News Corp., Time Warner Cable Fight Gets Uglier → why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW

why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETWORKTV?

I can see the other fox stuff? but the free FOX stuff what is next for fox to make Fox OTA like the old ON TV?

FCC must carry/retransmission consent rules, that's why.

Exactly. And that's why I'm on Time Warner's side on this one. The FCC requires that Time Warner carry OTA Fox so why should Time Warner have to pay for it? I can see them paying for cable only channels. But the broadcasters got their way years ago when the FCC started requiring retransmission. They can't have it both ways with a requirement and a fee. The broadcast companies already make more advertising dollars by having their programming sent into cable households at a high quality alongside other cable channels. Fox is just getting greedy here.

I believe, the way I have been reading it, is that the networks have a choice. They can either wave there right for must carry and go for subscriber based pricing or they can exercise must carry rules...not both.

Well, that is slightly less onerous but still puts the broadcast networks in the driver's seat. Either they get free high quality distribution of their programming or they extract (extort?) money from their distributor. It is their choice, not the choice of the cable companies. A sweet deal if you ask me.

Perhaps the cable companies should be allowed to charge broadcasters for including their OTA signal alongside cable offerings where viewers can conveniently access it without dealing with an antenna or separate digital converter for older TVs.

The FCC is in the pockets of the broadcasters and always has been. It is hollyweird that is the true monopoly and NOT cable companies. If the FCC was serious about regulating monopolies and cutting the costs of cable TV, they would go after the broadcasters. But don't hold your breath.

Yea, but then we wouldnt see stories bashing the cable companies every other day on here.

Easily the least accurate statement you've posted here this month. If it were true, the FCC would not currently be busily regulating broadcasters out of business.

The cable systems have the option to not carry a broadcast channel that opts out of must-carry and demands retransmission consent fees, just like a cable system can opt to not carry a cable-only channel it doesn't feel is worth the price. Once News Corp. demanded a fee their O and O stations are no longer under must-carry protection and Time Warner is fully within their rights to remove them from the system instead of paying. Whether that is a good business decision for them is up to them to figure out. This is how the rules were written years ago, and is the free market you so cherish at work.

Pretending that they are being put-upon by a handful of broadcast stations is about as disingenuous as it gets.

I'd be happy with reading stories that bash all the lunatics out in Hollywood that see fit to exercise extreme greed, steal our money, and then tell us how we should live. Let's start with all the ones who cried about how the world was going to end if we didn't elect a socialist the other year.

Your facts are wrong. Time Warner Cable here in Austin did drop the local NBC affiliate, KXAN, from their cable lineup last year for a few weeks until the fee dispute was resolved. So it is not an FCC requirement to carry local stations ... at least those who are not giving away their retransmission rights. And, we'll probably see the same thing re Fox on January 1 .. they'll be off of the TWC roster, replaced by a slide telling you to call Fox and blame them.

I'm on the other side. As the original article says, TWC is used to getting free or very-low-cost retransmission rights to network programming, and they just don't want that to change. Well, things are changing and they'll have to pay for that just like they pay for other programming. They are just being stubborn, and unwilling to change their thinking.

I ask a question: why is it that no one else besides Time Warner seems to have this problem?

If you can put up an antenna and get a station via OTA, why should ANYONE have to pay for it? As long as the cable co's are paying for the means to get the signal from the station to their facility (fiber, etc.), they shouldn't have to pay the broadcaster / station a damn thing.

maybe the agreements for the others aren't up yet?

But it didn't end when we didn't elect a socialist.

Time Warner seems to be the one that pushes back the most.

I would rather have them at least try and push back...although it may just seem that way since they publicize it so much.

A decade ago, when I lived in Cedar Park, TX, Cox cable was in a dispute with Fox that kept that channel off of cable for over a week.

I woke with a hangover on New Year's Day, 2000, all set to watch my Longhorns play in a bowl game at 11 AM. I discovered that Cox vs Fox was happening, and I had no football game available. Everything was closed, as it was a holiday, and I had to jury-rig an antenna out of some stereo speaker wire and a couple of coat hangers.

