Jump to content

Retransmission consent: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Expanded history section. Added citations.
Expanded "debate" section to highlight opposing ideologies.
Line 15: Line 15:


==Debate==
==Debate==
Retransmission consent has drawn criticism from the cable operators who redistribute programming, and who thus must seek consent from the broadcasters for their program content.
Retransmission consent has drawn criticism from the cable operators who redistribute programming, and therefore must seek consent from the broadcasters for their program content. Cable programmers have argued that there is a "shift in leverage toward broadcasters" within the market since introduction of retransmission compensation.<ref>FCC MB Docket No. 17-179, Petition to Deny of American Cable Association [https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10808657201938/MB%20Docket%20No.%2017-179%2C%20Petition%20to%20Deny%20of%20American%20Cable%20Association%20(FINAL).pdf]</ref>


Alternatively, broadcaster have argued that the free market approach discourages carriage disputes. In a 2013 op-ed, former FCC commissioner, [[Robert M. McDowell|Robert McDowell]], argued <blockquote>TV stations make more money as more people see their shows, thus creating an incentive to distribute their product as widely as possible. These same market forces also create a disincentive for broadcasters to withhold their signals from distributors like cable and satellite companies.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/191201-should-the-government-try-to-fix-retransmission-consent|title=Should the government try to ‘fix’ retransmission consent?|last=McDowell|first=Robert|date=2013-11-22|work=TheHill|access-date=2018-04-16|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|language=en}}</ref></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>
Alternatively, broadcaster have argued that the free market approach discourages carriage disputes. In a 2013 op-ed, former FCC commissioner, [[Robert M. McDowell|Robert McDowell]], argued <blockquote>TV stations make more money as more people see their shows, thus creating an incentive to distribute their product as widely as possible. These same market forces also create a disincentive for broadcasters to withhold their signals from distributors like cable and satellite companies.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/191201-should-the-government-try-to-fix-retransmission-consent|title=Should the government try to ‘fix’ retransmission consent?|last=McDowell|first=Robert|date=2013-11-22|work=TheHill|access-date=2018-04-16|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|language=en}}</ref></blockquote>The debate has seen ongoing deliberation in front of the FCC and congressional committees.<blockquote></blockquote>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 09:55, 16 April 2018

Retransmission consent is a provision of the 1992 United States Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act that requires cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to obtain permission from broadcasters before carrying their programming.

A broadcast station (or its affiliated/parent broadcast network) may propose that the cable operator compensate the station through monetary payment or other form of consideration, such as an additional channel for supplementary programs. The cable operator may also refuse the broadcaster's proposal, in which case the station may refuse to allow the cable operator to retransmit its signal.[1]

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates this area of business and public policy pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Part II.[2]

The retransmission consent system elicits free market negotiations with MVPDs for the programming broadcasters create and transmit over their networks. If both parties do not produce a contractual agreement for the use of programming, the MVPD may no longer offering the stations to their subscribers.[1]

History

The provision was adopted as a corrective to the "must carry" rules that mandated cable operators to carry all significantly viewed local stations.[3] Stations could either decide to keep their must carry status or to enter into negotiation with cable operators. Many smaller, independent stations opted to remain covered by must carry.

Cable carriers' initial reaction was to refuse to pay for broadcast programming. John Malone, head of cable giant TeleCommunications Inc. refused to pay to carry broadcasters’ content saying, “I don’t intend to pay any money...I will scratch backs." [4]

Instead of monetary payment, many broadcast networks instead negotiated permission to distribute secondary channels.America's Talking (now MSNBC), FX, and ESPN2 all originated through retransmission consent deals in the early 1990s. Many PBS stations received additional local channels.

Debate

Retransmission consent has drawn criticism from the cable operators who redistribute programming, and therefore must seek consent from the broadcasters for their program content. Cable programmers have argued that there is a "shift in leverage toward broadcasters" within the market since introduction of retransmission compensation.[5]

Alternatively, broadcaster have argued that the free market approach discourages carriage disputes. In a 2013 op-ed, former FCC commissioner, Robert McDowell, argued

TV stations make more money as more people see their shows, thus creating an incentive to distribute their product as widely as possible. These same market forces also create a disincentive for broadcasters to withhold their signals from distributors like cable and satellite companies.[6]

The debate has seen ongoing deliberation in front of the FCC and congressional committees.

References

  1. ^ a b "Retransmission Consent". FCC Encyclopedia. U.S. Federal Communications Commission. Archived from the original on 2 July 2012. Retrieved 3 August 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ See 47 USC § 531 - § 537 for relevant sections of the Communications Act of 1934, and FCC regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act at 47 CFR 76.56: Signal carriage obligations
  3. ^ "Federal Register, Volume 59 Issue 232 (Monday, December 5, 1994)". www.gpo.gov. Retrieved 2018-04-16.
  4. ^ 1963-, Crawford, Susan P., Captive audience : the telecom industry and monopoly power in the new gilded age, Hendrickson, Carol (Narrator), ISBN 1491528745, OCLC 897512229 {{citation}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ FCC MB Docket No. 17-179, Petition to Deny of American Cable Association [1]
  6. ^ McDowell, Robert (2013-11-22). "Should the government try to 'fix' retransmission consent?". TheHill. Retrieved 2018-04-16. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retransmission_consent&oldid=836696213"