Retrans Recap

So, the Retransmission Consent hearings are over (for now) and all of the usual suspects got to have their say on the issue. Keeping to the script, the MSOs asked for some changes in the regime, arguing that Retransmission Consent is another in the long litany of special privileges that broadcasters enjoy. Broadcasters insisted that they need a dual revenue stream to compete. Small programmers argued that the tying involved in many Retransmission Consent agreements makes it difficult for them to gain carriage. For the most part, the hearing was predictable and civil. It was, however, suprising to hear Jay Rockefeller (D WV) rant on the record about the polarizing nature of Fox News and MSNBC and his wish that the FCC could somehow make them go away. It was no suprise either that several Senators suggested the popular notion that the time may have come for the industry to consider a la carte pricing models. Other than that there was not much newsworthy that came of it as John Kerry (D MA) tried to keep the hearing focused on finding a solution to keep broadcast signals on cable systems during retransmission consent negotiations.

It's always easy to tell who benefits the most from the status quo - it's the guy who defends it the most vigorously. That was the role that Chase Carey from Fox played. Carey insisted that taking away the ability to deny carriage strips him of his leverage and eliminates any incentive for a cable operator to get a deal done. He also pointed fingers at Cablevision as the party that used it subscribers to win political gain. Well, there was a hearing after all.

More than a few eyebrows were raised by the fact that different cable providers in the same market can be charged different rates by the same broadcaster for the same signal. In an effort to bring a modicum of transparency to the process, it was suggested that the numbers involved no longer be subject to confidentiality (gasp!).

More than once the lawmakers suggested (or threatened) that if "the market" can't figure things out on their own, then Washington will get involved. With that stance it won't be a suprise that there will be more high profile retransmission consent disputes that result in temporary drops of broadcast feeds. For now it is hard to see what the appetite inside the beltway is for taking another swipe at cable regulation given the much larger problems that the country faces. One thing is for sure, once the ball gets rolling it may be a matter of "being careful what you wish for". Washington is a sausage factory. You can start out with the best of intentions, but along the way it inevitably gets ground up and flavoered beyond all recognition. But for now Retransmission Consent is like the weather, everyone talks about it but nobody does anything about it.

Cablevision vs. FOX: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

October is winding down, trees are ablaze in orange and red, football season is in full swing while baseball season has boiled down to two teams, but it seems like everyone’s attention is held by the animosity and accusations that are being flung like so much mess in the primate house. No, I’m not talking about the waning days of highly contentious mid-term elections; I’m talking about the very public dispute between Fox and Cablevision.

It’s a week after local Fox stations going dark on Cablevision systems and the rhetoric is getting even hotter. Politicians ranging from NJ Governor Chris Christie and MA Senator John Kerry have weighed in. Meanwhile, Cablevision subscribers have been without the post season play of their beloved New York Yankees and may soon miss out on the World Series. I don’t think this is what Washington had in mind when the retrans rules were written. They expected reasonable people to come to a business agreement. Instead, what they are seeing are media moguls tussling over money while the consumer is held hostage.

Now the latest developments have both sides crying foul and hitting the press with both guns blazing; Cablevision accusing Fox of not negotiating in good faith by making “take it or leave it” offers and Fox accusing Cablevision of asking for preferential treatment (don’t get me started on MFNs) and manipulating the whole process to bring about a political resolution and a change in the law. Cablevision is making hay of Fox’s refusal to submit to binding arbitration. There was even a point where Cablevision subscribers were denied access to Fox programming on the internet. Now Fox is threatening to sue Cablevision, asserting that the MSOs phone reps are telling subscribers they can get their favorite Fox programming by accessing pirate websites. While there may be a grain of truth to each of the accusations, the amplification of the distortions makes each side’s argument look like signs at a Tea Party rally. There seems to be no end to the lengths that both parties will go to make their respective points. Jimmy Dolan even suggested a meeting be held with himself, FOX CEO Chase Carey and the FCC to hammer out a deal.

So there you have it. Another carriage dispute made very public as the cable and broadcast industry both air some very dirty laundry. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? How long will it go on? Who knows? Programming deals are never easy, and retrans deals are probably the toughest of all. While there may be something for the cable guys to gain by making the process political theater, in the short them the only thing to be had is consumer disgust. In the mean time Dolan watching continues to be one of the industry’s favorite spectator sports.

Retrans Rhetoric Heating Up

This week sees the formation of the American Television Alliance (ATA), a consortium of multichannel providers with a goal of raising awareness and ultimately changing policy on retransmission consent. Among the “strange bedfellows” in the ATA are Time Warner Cable, Direct TV, Cablevision and AT&T – companies that often compete against each other for multichannel subscribers, and in the case of Cablevision and AT&T, fight over access to and pricing of programming (but that’s for another day). A large part of the argument made by the ATA is that retransmission consent is essentially a consumer issue since any payment made by cable operators to broadcasters are ultimately passed on to the subscriber.

Predictably, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) scoffed at the ATA’s consumer rights stance, with an NAB spokesman berating it “as credible as BP executives joining Greenpeace”.

The rhetoric on both sides of the issue is just about as predictable as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck discussing the economy. Both sides passionately make valid points filtered through their own lenses. There is no doubt that the broadcast business model is changing and that cable operators have long benefitted from the carriage of local broadcast signals. However, cable operators are increasingly coming under pressure to keep rate increases in check and have even renewed an industry conversation on smaller and cheaper programming packages. All of this comes at a time when viewer options are expanding and much of the broadcast programming is finding its way to the web for free (Hulu’s premium aspirations notwithstanding). However, for the broadcasters to paint the formation of the ATA as an effort to do little more than protect the bottom line of the operators is a bit disingenuous given the boasting that NAB member companies have been doing on their quarterly calls about how much retrans dollars are contributing to their profits.

At the end of the day, retransmission consent is a consumer issue. It is one more cost that cable operators need to either absorb or pass along. Very often, these kinds of disputes turn into high profile corporate pissing contests, where the consumer is the one who ultimately gets soaked.

But really, is it wise for either side to be airing their grievances in public? Do viewers really need or want to peek into the “sausage factory”? I don’t think so. At the end of the day, viewers are not interested in the disagreements of corporate behemoths. Don’t ask them to take sides or get involved in the details or you may find they have little appetite for supporting either company in an argument over money. They just want to turn on their TV to get relevant entertainment and information without having to pay a whole lot of money to be advertised to in the process. But on the other hand, they do have a right to know why they might be losing access to their local news broadcast.

There is no doubt that both sides are preparing the battlefield and oiling the guns for upcoming renewals. The heightened rhetoric by both sides will certainly draw increased scrutiny from Washington should any of the negotiations get close to failing or actually fall apart and result in TV stations going dark on cable systems.

As with anything involving legislation, this is very much a matter of being careful what you wish for. The issues of Retransmission Consent and a la carte programming have been raised by legislators and interest groups in the course of the Comcast-NBCU merger hearings. Granted, what Retransmission Consent has turned into may indeed have been an unintended consequence of the 1992 Cable Act (which, by the way, was the result of Congress overriding a presidential veto), but can you really expect that the people who gave you the problem have any idea of how to fix it?