[telecom] Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits

If CBS and FOX go cable-only, do they really think their affiliate stations are just going to turn in their licenses and go off the air? There are plenty of other second-tier networks that would jump at the chance to grab a former FOX or CBS channel. Possibilities are endless: Bounce TV, This TV, Ion Television, Retro Television Network, foreign language, religious, home shopping. It's also possible that some current cable channel (CNN for example) would turn itself into a broadcast network. Never underestimate Ted Turner.

Furthermore, if CBS and FOX go cable only, they lose all the cushy perks their affiliates got under the 1992 Cable Act. No more mandatory cable carriage, no more retransmission-consent, no more government- mandated geographic monopolies, no more mandatory access to the basic- cable tier. From the cable TV operator's point of view, they'll become just two more advertising-supported video feeds competing for channel space in an already-crowded market.

But their former affiliates will still have those perks!

Of course CBS and FOX could still try to play these same tricks as cable-only channels, but they would be doing so in the free level- playing-field market without the big stick of the Cable Act on its side. The cable companies have ample reason so play tough if no other reason than to seek revenge for years of abuse by the networks.

All that said, I think this whole discussion is premature. The decision that led to the current discussion was a 2-1 vote by a three- judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The lone dissenter, Judge Denny Chin, wrote a vigorous dissent. The broadcasters will surely request a rehearing en banc at the Court of Appeals, and the loser in that case will surely appeal to the Supreme Court. The final decision is years away.

Neal McLain aka "Texas Cable Guy" in the comment section of the techdirt article.

I think they don't care about their affiliates, but are looking at their O&O stations as parts of a potentially lucrative spectrum-repacking deal.

None of those pay enough to justify the electric bill.

Those can be lucrative, and are generally the stations that elect must-carry anyway.

That's fine by them, since they weren't depending on must-carry anyway. They were depending on their NFL and other sports rights. (Murdoch, for his part, has been quietly accumulating sports rights over the past few years, because he thinks six national general-interest cable sports networks just aren't enough and plans to launch a seventh later this year from the remnants of SPEED.) Fox and CBS both think their programming is valuable enough to consumers that they could get at least as favorable a deal from the big-five MSOs (and anyone who isn't one of the big five is too small to count) and the two satellite companies.

See above.

A national service doesn't have any use for that anyway.

See above.

But they won't have programming anyone (other than little old ladies on Social Security, who aren't the most lucrative advertising market out there) has the slightest interest in.

I've believed for a long time that broadcast television is functionally obsolete, and will be gone (at least as a mainstream commercial offering) early in the next decade. It's just a huge waste of energy, and if the executives weren't mired in the sunk-cost fallacy, they'd have seen that and gotten rid of it already.

-GAWollman

I'm pretty sure I'm remembering, or maybe hallucinating, a period where CNN was carried by some over-the-air stations during the late night hours.

Anybody else recall that? Thanks.

I don't remember CNN, but Bloomberg was often carried overnight by broadcasters willing to run tower power, but no content. It must be fairly cheap. Mark L. Smith snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

________________________________ From: danny burstein To: snipped-for-privacy@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013

11:00 PM Subject: Re: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish W>If CBS and FOX go

cable-only, do they really think their affiliate

turn in their licenses and go off the air?

second-tier networks that would jump at the

CBS channel. Possibilities are

Retro Television Network,

also possible that

itself into a

I'm pretty sure I'm remembering, or maybe hallucinating, a period where CNN was carried by some over-the-air stations during the late night hours.

Anybody else recall that? Thanks.

If you were a big broadcast group owner like Belo or Sinclair, what would you do if your affiliated network announced that it would not renew its affiliation agreement? Look for another network? Band together with other group owners and create a new network? Buy CNN or some other advertising-supported cable-only channel? Or just sell your spectrum to the feds and go off the air?

I think the big group owners will survive.

I don't think it would be "fine with them" if the cable and sat companies put sports on a separate tier. Surely you're aware of the Cablevision v. Viacom Inc. lawsuit in which Cablevision accuses Viacom of antitrust violations "for forcing it to carry and pay for more than a dozen 'lesser-watched' channels in order to offer the popular ones like Nickelodeon and MTV."

Whether or not Cablevision will win this suit is beyond my ability to foresee, but if Cablevision prevails, the obvious place to start is to isolate sports onto a separate tier.

Of course, FOX, DISNEY, YES, et al, would flood Capital Hill with lobbyists. But so would Consumers Union and numerous other "public interest" groups.

See above.

I think the big group owners will survive.

That's exactly what Bill said back in 2009.

At the time, I disagreed with him, citing the power of the NAB. The NAB may not have as much power as it used to, especially if FOX and CBS jump ship.

But I still think the big group owners will survive.

Neal McLain

***** Moderator's Note *****

Q. Is the Grasshopper book the earthly manifestation of Jon Postel's soul? A. See above.

Bill Horne Moderator