
The FCC could soon give more power to cable companies - GeorgeOrr
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/08/13/the-fcc-is-moving-to-end-tv-blackouts-once-and-for-all-heres-how/
======
Someone1234
These changes don't sound like they're really addressing the core problem.

Here's how things currently work:

\- Broadcaster sets rates.

\- Cable company negotiates and eventually settles (with or without
blackouts).

\- Cable company bundles these rates with other rates from other channels and
passes it on to the consumer.

\- Cable company gets the backlash from the consumer as a result of rate
hikes.

So as you can likely tell, broadcasters have too much power, because cable
companies will ultimately be blamed either for blackouts (failed negotiations)
OR for rate hikes. So it puts them in a lose/lose situation.

Instead what cable should be doing is:

\- Unbundle channels entirely.

\- Pass on rate increases to the consumer for that specific channel.

\- Itemise how much of what you pay goes to the broadcaster Vs. the cable
company

\- Alternatively the cable company could charge $0 on the channels themselves
(100% broadcaster) and charge a "delivery fee" or "service fee" on the entire
account.

This way the broadcaster gets blamed for the rate hikes directly from
consumers, and consumers now have more power to drop certain channels if they
feel the value they receive is lower than the cost they pay (e.g. $5/month for
Trutv).

That's what the FCC should be doing.

~~~
cptskippy
So is network TV on cable different from the local OTA broadcast? If network
TV is free OTA then why do cable companies have to pay to rebroadcast it?
Wouldn't in be in the network's best interest to get their broadcasts in front
of as many people as possible? It seems like blackouts would just be reducing
their ratings numbers and thus reducing what they can charge for ads.

What am I missing?

~~~
dublinben
Cable companies used to just pull in the local feed, and push that out over
their network. The local broadcasters called foul, and got Congress to enact a
law (1992 Cable Act) that required cable companies to obtain permission to
rebroadcast these public signals.[0][1] This quickly resulted in broadcasters
charging ever increasing rates to deliver their content to their own viewers.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retransmission_consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retransmission_consent)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Television_Consumer_Prot...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Television_Consumer_Protection_and_Competition_Act_of_1992)

~~~
cptskippy
I guess established Broadcast Networks were afraid of increased competition
from Cable TV Networks and got the Retransmission Consent provision added to
the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act because otherwise
Cable TV Operators would be able to rebroadcast their stations freely which
would only encourage adoption of Cable TV? It was sort of a win win for
Broadcast Networks regardless of whether Cable TV succeeded for failed.

------
PaulHoule
I think they should just go a-la-carte on broadcast channels.

My mother-in-law lives in a small city where she can pick up the big networks
+ PBS and some minor networks (CW, ion) with just rabbit ears.

With an $80 antenna, I get 11 channels from a city that is 50 miles away. All
I had to do is nail a bracket onto the edge of my roof.

I am missing CBS and ABC, but I am planning to fill those in with a VHF
antenna that points to another city.

The difference in picture quality between the HD broadcast vs the compressed
"HD" offered by TWC is night and day.

It seems to me there is no value in getting a degraded copy of local broadcast
TV on cable, so you should be able to opt out of it, or maybe just get
broadcast stations that don't come in with your antenna.

~~~
MichaelApproved
> With an _$80 antenna_ , I get 11 channels from a city that is 50 miles away.
> All I had to do is _nail a bracket onto the edge of my roof_.

> I am missing CBS and ABC, but I am planning to fill those in with _a VHF
> antenna that points to another city_.

> _It seems to me there is no value in getting a degraded copy of local
> broadcast TV on cable_

So, you spent $80 and had to climb onto the roof to install it. You have
existing knowledge about what antenna to purchase. You know you need a VHF
antenna to get other channels. You know where to purchase this stuff.

All of that isn't existing knowledge to the general public and climbing onto a
room isn't a general skill-set. There is definite value in a cable guy coming
in and setting everything up for you.

~~~
dhimes
Actually, we're only a generation away from when people did exactly that. My
father bought his TV antenna, as did everyone else I knew. Installed it an the
roof (a big, unwieldy thing), stood there and turned it's direction while I
called up when the picture was best.

So, it's not that far-fetched.

------
wnevets
Alot of people who grew up with cable don't even realize broadcast stations
exist. I've had to explain to multiple people that you dont need cable to get
abc, nbc, etc.

