PDA

View Full Version : Should Local Stations be paid by Cable/Satellite?


fredfa
02-05-05, 03:16 PM
[COLOR=red][SIZE=3] No Cash, No Carry [/COLOR][/SIZE]
Digital broadcasting reignites the fight over whether cable operators should pay to carry TV stations
By John M. Higgins and Bill McConnell Broadcasting & Cable 2/7/2005
The hot consumer-electronics product in Abilene, Texas, is a set of “rabbit ears,” the old-fashioned TV antennas that most viewers haven't used in years. But suddenly they're essential for Cox cable subscribers who want to watch the local NBC station, KRBC.

“We've been selling 40% more than normal,” says Thurman Richardson, manager of a local Radio Shack store. “People keep coming in.”

Richardson is profiting in part from Nexstar Broadcasting's fight with the local cable operator, Cox Communications. Tired of cable systems' refusing to pay cash for carrying its stations, Nexstar is demanding that they start paying 30¢ per subscriber monthly for the right to retransmit the signals.

Raising the stakes on Dec. 31, it pulled stations off Cox cable systems in Abilene and San Angelo, Texas, and The Washington Post Co.'s systems in Texarkana, Texas, and Joplin, Mo. Nexstar took an additional station off a Cox Louisiana system last Wednesday. As a result, more than 120,000 cable subscribers have lost their Nexstar NBC and CBS stations so far.

“We have to do this,” says Nexstar COO Duane Lammers about the fight with Cox. “This is about the survival of local television.” Unlike cable operators, over the past few years, DBS companies have paid 15¢-20¢ per subscriber monthly for local broadcast signals.

The scuffle is playing out across the country between local broadcasters, which want cash from cable systems carrying their signals, and cable operators, which don't want to pay. At the heart of the fight is a 1992 law that gives stations the right to attempt to negotiate payment or simply demand guaranteed carriage for free. Now, with technology advances promising new high-definition TV and digital channels, broadcasters think they have new leverage to get some cash for their content.

In Baltimore, Pittsburgh and 13 other cities, cable subscribers couldn't watch the Super Bowl in HD without using an antenna because of a fight between Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns the local Fox affiliate, and cable operators. The broadcaster, known for being outspoken, wants cable operators to pay 50¢ per subscriber monthly to carry its stations' HD signals.

Broadcasters are also looking for new payments for digital channels they plan to create as they make the transition from analog signals. Their hopes could be dashed, however, by an expected ruling this week that would hand cable tremendous leverage in carriage of digital broadcast programming. Broadcasters are hoping to delay the vote until after Chairman Michael Powell—who favors cable in this dispute—actually departs in March.

Many broadcasters cheer Nexstar executives on, but most see the odds as too long to join them. “We realize we're not in a strong position to negotiate,” says Young Broadcasting CFO James Morgan. Besides Nexstar and Sinclair, cable operators say Emmis and Media General demand cash for their digital stations.

But one major broadcaster may be reconsidering. Fox TV Stations Chairman Lachlan Murdoch wants his stations to start demanding cash instead of settling for carriage of Fox cable networks.

[COLOR=red]FEAR OF PAYING CASH [/COLOR]

Any money that broadcasters could secure would be pure profit. But cable operators fear that starting to pay cash to a few stations would open the floodgates, ultimately leaving them paying billions of dollars for the programming they already carry.

Right now, cable systems generally secure the signals of strong stations of, say, Fox or CBS parent Viacom by agreeing to launch cable networks. For broadcasters that don't own cable networks, cable systems agree to buy ad time on their stations. (“They're now top-10 advertisers in every market,” says Young's Morgan.)

But major operators have refused to simply pay for carriage. They complain that they will be faced with trying to recover those costs from their subscribers, whose rates already go up regularly, and will get blasted every time they raise rates.

Cable operators, known for raising rates excessively, now conveniently claim to be defending consumers. “It's really not us they're trying to extract money from,” says Cox Communications COO Pat Esser. “It's our customers.”

