Articles Posted in Must-Carry/Retransmission Consent

Published on:

By

In the heat of the battle raging over carriage of various Fox networks on Cablevision’s systems, Randy May, the founder and chief intellect of the Free State Foundation, has weighed in on the retransmission consent debate (available here). I read his comments with interest, because Randy often provides insightful observations on important telecommunications policy issues, and I care about retransmission consent.

I was disappointed. The paper only rehashes the cable television party line.

Surprisingly, Randy suggests that broadcasters’ exercise of retransmission consent rights should be scrutinized and possibly regulated even more. One would have to dig pretty deep to find the last time Randy advocated solving a problem by throwing more government at it.

The party line Randy endorses goes something like this: broadcasters get special privileges from the government with respect to signal carriage, which give them a retrans “negotiating advantage.” Retransmission consent negotiations don’t happen in a free market goes the argument. The solution? Broadcasters’ retransmission rights should be even more regulated than they are already.
Randy cites two “advantages” broadcasters supposedly enjoy in retrans negotiations: (1) must-carry and (2) program exclusivity. The cable industry party line is a little tortured, coming, as it does, from interests subject to a small fraction of the regulatory umbrella that shadows broadcasters. These are the same companies, after all, that argue government should stand back and let broadband carriers treat Internet traffic as they will.

The party line is also completely wrong about the carriage rules.
First, the existence of must-carry sometimes harms, but never helps, broadcasters that elect retransmission consent. Broadcasters must claim their retrans rights once every three years through a technical and exacting election process. If they make a mistake, they risk having to give away their signals for free. Cable companies routinely use this against broadcasters in retrans negotiations.

By definition, any broadcaster engaged in retransmission consent negotiations has forfeited its must-carry rights. It’s either-or. Each broadcaster makes its election once every three years — same election for all overlapping cable operators, no cherry-picking. If you elect retrans, you have no guarantee of being carried at all and no option to revert to must-carry if negotiations break down.

Must-carry benefits some broadcasters, no doubt. But it doesn’t confer any advantage on a broadcaster that elects retransmission consent. The cable/DBS/telco party line suggests that must-carry gives broadcasters a retrans advantage, but it never identifies what that supposed advantage is. Randy doesn’t explain the advantage either. There is none.
Second, the program exclusivity rules impose huge burdens on broadcasters. Start with the unregulated baseline: producers and distributors are free under the law to agree to exclusive distribution territories. The broadcast networks and affiliates, if they wanted to, could agree that each affiliate has unfettered nonduplication protection throughout its DMA. That would be a free market.

But this is anything but a free market: even if broadcasters purchase exclusivity rights, they may not enforce those rights except within limited, FCC-defined areas. If you doubt me, just read the notes to the network nonduplication and the syndicated exclusivity rules. And this is a bargaining advantage? A reason to pile more rules on broadcasters?
Having read hundreds of Randy’s usually insightful postings over the years, I’m disappointed to see him republish boilerplate cable industry advocacy. His comments run counter to the Free State Foundation’s guiding principles and lack Randy’s trademark sharpness and passion. More to the point, they bizarrely suggest that the government somehow does broadcasters a favor by limiting their free market rights.

Published on:

By

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced that it is declining to hear Cablevision’s challenge to the must-carry rules, letting stand a Second Circuit ruling upholding the validity of the 1992 rules. Approximately 40% of broadcast stations rely on must-carry to ensure carriage on their local cable systems, with the remainder electing to negotiate retransmission terms for carriage. A closely divided Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the must-carry rules over a decade ago, but Cablevision sought to argue that things have changed since the days of cable monopolies, and that the rules can’t be justified in a world where cable now competes with satellite and other providers for subscribers. However, the real change that Cablevision was banking on was the change in the composition of the Court, with two of the five justices that voted to affirm must-carry in 1997 having left the court, and a third affirming vote, Justice Stevens, having now announced his impending retirement.

Cablevision therefore had reason to think that its appeal, which in many regards was just a “do over” of the earlier unsuccessful challenge, had a chance with the Court’s new mix of justices. What is interesting, and reassuring for broadcasters, is that for the Supreme Court to agree to hear an appeal requires the votes of only four justices, rather than a majority of the nine justices. Declining to hear the appeal means that not even four justices, much less a majority of the court, were interested in reviewing the Second Circuit’s affirmation of the must-carry rules.

So what does that mean? Well, a true optimist from the broadcasters’ perspective would hope it means that three or less justices question the validity of the must-carry rules, and that future appeals will have a very uphill battle to claim five votes in favor of overturning the rules. An optimist for the cable industry would argue that a lot of factors go into determining whether the Court should grant certiorari, only one of which is the likelihood of a resulting decision reversing the lower court. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the middle, and we may never find out whether the Court’s decision to deny certiorari was a hard-fought internal battle over the merits of the appeal, or merely a simple vote where the justices expressed no appetite for revisiting the issue for any number of reasons.

In the meantime, must-carry remains the law of the land, and it will likely be a while before another appeal can work its way up through the system to reach the Supreme Court. As a result, broadcasters relying on must-carry rights can breath a sigh of relief, at least for now.

