Why Does The Goverment Hate Satellite Service Providers?
from the Physics,-Economics,-and-Definition-of-'Fair' dept
Earlier this week, Rep. Bart Stupak, from rural Michigan, introduced a bill to require Dish Network and DirecTV (SatTV) to carry local TV channels in all US markets. Stupak said that the current practice of only carrying local channels for major population centers is unfair to rural citizens. But Stupak seems to miss two important economic and scientific factors against his wishes, as well as an understanding of competition and what is fairPhysics sets hard limits to how many channels of TV SatTV can broadcast from their existing satellites. And with the public now clamoring for more HDTV, SatTV is now desperately trying to shoe-horn more HD channels into the limited capacity they have, so they can compete effectively with cable (an important role). SatTV carriers must trade-off between content for the whole country, and content for local audiences. In the case of large metro cities, the audience size tips the trade-off towards local content. Yet Stupak seems to think that it's worth using up scarce nationwide capacity to carry local content for every town that has a TV station. Ridiculous. The needs of the many subjugated to the needs of the few?
Then Stupak also seems to ignore the economic argument that these SatTV enterprises are businesses trying to stay afloat. They are not public services. And the SatTV companies need to deliver a product that can attract a sizeable audience, or the service will be a sure money loser.
If Stupak thinks it's fair to force SatTV to provide product for small towns, they why not force the same of the NFL or airlines? Shouldn't we also require the NFL to put a team in any town that wants one, or is the NFL unfairly discriminating against rural America? And airlines should be required to have flights to every airport, too, right Rep. Stupak? Sir, these aren't public services, nor charities. Your Bill would increase costs to all of us, and reduce available services to the nation by redirecting resources to sparsely populate areas.
I've said it before, and I know I'll get hate responses when I say it again, but there are trade-offs people make when they choose to live in the city, OR in the countryside. Tough. We city folk trade off fresh air, open spaces, bucolic lifestyles, good schools, flora, ample space and land, open roads and more. Rural people sacrifice retail options, entertaiment services, Internet access, and more. Life is full of trade-off decisions. Not everyone makes the same choices, and that IS fair...in fact it should be celebrated and called freedom.
Does the government just dislike satellite services for some reason? Mike has steadily covered the impact of a slow government approval of a Sirius-XM merger. While the merger definitely reduced competitors in the sat radio space, that space is NOT the market in which those two companies operate. If they go broke in part because of gov't meddling, we will only then see a significant reduction in competition in the much wider portable audio entertainment industry, which is the actual market under consideration.
In toto, SatTV has been a fantastic boon for rural dwellers, offering them a range of entertainment options that were never before available outside of major cities. This is the upside of a distribution network that targets the whole country with one signal. The downside is a reduced capacity for local programming. As a bonus to rural dwellers, although satellite Internet isn't great, at least it gives you an option. In town, SatTV delivery market, especially back in the day when cable was unchallenged by the telcos. Aren't satellite services, recent arrivals on the scene, competition engines, and a market success story? Why would the congressman want to squeeze this winner until it can't breathe?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bart stupak, michigan, satellite tv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: meh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should be done...
it just seams... i don't know, fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Commonly what Dtv does right now is build dishes that are capable of picking up the HD local channels being broadcast over the air by the stations themselves, and mixes them into the Dtv channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sat. TV and Local channels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sat. TV and Local channels
Why are we forced to pay $xxx.xx amount of $'s for some of the crap we're forced to pay for. I really have no use for all these infomercial channels,cooking,15 plus News channels and half all talk about money.A gazillion sports channels.So I can not watch my game because I did not upgrade to get the other channel,NFL network.
LAST but not least CSPAN 1,2.? maybe more. What about the all new BABY channel. Last time I asked my 6 mo. old grandson,(No Reply) he burps the not interested burp.LOL
The congress can give up their stupid channels for locals?maybe? hmmm bet not.
Problem is, No one person wants to give.
So,we are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sat. TV and Local channels
Why are we forced to pay $xxx.xx amount of $'s for some of the crap we're forced to pay for. I really have no use for all these infomercial channels,cooking,15 plus News channels and half all talk about money.A gazillion sports channels.So I can not watch my game because I did not upgrade to get the other channel,NFL network.
LAST but not least CSPAN 1,2.? maybe more. What about the all new BABY channel. Last time I asked my 6 mo. old grandson,(No Reply) he burps the not interested burp.LOL
The congress can give up their stupid channels for locals?maybe? hmmm bet not.
Problem is, No one person wants to give.
So,we are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traitor!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traitor!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm for it.
Local TV can prevent a dilution of local culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Local channels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not saying that governments should dictate programing, I'm just saying I can see a legal basis for the authority. "If you want to use my land, I'm want something in return."