In the current fights, big cable operators may have an advantage. Cable systems in bigger markets have more leverage because broadcasters have more money at stake.

Small operators often are barely competitive with satellite TV and could be ruined if their local stations walked away from the negotiating table and were carried solely on EchoStar and DirecTV. “Rural operators feel broadcasters are putting the screws to them,” says one FCC staffer. “They have no negotiating power because the channels are must-have.”

When broadcasters won the right to charge for their signals in 1992, some of the major broadcast networks initially bragged that they would withhold their O&O stations unless cable paid as much as $1 per subscriber monthly. One by one, they folded their hands. ABC was first to drop its cash demand, settling instead for cable carriage of its then-new sports network ESPN2. Then NBC and Fox struck similar deals. CBS waited too long and got nothing. The new rule seemed to be: No cash, no carriage.

After a few years, negotiations got brutal, particularly a 1996 fight between Disney/ABC and Time Warner, which helped prompt Congress to require that broadcasters negotiate deals “in good faith,” meaning that stations could not refuse to negotiate and must provide reasons for turning down an operator's offers. The good-faith requirements were extended to cable and satellite operators last year.

[COLOR=red]TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT [/COLOR]

Compared with other negotiations in the past few years, the Nexstar dispute is unusually fierce. There were practically no conversations between Nexstar and the cable companies leading up to a Dec. 31 deadline when the company dropped a last-minute demand: Pay 30¢ or go dark. “It came in as a take-it-or-leave-it,” says one Cox executive.

In all four markets, Nexstar runs commercials on its own stations and in local newspapers urging cable subscribers to switch to satellite TV. Cox and Cable One are blasting back with charges that Nexstar simply wants to increase their bills. In Joplin, Mo., Cable One isn't waiting for its subscribers to go to Radio Shack for antennas; the cable system has given away a few thousand pairs of rabbit ears to its customers.

Eager to exploit the dispute, DBS companies EchoStar and DirecTV are running their own ads and special promotions to steal customers. The companies claim their sales in Nexstar markets are picking up.

Says Nexstar's Lammers, “We know that thousands of people have cancelled their cable, thousands more are going to cancel their cable.” He could not, though, verify the number.

But the victory may be hollow: Nexstar is already losing precious advertising dollars. Even with a herd of rabbit ears, the broadcaster has likely lost many of the 60% of locals who were getting their broadcast stations via cable (sometimes far more clearly than with an antenna).

[COLOR=red]STRUGGLE TO KEEP ADVERTISERS [/COLOR]

Advertisers say Nexstar stations immediately began offering 30% additional “bonus” spots to every order. That hasn't kept all the customers happy. Gary Grubb, who buys advertising for Abilene's largest car dealer, Lawrence Hall Chevrolet, has shifted about half his TV spending to other stations.

“I have reduced my budget with KRBC,” he says, “but I haven't completely excluded it. Our trade area covers a 45- to 50-mile area,” he adds. “There a lot of people who would receive KRBC anyway, via the old-fashioned way.”

Lammers insists that “our losses so far are far below what we thought.” He notes that there are plenty of non-cable homes in these markets and not every cable operator in a particular market is in the fight: “In Joplin, Mo., it affects just one out of eight homes.”

Cox and Nexstar finally met last Monday, but it didn't go very well. Two executives from Cox's Texas region and a lawyer from Cox's Atlanta base traveled to the broadcaster's suburban-Dallas headquarters.

During the meeting, Lammers waved a penny in the air, then laid it on a desk. To even start, the Cox executives had to acknowledge that Nexstar's stations were at least worth a penny. He told them, “If you agree to the concept, we'll give you the stations back right away. We know we'll get somewhere between 1¢ and 30.” He got to keep his penny.

A Cox spokesman characterized the meeting as “unproductive. We are hopeful that this is just the start of the dialogue.”

