The next time you tune into your local Fox station and its not there, it may not be because your local cable operator was unable to reach an agreement for retransmission consent of its signal. News broke this week that Fox network has been in discussions with its affiliate group to obtain cash for carriage of network programming on their stations. Apparently the talks are not going well and Fox Network is starting to talk to the affiliate stations directly to reach deals. The affiliate board is accusing the network of taking a “divide and conquer” approach. Meanwhile, Fox asserts that they are just trying to get a deal done before they have to pursue “different distribution channels”. Things are getting contentious and now the negotiations are starting to play out publicly as if this was a battle between the stations and a local cable operator.
It seems that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot and the affiliates are none to happy about it. With most of the affiliates having retransmission consent deals in place with local cable operators and the two national satellite providers, the last thing they need is the network asking for a piece of the action that hasn’t been budgeted for. All this comes at a time when a deal between Fox and Time Warner Cable provides a workaround for the big MSO to get the network programming for up to a year should they encounter an impasse with a local Fox affiliate - lending credence to the “different distribution channels” threat.
To be sure, Fox COO Chase Carey has not been shy in saying that the network will pursue these kinds of retrans revenue sharing arrangements, so it should have come as no surprise to the affiliates. All the same this comes off as another instance where a broadcaster makes the spurious argument that they need subscriber revenues to flow back to them in order to “preserve free broadcast TV” all because they are seeing viewership continue to migrate to cable networks and more time spent online, undermining their advertising based business model.
Yes, this is a private business negotiation, but with TV a seemingly American birthright anything that results in viewers being deprived of network programming inevitably becomes a public policy issue. With retransmission consent having such a high profile, and the FCC slated to take it up at its March meeting, one wonders whether this is the wisest time for Fox to be pursuing this so aggressively. In the end, the affiliates will come to an agreement because they need the programming and Fox can’t pull the plug on a wholesale basis without the risk of being called in front of House and Senate panels to answer for its actions. Inevitably it all flows back to the consumer in the form of higher cable and satellite rates, putting even more pressure on consumers who are on the verge of “cord cutting”.
At this point, the rest of the “Big 4” are sitting back to see how this develops. While there are still a lot of unknowns as far as how this will play out, one thing is for certain, if this proves successful for Fox, watch for the rest to follow suit.
Showing posts with label Time Warner Cable. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Time Warner Cable. Show all posts
Friday, February 11, 2011
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Fox Network Is Letting Time Warner Cable Do What?
Winter Solstice has come and gone. As the hours of darkness shorten, the coldest days of winter are still to come. Somehow the impending gloom of winter sets just the right mood for the ongoing retransmission consent and content licensing tussles that come around this time of year.
Time Warner Cable is shaking things up with Smith Broadcasting and Sinclair. You may remember a while back, it was Sinclair who was involved in very nasty and public negotiations with Mediacom. The big issue between Time Warner Cable and Sinclair is that Sinclair is tying retransmission consent for their CW stations to retransmission consent for their Fox affiliated stations. While the concept of tying is nothing new in the content distribution world (most cable network groups require carriage of multiple services by cable operators, much like the way studios license packages of movies to broadcasters or premium services) it somehow takes on a different flavor when it is coming from the broadcasters. Time Warner would rather have the option of not carrying the CW stations or forcing them to elect must carry status with no payment required.
What make the negotiations different this time around is that Time Warner Cable has a card up their sleeve - apparent rights from Fox to carry network programming via an "insurance feed" or “cooling off feed” for up to a year. Understandably, this has left many local Fox affiliates feeling a bit confused and thrown under the bus. It is a surprising development in that it is the first time that a broadcast network has given these kinds of rights to cable operators. Just as curious is that the provision of a “cooling off” feed was not mentioned by either Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt or Fox Broadcasting COO Chase Carey as part of their testimony during last month’s hearing on retransmission consent. Surely pointing to this as an example of a creative market based solution would have gained points with lawmakers who were grilling them that day.
To be sure, it’s not perfect. The deal allows Time Warner to get the national programming from the local stations feed for a reported 70 cents per subscriber per month, as long as the local affiliate OK's it. Truth be told, it is mainly the network programming that people are tuning in for anyway. The arrangement still allows the local station to deny access to its local news programming and syndicated fare. The 70 cents would then be split between Fox and the local affiliate. The big "gotcha", of course, is that the local affiliate still has the option of saying no and blocking the feed. All the same, it is something. Nonetheless, Sincliar is reportedly not interested in the option. Apparently they are not too thrilled about their take of the 70 cents.