~~~
ergothus
...and yet, if you want to watch, say, the Superbowl online, you do need
cable.

~~~
300bps
NBC streamed it to anyone for free on their website:

[http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/20/nbc-will-live-stream-the-
su...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/20/nbc-will-live-stream-the-super-bowl-
for-free/)

~~~
tunap
I am unsure of terms for the SuperBowl, but if I want to watch Motocross
online I have hoops to jump through to prove I pay for an NBC channel in my
cable/sat packege. I do not have a cable/sat package, so therefore I cannot
watch on their website.

~~~
thaas53
You can watch all the motos here:

[http://www.promotocross.com/mx/video](http://www.promotocross.com/mx/video)

Maybe not live but I watched both 450 Unadilla motos the following Sunday
evening. I have no cable/sat package.

~~~
tunap
Yup, MX has been offering post race viewing since 2012(AFAIK). Been waiting
for SX to follow suit.

Original point stands, broadcaster streaming offerings are worthless to
uncabled viewers if they cannot prove they pay for the cabled/sat option.
Forget about viewers outside the US... That's where goatd comes in, I guess...

------
Osiris
The core problem is the entire idea of timeslotted television content. Content
is only available on a certain channel at a certain time of day.

What cable companies should be doing is acquiring the rights to broadcast
CONTENT. Cable really should just become a massive collection of on-demand
content plus live events (think sports).

The whole idea of television by timeslot is archaic.

------
exelius
Video is a done deal. Most cable companies lose money on their video packages
anyway; they're a loss-leader for broadband subs at this point. In 5 years,
nobody will be talking about the video business.

And the FCC very well should give more power to cable companies, because the
cable companies are at a huge disadvantage relative to the big national telcos
(aka AT&T and Verizon). AT&T and Verizon are working together to ensure none
of the cable companies becomes a national player capable of threatening them.
The old Bells are still much, much larger than any of the cable providers, so
they can throw their weight around.

~~~
fweespeech
> Video is a done deal. Most cable companies lose money on their video
> packages anyway; they're a loss-leader for broadband subs at this point. In
> 5 years, nobody will be talking about the video business.

If that was the case, cable companies would stop selling me the TV package
when I already pay the maximum amount for internet they offer in my area.

Yet, somehow, they are always willing to sell me cable TV with free HBO for 12
months and a $50 gift card for $19.99/month.

~~~
exelius
Because there are still sales organizations within these companies whose
bonuses are based on driving video revenue. It takes a while for a large
company to unroll those organizations/incentives/etc. As it is, the primary
customers of their video products are older adults.

But long-term, video is a non-issue. If prices don't come down, the cable
providers will move to a la carte. There's just too much content available
online via YouTube, Netflix, etc. It will still be a product, but it will be
IP-only, cheaper, and offer more granular video packages.

------
phkahler
I don't think anyone should have to pay anything for a broadcast signal within
the broadcast area. I mean, it's free to anyone with an antenna already. I'm
not sure, but I get the impression that businesses are not allowed to have a
TV showing local channels based on the number of them that show a degraded
signal from cable when they could just put up an antenna and get HD.

OTOH there is some damage done by bundling local channels onto cable - they
now have to compete with non-local stuff so the viewership will be lower.

------
tired_man
Broadcast is a moot point for anyone with a computer and at least a DSL
connection.

I'm done with instant broadcast by any method if it's supported with
commercials. I have little time free to watch TV. It's too valuable to waste
15-20 minutes out of every hour on commercials.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Except when it's not a moot point.