One big hurdle for broadcasters comes this week, when the FCC decides whether TV stations can demand that cable operators “must carry” each of the six or so digital channels that stations could offer. The conversion to digital broadcasting gives stations space in their slice of the spectrum to create new channels. NBC stations, for example, are launching local digital Weather Plus channels. In a digital world, the National Association of Broadcasters wants an operator to carry not just a station's primary video but whatever “multicast” channel it puts on. Cable operators don't want to be forced to surrender more real estate. Powell agrees with cable and is expected this week to push a rule declaring that broadcasters get only one slot unless they can negotiate a better deal.

The fight is so divisive that even executives inside the Cox family disagree. Cox Broadcasting President Andy Fisher visited Washington two weeks ago to ask FCC officials to delay a vote his cable cousin, Cox Communications President Jim Robbins, supports. In an FCC filing, the National Association of Broadcasters insists that Fisher was lobbying on its behalf “and not as a representative of Cox Television.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[COLOR=red][SIZE=4] Breaking TV news is here:[/COLOR][/SIZE]
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=440744
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SonomaSearcher
02-07-05, 12:44 AM
Here's an interesting sidebar from the same article discussing a bit of the history behind the issue:

How the Fight Started

The initial spark for the latest firestorm between TV stations and cable operators was ignited more than a decade ago, when station owners lobbied for safeguards in the 1992 Cable Consumer Protection Act.

For years, cable systems were allowed to simply carry broadcast signals for free, as they were, in effect, merely retransmitting a gratis, over-the-air service. But the 1992 law shifted new power to TV stations, creating two choices for cable operators to consider.

Under the first option, a TV station can simply demand that its local cable operator carry it on the basic or most popular expanded tier. If a station chooses this option, known as “must-carry,” the cable operator is required to add the station to its basic channel lineup but doesn't have to pay the owner a cent. Stations most likely to choose the must-carry option are ones whose loss would spur few cable customers to cancel their subscriptions, like Pax stations or independent UHF outlets featuring home shopping or televangelists.

The second option allows a stronger station to negotiate for compensation. No cable operator wants to go without the local NBC or CBS outlet, so broadcasters in 1992 believed they could make operators pay them fees the way they pay cable networks such as ESPN and MTV. They expected a river of cash to flow from cable systems into their stations, but it didn't work out that way.

Eight of ten stations chose to bargain for retransmission compensation when the first round of talks for three-year contracts opened in June 1993. But it soon became clear that broadcast networks and affiliate groups had very little leverage over big cable operators who vehemently vowed never to pay for broadcast signals. By then, 60% of American TV households subscribed to cable and no station could seriously threaten to withhold retransmission rights.

Cable homes, for the most part, no longer even had antennas. “We gave away this business when we let everyone take their antennas down,” says Jeff Smulyan, CEO of Emmis Broadcasting. “No one was focused on it.”

Major broadcasters quickly drafted business plans for new cable networks, bartering retransmission rights for carriage of the new channels. Fox formed FX; ABC created ESPN2; NBC created what eventually became MSNBC; Scripps Howard launched HGTV; and Tribune helped form the Food Network.

LIN Television and other station groups bargained for carriage of local weather and news channels. Other broadcasters won the right to sell ad time on cable or sell local news updates to CNN and Headline News.

CBS held out for cash, but it was too little, too late. As the Oct. 6, 1993, negotiation deadline drew near, then-Chairman Larry Tisch offered to start a cable channel in lieu of payment. But it was too late to come up with a programming idea compelling enough to attract enough cable systems to make the channel practical. Consequently, CBS penned a series of one-year deals allowing operators to carry its O&Os—and got nothing in return.—B.M. (Bill McConnell)

SonomaSearcher
02-07-05, 12:55 AM
To clarify the issue, cable companies ARE willing to compensate local stations, but not with a pure cash for signal retransmission deal. Cable companies will agree to buy advertising and/or carry multicasting and cable networks (including local cable news networks). Some will also work out related deals for VOD which involve compensation.

fredfa
02-07-05, 12:18 PM
[COLOR=red][SIZE=3] NCTA Labels NAB Effort 'Misinformation'6th [/COLOR][/SIZE]
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 2/7/2005 12:55 PM ET
The DTV must-carry battle continues to head up as the days grow short.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Robert Sachs Monday charged the National Association of Broadcasters with launching a misinformation campaign of "gross misstatements" meant to scare the public about the FCC Feb. 19 vote on cable and satellite carriage of TV stations' digital signal.