But I don't see how the government could have any authority over satellite programing. As far as I know they're not using any government owned spectrum, but I could be wrong about that. Any ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about promoting broadband?
Hello? What about satellite broadband? Talk about government screwing satellite providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about promoting broadband?
Hello? What about satellite broadband? Talk about government screwing satellite providers."
Satellite broadband is a pretty weak choice with it's high latency, speeds that rival the slowest DSL connections, high expense, and the fact that it's affected by weather conditions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lobbyists, anyone?
Hell, DirecTV used lobbying to force certain required content regulation on the sat industry to beat up Dish because they knew that Dish had less birds and therefore less bandwidth. (At least that's my understanding of one situation).
There is likely a cable lobbyist in this Rep's pocket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would opt ofr networks over local channels
Having said that, they need to allow everyone to watch network television, even if they don't live in a major metro area. While living in middle America with sat. t.v. I was told that I couldn't get ABC/NBC/etc. because I wasn't in a major metro area and I didn't fall into the exception of 'back woods' rural that didn't have a local affiliate.
If you want to serve rural (and middle ) America while keeping within the bounds of physics, mandating that they carry at least 1 channel of each of the networks that's available to all subscribers would be a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with the article, even if I'm a "beneficiary"
Also on topic, XM/Sirius is VERY popular around here, where it can be a challenge to pull in ANY fm station while driving.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the typical entertainment alternative, broadband, isn't really practical around here, when "broadband" is 256K dsl.
Unfortunately, I completely understand that these businesses can't cater to the few of us rural folk. You're right, it's my choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't survive on Rural Alone
I left the cable company to go with Dish because I liked the all digital idea and they had a nice array of HD choices. I left them in January for U-Verse because I could get better service for $50 less (when bundled with broadband).
SatTV providers are not going to survive if their only market is rural folks who don't have any other choice. They need to attract folks like me -- in a major market -- and I don't care about all of the new HD channels they add to rural markets, I care about how many HD channels I can receive in comparison to their competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
satellite and local
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable?
I lived in Rural Michigan for 10 years. I had a comcast line on a right-of-way on my property. But they refused to give me access to cable television, or internet, until the final 2 years I lived there (this is '98 - '08, just a few miles outside of Ann Arbor).
Until Cable is REQUIRED to give local stations to RURAL citizens, they can not require Satellite to provide a service to these very same people? Think about it, they're requiring universal access to DBS. Why can't DBS simply state, "we don't service 'your town'" just like some cable companies do. They don't have a coverage mandate, why then should DBS?
PittCaleb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does happen....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me get this straight
Can I go to McDonald's, purchase a Big Mac Meal, then demand they carry tacos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many more is it, really?
Of the 210 geographic markets delineated by regulators, satellite companies do not provide local programing in 31, according to Stupak.
So they are already carrying the local stations in 210 markets but an additional 31 to cover them all would be unreasonable? And then there's this,
Stupak, who serves on a U.S. House of Representatives' Internet subcommittee, said he has been asking the satellite companies for years to expand local service to all markets, but to no avail.
He cited a 2003 congressional hearing where DirecTV pledged to carry local broadcasting service nationwide.
"Unfortunately, without a hard date established in satellite law, this pledge has gone unfulfilled," he said.
So, they already agreed to do this anyway, but now they're just wanting to welsh.
Don't forget, they're using the public airwaves under certain terms and conditions. If they don't like them, they don't have to use the airwaves.
Disclosure: I have no stake in the satellite TV industry and no incentive to sugarcoat it. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who watches the knitting channel ?
And on a tangent, do the countless channels whose sole purpose is to sell you junk jewlery really have that many viewers ? If so, does it need to be in HD ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Fairness doesn't mean equality."
This is a case where the government really needs to bud out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amen, brother! Preach on!
I'm a city boy myself, but I can see the draw of living in the country. One thing I like about the country: Being able to look up and see stars. Why would I want to watch them on TV, after that?
But, I'm addicted to the internet. *Sigh* I know. It's a terrible habit, but I just can't stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
read this
LAST but not least CSPAN 1,2.? maybe more. What about the all new BABY channel. Last time I asked my 6 mo. old grandson,(No Reply) he burps the not interested burp.LOL
The congress can give up their stupid channels for locals?maybe? hmmm bet not.
Problem is, No one person wants to give.
So,we are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally True...
I think you need to give the internet more credit, eventually it will be replacing all our entertainment mediums as it will be the preferred distribution system for everything: TV, news, games, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL!
BTW, great article!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indian Girls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indian Girls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
smivers backlinks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government
The most useful thing most of our lawmakers could do is not show up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Square coffee table
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traitor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
very funny....
Pretty sure we don't do that anymore.
best blenderbest tent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adenjeff121
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fingerprint solution provider
Fingerprint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Health Care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]