While the local affiliate still holds the cards, it does give the network some political cover. The larger question is whether other broadcast groups will offer similar rights to other cable operators, telephone companies or satellite distributors. As the arrangement stands now, it is not a game changer, but there is a potential that the playing field could shift subtlely with broadcast affiliates left questioning where the allegiances of the network suits really lie. Does it get any colder than that?
Time Warner Cable is shaking things up with Smith Broadcasting and Sinclair. You may remember a while back, it was Sinclair who was involved in very nasty and public negotiations with Mediacom. The big issue between Time Warner Cable and Sinclair is that Sinclair is tying retransmission consent for their CW stations to retransmission consent for their Fox affiliated stations. While the concept of tying is nothing new in the content distribution world (most cable network groups require carriage of multiple services by cable operators, much like the way studios license packages of movies to broadcasters or premium services) it somehow takes on a different flavor when it is coming from the broadcasters. Time Warner would rather have the option of not carrying the CW stations or forcing them to elect must carry status with no payment required.
What make the negotiations different this time around is that Time Warner Cable has a card up their sleeve - apparent rights from Fox to carry network programming via an "insurance feed" or “cooling off feed” for up to a year. Understandably, this has left many local Fox affiliates feeling a bit confused and thrown under the bus. It is a surprising development in that it is the first time that a broadcast network has given these kinds of rights to cable operators. Just as curious is that the provision of a “cooling off” feed was not mentioned by either Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt or Fox Broadcasting COO Chase Carey as part of their testimony during last month’s hearing on retransmission consent. Surely pointing to this as an example of a creative market based solution would have gained points with lawmakers who were grilling them that day.
To be sure, it’s not perfect. The deal allows Time Warner to get the national programming from the local stations feed for a reported 70 cents per subscriber per month, as long as the local affiliate OK's it. Truth be told, it is mainly the network programming that people are tuning in for anyway. The arrangement still allows the local station to deny access to its local news programming and syndicated fare. The 70 cents would then be split between Fox and the local affiliate. The big "gotcha", of course, is that the local affiliate still has the option of saying no and blocking the feed. All the same, it is something. Nonetheless, Sincliar is reportedly not interested in the option. Apparently they are not too thrilled about their take of the 70 cents.
While the local affiliate still holds the cards, it does give the network some political cover. The larger question is whether other broadcast groups will offer similar rights to other cable operators, telephone companies or satellite distributors. As the arrangement stands now, it is not a game changer, but there is a potential that the playing field could shift subtlely with broadcast affiliates left questioning where the allegiances of the network suits really lie. Does it get any colder than that?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
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?
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?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Is it Time for Cable MSOs to Think Small?
The coverage continues to fly about Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt’s comments about the possibility of smaller packages of cable programming at a lower price. While not going so far as to endorse a la carte carriage of cable services, Britt’s comments does point towards a package of programming made up of 40 or 50 channels. The tricky part will be what gets put in the package and what gets left out.
Industry research shows that the average cable viewer watches only between 10 and 17 networks on their service on a regular basis. However, each individual cable subscriber has a different list of favorite channels. The issue is compounded even more in households where mom, dad and each of the kids all have a different list.
While Glenn Britt should be applauded for moving the conversation forward, we have yet to hear from the content providers (one wonders if Mr. Britt would have made these types of comments before Time Warner Cable was spun off by its parent company). In the final analysis, the cable operators can only do what the programmers will allow. There is an expectation that smaller operators with no programming interests would love to get in on this plan. The stumbling block in the plan is that most of the programmers currently in the large “expanded basic” package likely require broad penetration as a condition of carriage. Even networks with limited appeal like Food Network and Versus could have these kinds of packaging requirements. I ask you, what network owned by a major media company will be the first to step up and permit a cable operator to reduce their distribution by putting them on a lower penetrated tier?
If it is truly a matter of controlling costs, then logic would dictate that the networks with the highest license fees would be the first to go. While some subscribers may be indifferent to the loss of highly priced sports services like ESPN and the local regional sports networks (which are typically owned by cable operators like Comcast and Cox) in return for a reduction of their cable bill, other subscribers will certainly not be happy. Of course, all it would take to derail the plan by Time Warner would be a competitor like Verizon, AT&T, DISH or DirecTV committing to keeping these services on their expanded basic service.
An alternate strategy of placing a bunch of inexpensive and relatively low viewed services like home shopping and religious networks services on a low cost introductory tier and bundling the popular services like Discovery, Disney Channel, Nickelodeon and TNT on a more expensive tier will do nothing to truly address the issue and will further damage the low reputation that cable providers tend to have among the public.
