Cablevision Petitions FCC For Retrans Reform [telecom]

| Cablevision Petitions FCC For Retrans Reform | By Wayne Friedman, 05/26/2011 | | Looking to combat runaway retrans costs -- and sometimes testy | negotiations that lead to TV program blackouts -- cable operator | Cablevision Systems Corp. filed a proposal with the Federal | Communications Commission for some reforms. | | The first would "end the practice of requiring the carriage of | unrelated cable channels, owned by broadcasters, in order to also | carry their broadcast networks." | | Cablevision says this has allowed broadcasters free spectrum and | other advantages, which in turn raises consumer costs by forcing | carriage of their channels of "limited interest" in exchange for | access to major broadcast networks. | | Second, it proposes to demand "transparency." This would end the | practice of allowing broadcasters to keep their prices for carrying | broadcast stations a secret. Retrans fees should be public, it says. | | The third proposal would forbid discrimination. While it would allow | broadcasters to continue to set the price of carriage, it would not | allow them to discriminate among cable and satellite providers based | on size or other factors.

formatting link
COMMENT: Ever since I joined this group, some 15 years ago, I've been posting messages about retransmission consent, touching on some of these same issues. I've discussed "bundling" (station licensees bundle non-broadcast program channels with broadcast signals as a condition for granting consent for carriage of the broadcast signals) and discrimination issues (station licensees impose higher retransmission fees on some retailers, lower retrans fees on others, and keep those fees secret).

Cablevision Systems has been petitioning Congress and the FCC about these issues for years. See, e.g., "Reply Comments of Cablevision Systems Corporation in MB Docket No. 10-71"; specifically page 2 (PDF page 4).

formatting link
So far, Congress has taken no action, and the FCC can't do much without Congressional authorization. Maybe this time...

Here are links to some of my previous posts:

- "A-la-carte v. Tiering" (Fri, 09 Apr 2004) - scroll down to "NON-BROADCAST PROGRAMMING CARRIAGE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS."

formatting link

- "Re: Retrans Feuds Ease Up" by Mike Farrell, Multichannel News (June

20, 2009) - scroll down to my comments (writing as texascableguy).
formatting link

- "Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds Ease Up" (Jul 4 2009).

formatting link
.

- "Legislator looks to end split-market DMAs" (Thu, 16 Jul 2009).

formatting link
.

- "Re Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes?" (Mon, 25 Oct 2010)

formatting link
.

- "Re Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes?" (Fri, 29 Oct 2010)

formatting link
.

Neal McLain

Reply to
Neal McLain
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.