I was so pissed that I went to Radio Shack as soon as they were opened looking for a real TV antenna, but came away with a DirecTV satellite dish and installed it and canceled my service with Cox.

I am thankful that the cause was not Y2K related, as it was Jan. 1st, 2000 , but I am saddened that my 'Horns got destroyed by the Razorbacks in the Cotton Bowl that day.

Retransmission consent of copyrighted content. Seems to be such a difficult concept around here.

The rules were designed this way to protect smaller independents who don't have a wide audience.

As for cable operators charging broadcasters - not going to happen. The most top rated programming on TV is on the broadcast networks. Therefore the broadcast stations are in the driver's seat. I think the only channels which the programmers pay the cable operator for are shopping channels.

Not really. Simple logic and sound judgement are though.

As the poster stated, if it can be had for free over the air, then why should they have to pay to deliver it when they are actually doing them a favor to begin with by packaging it and delivering it over a "better system"?

It should simply be a wash. The programmers are getting a better system of delivery and the content delivers are making their customers happy by including that in there.

TWC et al are amatuers at this compared to Dish Network....

um yes you did
/ot

And the broadcasters have the option to require the cable companies to carry their broadcasts at no cost. But instead, more broadcasters are choosing to demand money in exchange for the opportunity to carry the broadcasts. What am I missing?

Useful retort as normal. Thanks for playing.

Nice sig. Perhaps you should read some more:

»www.999ideas.com/redistr ··· lth.html

Corporate welfare is just as bad, if not worse.

This is basic, basic stuff and I'm surprised every time someone claims this. Please take the time to read or listen to the disclaimer and copyright notice that's included with every broadcast show. This prohibits you from retransmitting or rebroadcasting their shows without an express written agreement.

You are committing the fallacy of "if I have a copy, I own the copy and I can do anything I want with my copy". That is expressly not the case and is precisely why copyright law exists.

Sorry, you're just not worth the effort. Being a broken record and all.

Must Carry is now optional. Which is why they can get away with pulling their networks.

No, Dish Network just gives in so that they might have a reason to steal customers from DirecTV or a cable company. What better thing for Dish to be able to advertise on TV, "Subscribe to Dish Network, THE ONLY PLACE TO GET ALL FOX CHANNELS."

Every Sat and Cable company, and now Phone companies, must deal with these agreements whenever they are about to expire. Some go with the flow and take it, or work out an amicable agreement before anything comes out.

Fox is the one that made this public, TWC was not saying which broadcaster(s) were trying to get more money.

But when you used to be retransmitting a FOX affiliate for free, and then suddenly they want $1 PER SUBSCRIBER, that is a HUGE thing. Time Warner Cable has about 14 million subscribers, and they all get a FOX affiliate since that is on basic cable.

So that means $14 million a month extra to carry something that they had for free. So they either take the hit and pay $14 million per month, probably laying off workers or not doing upgrades, or they raise everyone's cable bill by $1. Everyone loves rate increases right? Especially after they already had their annual increase.

Who would not push back against this?

Right. The rules are that the broadcaster can force must carry and expect no compensation, or require retransmission consent and may or may not charge a fee to do so.

In terms of the big four (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox) the must carry rules really don't do much because they are so popular that they are nearly always under retransmission consent and not must carry. Retransmission consent essentially puts broadcasters on a more or less equal footing with other cable channels in that cable operators don't have to carry them but if they want to they have to ask permission and (in most cases) pay a fee to do so, which is negotiated between cable provider and broadcaster.

And that's what this is - a negotiation that has broken down.

Must carry doesn't even enter the picture because none of the stations in dispute are going to force must carry. Their programming is popular enough that they don't have to do so. Must carry was designed to protect smaller independent broadcasters which are not as popular as the big four.

When you look at it this way, the must carry rules are very fair and not skewed towards big broadcasters at all.

What gives some the impression that broadcasters are charging "excessive" fees for their programming is the fact that they also distribute it over the air, for free. But the free over the air distribution is akin to an alternate delivery method like an online stream. The license is between them and you, the viewer. They have not licensed the signal to any cable company or other entity for retransmission.