While many cable subscribers intuitively like the idea of a la carte, the average consumer’s concept of how it would likely operate is ill informed at best. Subscribers currently now getting 100 channels for $50, will not be able to simply choose any twenty channels and only pay $10. It’s not going to work that way, as cable networks will need to increase their per subscriber rate as they lose subscribers in order to be kept whole, especially taking into account the resulting loss of advertising dollars.
At the end of the day it’s all about total revenues for the programmers with the operators increasingly feeling like collection agencies for the networks. Something tells me that we haven’t seen the last of this kind of talk. If anything, the operator/programmer relationships will continue to be thorny. Networks continue to insist on wider distribution for their new and emerging services and operators of all sizes continue to find their margins squeezed by an increasingly frugal subscriber base that is beginning to look at other options for video.
Industry research shows that the average cable viewer watches only between 10 and 17 networks on their service on a regular basis. However, each individual cable subscriber has a different list of favorite channels. The issue is compounded even more in households where mom, dad and each of the kids all have a different list.
While Glenn Britt should be applauded for moving the conversation forward, we have yet to hear from the content providers (one wonders if Mr. Britt would have made these types of comments before Time Warner Cable was spun off by its parent company). In the final analysis, the cable operators can only do what the programmers will allow. There is an expectation that smaller operators with no programming interests would love to get in on this plan. The stumbling block in the plan is that most of the programmers currently in the large “expanded basic” package likely require broad penetration as a condition of carriage. Even networks with limited appeal like Food Network and Versus could have these kinds of packaging requirements. I ask you, what network owned by a major media company will be the first to step up and permit a cable operator to reduce their distribution by putting them on a lower penetrated tier?
If it is truly a matter of controlling costs, then logic would dictate that the networks with the highest license fees would be the first to go. While some subscribers may be indifferent to the loss of highly priced sports services like ESPN and the local regional sports networks (which are typically owned by cable operators like Comcast and Cox) in return for a reduction of their cable bill, other subscribers will certainly not be happy. Of course, all it would take to derail the plan by Time Warner would be a competitor like Verizon, AT&T, DISH or DirecTV committing to keeping these services on their expanded basic service.
An alternate strategy of placing a bunch of inexpensive and relatively low viewed services like home shopping and religious networks services on a low cost introductory tier and bundling the popular services like Discovery, Disney Channel, Nickelodeon and TNT on a more expensive tier will do nothing to truly address the issue and will further damage the low reputation that cable providers tend to have among the public.
While many cable subscribers intuitively like the idea of a la carte, the average consumer’s concept of how it would likely operate is ill informed at best. Subscribers currently now getting 100 channels for $50, will not be able to simply choose any twenty channels and only pay $10. It’s not going to work that way, as cable networks will need to increase their per subscriber rate as they lose subscribers in order to be kept whole, especially taking into account the resulting loss of advertising dollars.
At the end of the day it’s all about total revenues for the programmers with the operators increasingly feeling like collection agencies for the networks. Something tells me that we haven’t seen the last of this kind of talk. If anything, the operator/programmer relationships will continue to be thorny. Networks continue to insist on wider distribution for their new and emerging services and operators of all sizes continue to find their margins squeezed by an increasingly frugal subscriber base that is beginning to look at other options for video.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Epix’s Epic Struggle
Officially announced in March of 2009 on the heels of a dispute with Viacom sibling’s CBS owned Showtime, Epix boasted $150 million in studio backing. The service initially made its content available online and officially launched its linear HD feed this past October. Take-up by cable operators has been slow, even if the service changed its business model from wanting to be part of a basic or digital tier at a cost of about $1.50 per subscriber the operator to being a premium service, with a premium online component only available to customers of its affiliates – making for a service with the potential to be a new revenue generator for cable operators. Until this week, the only provider that has signed on to carry the service is Verizon. This week, two more operators (Cox Communications, and Mediacomm) signed on the dotted line – both committing to an April 2010 launch.
One would think that a premium service model would be attractive to the operator, but the difficulty comes in selling a new service to subscribers on top of their existing bundle and the risk of the new service cannibalizing other premium services like HBO (owned by Time-Warner Inc.), Starz and the aforementioned Showtime. In part the need for an additional premium service in the market is why many cable and satellite operators like DirecTV and Cablevision indicated no interest in carrying the service when it was announced last spring. This is compounded by the fact that the service is made up of movies that have already been shown in their theatrical, hospitality, home video and VOD windows. Even so, revenue is revenue, and the lack of interest by major MSOs may have been more of a starting point in the negotiations than a definitive statement.