Rather than a rush to judgment, said NCTA President Robert Sachs Monday in a letter to members of Congress, the vote has, in fact, been pending for four years, and is a reconsideration of the FCC's 2001 decision denying full digital multicast must-carry. The Feb. 10 vote is widely expected to uphold that denial.

NCTA says that cable systems are already carrying digital signals from more than 500 stations, and points out that it has just made a deal to carry the digital signals of public broadcast stations.

"In short," says NCTA, "compelling digital broadcast content is being carried voluntarily today on cable, and more such programming is being offered every day."

What NAB wants, says Sachs, is "preferential treatment": mandatory carriage of half a dozen channels, regardless of whether they are infomercials or home shopping channels or other of what NCTA calls "low value" content.

At the same time, says Sachs, "every other non-broadcast cable and satellite program network must vigorously compete for carriage of new and existing programming on the basis of the quality of that programming and its perceived value to consumers."

fredfa
02-07-05, 12:22 PM
[COLOR=red][SIZE=3] NCTA: Reject Broad DTV Carriage Mandates[/COLOR] [/SIZE]
Ted Hearn Multichannel.com
Washington -- Television stations are entitled to mandatory carriage of a single programming service — and not before they’ve surrendered their analog spectrum -- the National Cable & Telecommunications Association says.

In a Feb. 3 letter to federal regulators, NCTA president Robert Sachs said broadcasters’ demands for broader carriage are simply unauthorized by law, forbidden by the First Amendment and contrary to sound public-policy goals of moving all TV stations to digital transmission.

Sachs told the Federal Communications Commission that the NCTA’s position today is no different from the one taken by the agency in January 2001 -- that carriage of analog and digital signals during the transition and carriage of multiple DTV signals, as opposed to just one service, after the transition would wander from what the law requires and violated cable’s editorial protections under the First Amendment.

“Nothing in the voluminous record amassed by the [FCC] since that time warrants reversal of either of those decisions,” Sachs said in the four-page letter.

The FCC is expected vote Thursday to support cable’s position. Republicans Michael Powell and Kathleen Abernathy are expected to vote with Democrat Jonathan Adelstein to provide the necessary three votes to deliver a major policy setback to the National Association of Broadcasters.

The NAB has backed away from pressing for dual carriage during the transition as its primary objective. A few years ago, the trade group began to emphasize multicast must-carry after the transition, or the idea that cable should carry every programming stream that a DTV station offers free to over-the-air viewers.

The multicast debate centers on the FCC’s interpretation of the statutory requirement that cable carry each TV station’s “primary video.”

In the analog world, less was at stake because the technology limited a TV station to one programming service per 6-MHz allocation. But in the digital context, DTV stations can cram five or six programming services in the same amount of bandwidth occupied by a single analog channel.

In 2001, the FCC voted 3-2 to interpret “primary video” as one programming service and ruled that cable would be required to carry that service after the transition.

“This remains the only interpretation that is consistent with common and ordinary usage of the term ‘primary,’ ” Sachs said.

NAB and other broadcasters have argued that defining the word primary to mean one instead of many is not consistent with the common usage of the word primary, citing the term primary colors as an example of primary being used in the plural, not the singular.

SonomaSearcher
02-08-05, 02:38 PM
From Multichannel News, interesting article about how the entry of the Bells into video services may affect cash for carriage and the ability of the Bells to compete with cable:

RBOCs Will Pay B’cast

------------------------------------------------------

Linda Moss

2/7/2005

Regional phone companies planning video services will be forced to pay cash to carry local broadcast-TV stations -- which will initially put them at a competitive disadvantage to cable, but will ultimately cause problems for MSOs, a Wall Street analyst said Monday.