Published on:

By

Given that low power television (LPTV) stations have been trying unsuccessfully for many years to obtain must-carry rights comparable to those enjoyed by full-power stations, it is often overlooked that some LPTVs do, in fact, have carriage rights. However, these must-carry rights are available only to a select few LPTV stations.

Specifically, an LPTV station is “qualified” for mandatory carriage only if: 1) it broadcasts at least the minimum number of hours required of full-power stations by the FCC’s rules; 2) it meets all the obligations applicable to full-power television stations including, among other things, with respect to non-entertainment programming, and provides local news, informational and children’s programming that addresses local needs that are not being met by full-power stations; 3) it complies with interference restrictions consistent with its secondary status; 4) it is located no more than 35 miles from the cable system’s principal headend and delivers a good quality signal to that headend; 5) the community of license of the station and the franchise area of the cable system were both located outside the largest 160 markets on June 30, 1990 and the population of the community of license was not larger than 35,000 as of that date; and 6) there is no full power television station licensed to any community within the county served by the cable system.

The last two criteria are typically the most difficult obstacles for LPTV licensees to overcome, as cable systems are only required to carry LPTVs in the smallest of markets and, even in those areas, only when there is a dearth of full-power stations in the area. While the restrictions are difficult for most LPTV stations to meet, a recent FCC decision shows that it is not impossible. In that case (found here), digital LPTV station WRTN-LD, located just outside of Nashville, Tennessee, was able to convince the FCC, over the objections of Comcast, that the station is a “qualified” LPTV station entitled to must-carry rights on Comcast’s cable system. While Comcast argued that the station is part of the Nashville market and therefore ineligible for must-carry rights, the station was able to demonstrate that its service area was outside the Nashville market and that it met the other qualifying criteria.

This case serves as a reminder to all licensees to investigate options and not merely presume that no help is available at the FCC or elsewhere. For LPTV licensees in particular, a quick review of the LPTV carriage criteria above with respect to their own situation is well worth the effort involved.

Published on:

By

Last week, we listened to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski speak at the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas. One topic he made a point to discuss was the recent Petition filed by cable and satellite companies arguing that the retransmission consent process is unfair, and asking the government to intervene in private contractual disputes to decide how broadcasters can and cannot negotiate carriage deals, including mandating arbitration of disputes and requiring stations to permit “interim carriage” of their programming while negotiations are ongoing. However, the issue is not stations “yanking” their signals from cable and satellite operators while negotiations drag on, but the failure of operators to secure the right to retransmit the programming when their current retransmission agreement expires, as the Communications Act requires. Indeed, it is the same basic contractual process that cable and satellite operators go through when seeking to extend carriage of non-broadcast networks, except that non-broadcast networks wield nationwide control over access to their programming, whereas broadcasters wield such control only in individual markets.

While the Chairman did say in his speech that the marketplace is the “preferred method” for resolving disputes that come up during negotiations, he also referenced the Petition’s claim that broadcasters were to blame for a rise in cable fees, stating: “Some ask: Is free TV really free when cable rates go up because of retransmission fees?”
However, that rhetorical question is just that — rhetorical. Free TV can only survive as free TV if it is financially able to produce/compete for the programming also sought by non-broadcast networks. The only way that is possible in a 500-channel world is for broadcast stations to have the dual revenue stream (advertising and retransmission fees) enjoyed by their non-broadcast competitors. Only by being financially viable can broadcast stations remain as a free alternative for those wishing to “cut the cable” or “dump the dish.” In fact, as digital multicasting allows stations to deliver multiple free programming streams, free TV becomes a more attractive option and a more effective check on rising cable rates.

Unlike a cable network, a broadcaster can never “yank its signal” from the public when retransmission negotiations falter and what often seems to be missing from the debate is that the public does not “lose” a TV station’s signal when it is dropped by a cable system during a retransmission consent dispute because the signal is available to viewers for free over the air. The law merely prohibits a cable or satellite operator from reselling broadcast programming to viewers if the operator itself is unwilling to pay the going rate for it. In that regard, it is no different than any other business transaction, except that the public can always choose to “avoid the middleman” and obtain the programming directly from the television station (for free) by using an antenna. In this context, and particularly in light of the extreme rarity of program disruptions occurring during retransmission negotiations, cable and satellite operators have a difficult challenge making the case that carriage negotiations with broadcast stations are significantly different than carriage negotiations with cable networks.

The fundamental difference between these negotiations is mostly one of degree — broadcast programming tends to regularly be among the most popular programming, making it more valuable to those wishing to resell it to their subscribers. However, broadcast programming will only remain popular if broadcasters continue to earn the revenues necessary to produce and purchase such programming. A cynical observer might therefore conclude that the desire to prevent broadcasters from receiving a share of subscription revenues commensurate with audience ratings is only partially about reducing cable and satellite systems’ operating costs, and just as much about keeping those revenues out of the hands of those who compete with cable and satellite for ad sales and audience. Systems overpaying for fringe cable networks while underpaying for far more popular broadcast programming harms free local TV without any countervailing benefit (unless you are the owner of a fringe cable network).