At the end of the day, unless EPIX can sign four of the top five 5 MSOs, they will struggle to become profitable and the three partner studios will be pressured to pull the plug on the service. Even though Comcast is focused on getting the NBC deal done and launching their Xfinity (TV Everywhere) service, and Time-Warner making rumblings that they are considering a rebranding, the multiplatform nature of Epix fits into Comcast’s strategic emphasis on on-demand and online video. Frankly, It’s surprising that they did not move quicker. Could it be that the Epix partners are unwilling to offer equity for carriage or is Comcast pushing for earlier VOD windows from the three partner studios as part of the deal?
On the flip side of the multiplatform aspect of the service, the online portion leaves the satellite providers out in the cold. Even if they could come up with the bandwidth to offer the linear service, DirecTV and Dish Network don’t have any local servers on the ground to cache the online HD service. Particularly telling is that, aside from Verizon, the wireline competitors like AT&T and RCN Corp. have yet to sign on. Ten months after an announcement, Epix has only announced three deals. Without the big guys in the tent, unless a whole lot more come soon, Epix could be history by the end of this year.
One would think that a premium service model would be attractive to the operator, but the difficulty comes in selling a new service to subscribers on top of their existing bundle and the risk of the new service cannibalizing other premium services like HBO (owned by Time-Warner Inc.), Starz and the aforementioned Showtime. In part the need for an additional premium service in the market is why many cable and satellite operators like DirecTV and Cablevision indicated no interest in carrying the service when it was announced last spring. This is compounded by the fact that the service is made up of movies that have already been shown in their theatrical, hospitality, home video and VOD windows. Even so, revenue is revenue, and the lack of interest by major MSOs may have been more of a starting point in the negotiations than a definitive statement.
At the end of the day, unless EPIX can sign four of the top five 5 MSOs, they will struggle to become profitable and the three partner studios will be pressured to pull the plug on the service. Even though Comcast is focused on getting the NBC deal done and launching their Xfinity (TV Everywhere) service, and Time-Warner making rumblings that they are considering a rebranding, the multiplatform nature of Epix fits into Comcast’s strategic emphasis on on-demand and online video. Frankly, It’s surprising that they did not move quicker. Could it be that the Epix partners are unwilling to offer equity for carriage or is Comcast pushing for earlier VOD windows from the three partner studios as part of the deal?
On the flip side of the multiplatform aspect of the service, the online portion leaves the satellite providers out in the cold. Even if they could come up with the bandwidth to offer the linear service, DirecTV and Dish Network don’t have any local servers on the ground to cache the online HD service. Particularly telling is that, aside from Verizon, the wireline competitors like AT&T and RCN Corp. have yet to sign on. Ten months after an announcement, Epix has only announced three deals. Without the big guys in the tent, unless a whole lot more come soon, Epix could be history by the end of this year.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Retransmission Consent Battles Are Over But the War Rages On
OK, so Time Warner Cable, Inc. cut a retransmission consent deal with FOX (News Corp.) just in time for the Sugar Bowl on New Years Day and Medicomm got their deal done with Sinclair Broadcasting before their extension ran out. Both deals got done without cable subscribers having their broadcast feeds cut off. With no more high profile deals pending you might believe the claims from the broadcasting camp that the market for retransmission consent in functioning efficiently and the cable operators should just go away quietly and lick their wounds. Not so.
Before the ink was even dry on the Sinclair deal, Mediacomm CEO Rocco Commisso had a letter on its way to Senator John Kerry (D. Mass) asserting that the retransmission consent system is broken. While some may dismiss this as a sign of a sore loser and broadcasters may argue that Medicomm would not have signed a deal they didn’t like, one should ask whether Mr. Commisso and his cable brethren have a point.
It seems that every time broadcasters lobby on the Hill it is done in the name of protecting “free” television. The recent broadcaster backlash to spectrum reallocation is just the latest opportunity for broadcasters to wave this flag. But in fact, doesn’t retransmission consent prove that there really is no such thing as “free” television. Of course, there are costs involved with producing and broadcasting content, and there is certainly value to the broadcast content. But isn’t it the broadcasters who chose to enter and remain in a business, the backbone of which is providing free over the air television on an advertiser supported basis?