My wife likes to watch soccer when it's on. We have basic cable, so we don't
have ESPN. It's either watch using an antenna attached to our TV, watch using
low def blurry crap the cable company shows or use some virus-laden app to
watch it with a computer.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
> using low def blurry crap the cable company shows

This drives me nuts. They strip program information, they downgrade the
signal, they include a hundred or so music channels that nobody wants, they
broadcast blank channels, and the periodically re-arrange the channels (or
change/upgrade/downgrade the basic plan). I can't go to my grandmother's house
without having to spend an hour or so to re-do all of her channels on her TV
sets; and then try to explain to a 90-yr old why the channels are different.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
LOL.

Is there a real reason for them to need to rearrange the channels? I don't get
it.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
I don't either!

------
graycat
Easier solution: Turn the TV to face the wall and unplug it from the cable
company.

Net, the OP is about a big battle over something next to worthless.

My ISP in effect pays me to accept their "basic* TV service -- I get Internet
access and phone with TV for less than without TV.

Well, I hadn't watched any TV for years. I tried a few months ago to watch the
NBA playoffs, but my _basic_ service didn't offer that.

But for the 2016 elections, I just signed up for an _upgrade_. But, I'm not
very happy with the upgrade -- it's a waste of time and money. Even for the
elections, I can get what I want, e.g., transcripts, off the Internet.

So, I suspect in another week or so I will cancel the _upgrade_.

Movies? Okay, DVDs or YouTube.

How anything could be as bad as TV is a bit beyond me.

------
rconti
From the chart, retransmission fees have gone from $0.2bn to $8.6bn (in 2018,
so, a projection) Absolutely, retransmission fees are growing faster than
anything else.

But Basic Cable net fees have gone from 16.2 to 46.9bn. Fees paid to RSNs
(sports?) have (will have?) gone from 2.7 to 7.8bn.

$35.8bn change for "cable stuff" vs $8.4bn change for "local stuff".

So, yeah, local broadcasters are rolling in it, but the dollar impact on your
bill is from cable+sports programming. (albeit likely on a smaller per-channel
basis).

~~~
exelius
Absolutely true. The cable companies are about to revolt -- what happens if
Comcast says "Fine, we're just giving everyone Netflix + Hulu Plus
subscriptions and a Roku box, so ESPN and the RSNs can fuck off; subscribe to
MLB/NFL/NHL's streaming packages if you want to."?

~~~
ascagnel_
Never gonna happen.

* Comcast makes millions, if not billions a year off of equipment rental fees. $8/mo for a gateway and $12/mo for an HD box (at minimum) for cheap, crappy equipment.

* Streaming video has gotten good, but streaming live video is still a tough nut to crack. You can't pre-buffer things that haven't happened yet (said by someone who's used the NHL's offering for the past few years).

* Sports are keeping cable TV alive. NBCSN prints money for Comcast, and they pay the NHL a ton of money for that content, and the NHL has one of the smaller North American TV deals (due to demographics, regional popularity, and the weak Canadian dollar).

~~~
exelius
* They do, but thinking is evolving that the TCO of having to develop and support those devices isn't worth the revenue they provide. Because the CableCard scheme used in the US is essentially proprietary to the US, the US cable companies have to develop custom hardware at great cost.

* Very true; but there is a lot of investment being made here. Also, if you're watching over the Internet, do you really care if there is a 5 min delay from live action?

* RSNs are a zero-sum game for the cable operators; the money NBCSN makes for Comcast ends up going back out the door to the other RSNs like FoxSN, RootTV, etc. The cable companies would rather not have to pay for any of it. They just use it to bleed each other for money.

~~~
ascagnel_
For point two, a delay is a problem. Twitch had to introduce a delay as they
grew, and it made it difficult for the streamer to respond to things happening
in the chat channel. Sticking to traditional TV sports, notification of a
scoring event shouldn't happen before the video stream reaches you (ie: ESPN's
app notifies you of a scoring event before you see it on a "live" video feed).

------
gwbas1c
Just push it towards the internet. Encourage broadcasters to directly-market.
Now that Android TV is a thing, this can quickly become very user-friendly.

~~~
ascagnel_
Why does Android TV matter? Unless you want to watch a show as soon as you
possibly can, most content has been available for day-after viewing from
Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, Xbox Video, etc etc etc for years.