With little negotiating leverage, the telcos “are likely to face significant pressure to agree to cash-for-carriage deals” with TV stations, according to a report by Sanford Bernstein & Co. analyst Craig Moffett.

“Starting from a base of zero video customers, the RBOCs seem ripe for the picking,” Moffett wrote.

As a result, the margins the phone companies achieve with their fiber-optic networks will be eroded, Moffett wrote.

“Cash for local retrans would exacerbate what we expect to be a 15% programming-cost disadvantage for the RBOCs in video, further lowering RBOC margins and limiting their video-pricing flexibility,” Moffett said. “Only Verizon [Communications Inc.] is expected to have significant cost savings associated with its fiber deployment to make the economics reasonably justifiable.”

The need to ante up cash for carriage will particularly affect SBC Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp., because their fiber-to-the-curb strategies rely heavily on video revenue and because there are more independent network affiliates in their markets than in Verizon’s, according to Moffett.

But that bad news for telcos is no reason for cable operators to start celebrating.

That’s because if broadcasters are able to establish a cash-for-carriage precedent with the RBOCs, then “their leverage with cable operators will be improved,” according to Moffett. In some cases, direct-broadcast satellite providers already pay to carry local TV stations.

“Over the longer term, a cash-for-carriage precedent could mean higher programming costs for all players, including the MSOs, ultimately resulting in higher consumer prices,” he wrote.

Moffett said it’s unclear if the major media conglomerates will insist on cash for carriage this fall, since historically, they’ve granted retransmission consent for their stations in exchange for “carriage of weaker cable networks that might otherwise not receive carriage.” But he expects the independent broadcasters to demand cash.

“What ever the intentions of the conglomerates, however, the influence of the independents will be inescapable,” Moffett wrote. “There are only four markets -- New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia -- that are served by O&O affiliates of all four major broadcast networks.

“Of the remaining 204 media markets in the U.S., 11 have two O&Os and two independents, 17 have one O&O [and three independents], and the remainder are entirely served by independent affiliates.”

In his report, Moffett referenced Nexstar Broadcasting Group Inc.’s ongoing retransmission-consent disputes with both Cox Communications Inc. and Cable One Inc.

SonomaSearcher
02-15-05, 05:09 PM
Here's an article from today's Shreveport Times about a further development in the Cox-Nexstar dispute:

Bossier City, parish sue cable operator
February 15, 2005
By Raechal Leone

Bossier City and Bossier Parish have filed suit against Cox Communications for no longer airing KTAL-TV Channel 6, the local NBC affiliate.

Officials allege in a lawsuit filed Monday in Bossier Parish District Court that the cable operator is violating franchise agreements with both entities that require Cox to air at least local stations KTAL, KTBS and KSLA.

They are seeking to put the station back on the air, Parish Attorney Patrick Jackson said Tuesday.

KTAL’s owner, Nexstar Broadcasting Group Inc., on Feb. 2 ordered Cox to remove the station’s local and network programming from about 33,000 cable TV systems in Bossier City and other areas.

Nexstar wanted Cox to begin paying a fee of 30 cents per subscriber to retransmit KTAL’s signal.

“The citizens’ complaints have risen to a level where both governments felt they had to take some action to enforce the agreements,” Jackson said.

Cox officials claimed that federal acts and FCC rulings supersede local franchise agreements.

“In particular, a ruling by the FCC in 1992 said that we as a program distributor cannot retransmit the signal of a commercial broadcast station, in this case KTAL, without the authority of that station,” said Tim Tippit, a spokesman in the company’s Tyler, Texas, office.I have to say, IMHO, that any attorney who advised his client (city or parish) that they would be successful in this lawsuit had better make sure his malpractice premiums are paid up. Federal laws and regulations trump municipal franchise agreements.