Of course, the argument is always made that when compared to cable services like Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN, the broadcasters generate ratings far in excess of cable networks. As such, the argument goes, if broadcaster ratings are four times that of ESPN, then the broadcaster should be entitled to four times the license fee that ESPN collects. If the broadcasters are willing to step up to the plate and offer distributors VOD content, local ad avails and affiliate marketing support the same way cable networks traditionally do, then maybe there is a conversation to be had, but until then a game of “apples and oranges” is being played.
In the end, Retransmission Consent is a consumer issue. It easier for the Consumers Union and politicians to demonize cable operators then to dig in and see that what is actually driving the cost of multichannel video up – the ever escalating license fees paid to broadcasters and cable networks. While FOX may not have gotten the $1.00 out of Time Warner that it was looking for, they certainly did get some cash. Likewise, Sinclair has extracted their “pound of flesh” from Mediacomm and will be back at them for another portion at the end of this year when the deal expires. These are the stories of two of the bigger fish in the pond. Every year there are hundreds of smaller operators and telcos with similar stories that are even worse given their smaller size and limited, if any, negotiating leverage. For them, retransmission consent is yet another transfer of wealth out of their communities and local economies.
To be sure, cable operators like Comcast Corp. and Cablevision are reporting growth in free cash flow. However, once you dig deeper and find out where the growth is coming from you find it is not from traditional basic video services. The real growth is coming from DVR and bundled services relying on voice and data services where the only costs are those of running the physical network itself and content costs are virtually non-existent. As far as the linear video business goes, it seem that operators have become little more than collection agencies for cable networks and broadcasters.
If the cable operators can effectively turn Retransmission Consent into a consumer issue (especially in the midst of a recession) then they may actually have a chance of getting someone’s ear in Washington. Until then, expect the politicians to take credit for pushing operators to keep broadcast signals from going dark, but don’t expect them to get involved in really addressing what’s at the heart of the matter.
Before the ink was even dry on the Sinclair deal, Mediacomm CEO Rocco Commisso had a letter on its way to Senator John Kerry (D. Mass) asserting that the retransmission consent system is broken. While some may dismiss this as a sign of a sore loser and broadcasters may argue that Medicomm would not have signed a deal they didn’t like, one should ask whether Mr. Commisso and his cable brethren have a point.
It seems that every time broadcasters lobby on the Hill it is done in the name of protecting “free” television. The recent broadcaster backlash to spectrum reallocation is just the latest opportunity for broadcasters to wave this flag. But in fact, doesn’t retransmission consent prove that there really is no such thing as “free” television. Of course, there are costs involved with producing and broadcasting content, and there is certainly value to the broadcast content. But isn’t it the broadcasters who chose to enter and remain in a business, the backbone of which is providing free over the air television on an advertiser supported basis?
Of course, the argument is always made that when compared to cable services like Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN, the broadcasters generate ratings far in excess of cable networks. As such, the argument goes, if broadcaster ratings are four times that of ESPN, then the broadcaster should be entitled to four times the license fee that ESPN collects. If the broadcasters are willing to step up to the plate and offer distributors VOD content, local ad avails and affiliate marketing support the same way cable networks traditionally do, then maybe there is a conversation to be had, but until then a game of “apples and oranges” is being played.
In the end, Retransmission Consent is a consumer issue. It easier for the Consumers Union and politicians to demonize cable operators then to dig in and see that what is actually driving the cost of multichannel video up – the ever escalating license fees paid to broadcasters and cable networks. While FOX may not have gotten the $1.00 out of Time Warner that it was looking for, they certainly did get some cash. Likewise, Sinclair has extracted their “pound of flesh” from Mediacomm and will be back at them for another portion at the end of this year when the deal expires. These are the stories of two of the bigger fish in the pond. Every year there are hundreds of smaller operators and telcos with similar stories that are even worse given their smaller size and limited, if any, negotiating leverage. For them, retransmission consent is yet another transfer of wealth out of their communities and local economies.
To be sure, cable operators like Comcast Corp. and Cablevision are reporting growth in free cash flow. However, once you dig deeper and find out where the growth is coming from you find it is not from traditional basic video services. The real growth is coming from DVR and bundled services relying on voice and data services where the only costs are those of running the physical network itself and content costs are virtually non-existent. As far as the linear video business goes, it seem that operators have become little more than collection agencies for cable networks and broadcasters.
If the cable operators can effectively turn Retransmission Consent into a consumer issue (especially in the midst of a recession) then they may actually have a chance of getting someone’s ear in Washington. Until then, expect the politicians to take credit for pushing operators to keep broadcast signals from going dark, but don’t expect them to get involved in really addressing what’s at the heart of the matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
