails, offering convenience at our fingertips. But just like any technology dealing with a vast amount of information, ChatGPT also grapples with concerns such as content biases, the potential for harmful data collection, and the spread of misinformation. Now is an opportune time to reflect on the impact of ChatGPT over the past year, which has bridged the gap between science fiction and reality. How can we strike a balance between harnessing the advantages of ChatGPT and addressing its ethical and practical challenges? What lessons have we learned from its first year, and how might these shape the future of AI-driven language models?

Panelists

  • Robert Clapperton, Associate Professor, The Creative School
  • Camille Crittenden, Executive Director of CITRIS and the Banatao Institute and Co-founder of the CITRIS Policy Lab and the EDGE (Expanding Diversity and Gender Equity) in Tech Initiative at the University of California
  • Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, Technology & Innovation team, R Street Institute
  • Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

Panelist resources

Robert Clapperton is an Associate Professor in Professional Communication at The Creative School, Toronto Metropolitan University. He specializes in computational linguistics with an emphasis on the critical application of natural language processing understanding in education. Robert is co-founder of Ametros Learning, a natural language understanding experiential learning platform. The Ametros platform is currently used by universities, corporations, and professional associations across North America.

Camille Crittenden, Ph.D., is the executive director of CITRIS and the Banatao Institute and co-founder of the CITRIS Policy Lab and the EDGE (Expanding Diversity and Gender Equity) in Tech Initiative at UC. She served as chair of the California Blockchain Working Group in 2019–20 and co-chaired the Student Experience subcommittee of the University of California’s Presidential Working Group on Artificial Intelligence.

Adam Thierer is a senior fellow for the Technology & Innovation team. He works to make the world safe for innovators and entrepreneurs by pushing for a policy vision that is rooted in the idea of “permissionless innovation.” Prior to R Street, Thierer spent 12 years as a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Before the Mercatus Center, he served as the president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and has also worked for the Adam Smith Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

Breakfast Media LLC CEO Drew Clark has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

WATCH HERE, or on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

Continue Reading

Signup for Broadband Breakfast News



Broadband Breakfast Research Partner

BroadbandNow: Internet Provider Search and research on the digital divide

Trending