Also, the problem with forcing interim carriage during negotiations (aside from the fact that its a violation of the Communications Act) is that the continued availability of a station’s programming for retransmission is not, as cable/satellite operators frequently claim, an unfair “bargaining chip” used by broadcasters in retransmission negotiations — it is the entire point of the negotiation. Requiring that broadcast programming continue to be made available at last year’s rate during negotiations, as the Petition urges, provides cable operators with an obvious incentive to drag out the negotiations as long as possible rather than bring them to a rapid conclusion and begin paying the current rate. Imposing an interim carriage requirement would actually destabilize retransmission negotiations, as broadcasters would be forced to declare the negotiations terminated in order to end the interim carriage and hopefully force the cable/satellite operator back to a serious negotiation. Encouraging cable/satellite operators to delay negotiations long past the expiration of their existing retransmission agreements, and then forcing broadcasters to declare an official end to the negotiations as the only way of ending lower cost interim carriage and forcing a serious offer from the cable/satellite operator, is inherently more likely to result in carriage disruptions than the current process.

Like homeowners in a buyer’s market, cable and satellite operators are no doubt unhappy that market conditions are currently less in their favor compared to the “good old days”, but that hardly makes the market “broken” or “unfair.” Trying to fix something that isn’t broken is a surefire way to break it badly, and it is the public that would be forced to pick up the pieces.

Published on:

By

On Wednesday, February 4th, Pillsbury’s Communications practice participated in a Webinar session entitled “Retrans Agreements: What the Other Side Knows…That You May Not.”

Retransmission agreements are growing more complex and retransmission fees are becoming a bigger share of broadcast revenue. As business approaches and technology evolve, broadcasters are packing more content into their signals and expanding their web offerings. Some cable operators are asking for more than simple retransmission rights when they pay cash to broadcasters. This can have a big impact on broadcast operations.

The Webinar session addressed the changing face of retransmission consent, and what station and station group executives need to know before their next round of negotiations. The Webinar also discussed post-agreement issues, including the mechanics of fee computation.

Questions addressed included:

  • How can retransmission agreements restrict broadcast business opportunities?
  • Can both sides benefit from deployment of new technologies like mobile video and interactive broadcasting?

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

January 2009
The following deadlines are based on information known by us as of the date hereof, may or may not apply to a particular broadcaster, are for general informational purposes only, and should be double-checked for currency close to each pertinent date/deadline. Actions by the FCC, Congress, or the courts could affect any of these deadlines by, for example, eliminating a particular reporting/filing obligation altogether or modifying the form used, content, deadline, fee, or manner of reporting/filing, such as requiring the posting of a report on the Internet or filing a report with the FCC electronically. It should also be noted that any FCC filing date which falls on a weekend or federal holiday, as a general rule, causes the filing deadline to be shifted to the immediately following business day. Furthermore, the listing of deadlines is not intended to be complete or exhaustive of all regulatory and non-regulatory deadlines that may apply to a given broadcaster year-to-year. Accordingly, broadcasters should seek the advice of communications counsel in each instance to assure timely and proper filing. This edition of our annual “Broadcasters’ Calendar” supercedes all prior editions and accordingly any prior editions should no longer be used.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

September 2008
The FCC released a Declaratory Order on Friday, September 26, 2008, making it clear that the television station cable carriage elections that must be made by October 1, 2008 will determine a station’s carriage rights throughout the entire 2009-2011 carriage election cycle.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

7/25/2008
July 31, 2008 is the deadline by which television stations are required to file claims for copyright royalties with the Copyright Office. FCC rules require television stations to make signal carriage elections by October 1, 2008 for the period 2009-2012. The upcoming termination of analog broadcasts makes this year’s carriage elections especially important. In addition, television stations that will terminate analog broadcasting have a special October 1 notice obligation with respect to satellite operators.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

January 2008
The following deadlines are based on information known by us as of the date hereof, may or may not apply to a particular broadcaster, are for general informational purposes only, and should be double-checked for currency close to each pertinent date/deadline. The reason is that actions by the FCC, Congress, or the courts could affect any of these deadlines by, for example, eliminating a particular reporting/filing obligation altogether or modifying the form used, content, deadline, fee, or manner of reporting/filing, such as requiring the posting of a report on the Internet or filing a report with the FCC electronically. It should also be noted that any FCC filing date which falls on a weekend or federal holiday, as a general rule, causes the filing deadline to be shifted to the immediately following business day. Accordingly, broadcasters should seek the advice of communications counsel in each instance to assure timely and proper filing. With respect to the tax-related deadlines identified herein, broadcasters should consult with their tax advisors. This edition of our annual “Broadcasters’ Calendar” supercedes all prior editions and accordingly any prior editions should no longer be used.

This material is not intended to constitute a complete analysis of all tax considerations. Internal Revenue Service regulations generally provide that, for the purpose of avoiding United States federal tax penalties, a taxpayer may rely only on formal written opinions meeting specific regulatory requirements. This material does not meet those requirements. Accordingly, this material was not intended or written to be used, and a taxpayer cannot use it, for the purpose of avoiding United States federal or other tax penalties or of promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters.

Continue reading →