Those Annoying Cable Channel Blackouts Are Only Going To Get Worse In 2018
from the more-money-for-the-same-substandard-service dept
The last few years, cable TV customers have faced a growing number of obnoxious carriage fee blackouts, which occur when broadcasters and cable operators can't agree on new programming contracts. Such feuds usually go something like this: a broadcaster will demand a fairly obnoxious price hike for the same content, to which the cable provider (already awash in complaints about higher rates) will balk. Instead of negotiating their differences like adults, this content is subsequently blacked out for paying customers to force a settlement. Customers never see refunds for the inconvenience of being used as props.
For weeks, consumers are bombarded with PR missives, new websites and on-screen tickers all trying to amplify public outrage and drive greater pressure for one side or the other to buckle. After a while, the two sides strike a new confidential deal, and the higher rates are then quickly passed on to consumers. In a letter to lawmakers last year, Dish Network argued that consumers have faced 750 such broadcaster blackouts since 2010, with the retransmission consent fees that broadcasters demand growing a whopping 27,400% between 2005 and 2016.
It's an idiotic cycle of dysfunction that's unsustainable and only acts to drive consumers to alternative video options (like piracy). The fact that these costs are only driving users away from the traditional pay TV ecosystem is irrelevant to many cable and broadcast executives, who seem inclined to believe that they'll be able to nurse this dying cash cow in perpetuity.
The annoying phenomenon shows no sign of slowing down in 2018. Frontier customers in Seattle this week lost access to CBS after the company says it was told it needed to pay 80% more money for the same exact content:
"Cox’s bullying and heavy-handed blackout tactics hurt consumers,” said Steve Ward, Frontier Senior Vice President Video Technology and Content. "Their demands for an outrageous price increase would have to be passed on to customers in the form of higher monthly service rates. It’s time for Cox to agree to a fair and reasonable solution."
Meanwhile, Suddenlink and Optimum (formerly Cablevision) customers woke up to the new year with the news that they'd no longer be able to access Starz after their cable provider and the broadcaster failed to strike a new deal. For now, customers of those cable providers are being told that if they want access to Starz content, they'll need to pay extra to access it via Starz online streaming platform:
"Given that Starz is available to all consumers directly through Starz' own over-the-top streaming service, we don't believe it makes sense to charge all of our customers for Starz programming, particularly when their viewership is declining and the majority of our customers don't watch Starz," Altice said in its statement. "We believe it is in the best interest of all our customers to replace Starz and StarzEncore programming with alternative entertainment channels that will provide a robust content experience at a great value."
Of course with regulatory capture and the death of net neutrality, it's likely that this is one of several problems in the telecom and cable world that will only get worse before it gets better. Regulators from both parties were already inclined to dismiss this problem as just "boys being boys," wary of getting involved in what they believe are simple business disputes. And while there have been occasional talks about banning these blackouts as an act of bad-faith negotiations, nothing much ever appears to come of them. The hope was that the threat of regulatory intervention would be enough.
And while it's certainly true that this behavior will only drive customers to new streaming alternatives, broadcasters still dictate licensing for (or outright own) those services as well, meaning it's only a matter of time before this problem expands to hamper access to online content. There have been several different times where broadcasters blocked user access to their online services as well (usually by ISP IP range); behavior that only ceased due to companies being worried that they might run afoul of net neutrality (since many ISPs are broadcasters, like Comcast) or adult regulatory supervision.
With both of those concepts on the chopping block, expect carriage fee bickering (and the subsequent blackouts) to get both worse and more sophisticated in the new year.
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: blackouts, broadcasters, cable, competition, tv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If this monstrosity is ever reviewed and fixed I hope they add mandatory licensing without price discrimination to whoever wants to get the content. Of course this may be moot considering ISPs own copyright holders as well.
Know what? Just let's go without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This does happen over here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Jacking up these prices like they are is insane. These retransmission fees are a joke. These cable companies are doing them a favor in which more people can get and see their channel. Which in turn means more money for ad's on their channel. Yet these fees they want just to retransmit their channels keep shooting way up and up.
Cut the cord and break free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which means we can keep the revenue you were paying anyways for the now missing Starz line up & collect a bounty when your streaming pushes you over our bandwidth caps.
There is a finite amount of money you can extract from consumers. There is not a single show that doesn't have an "alternative" path to acquire. They will tell you how horrible you are for doing this, ignoring how horrible it is to be a pawn in a corporate shakedown & having content you want to see go missing or flooded with tickers telling you it might go away.
What will these channels do when they manage to kill off cable? None of them are smart enough to offer a decent streaming service, & even if they tried they would screw it up by trying to limit it into uselessness.
If not for all of the hidden fees & game playing the industry is so in love with, they might finally offer ala carte packages. Imagine if consumers knew they were paying $20 a month for CBS, that they could get with an antenna for free.
It is a pity our "free market" has no competition to act as price controls. We are just a flock to be sheared, until they finally push the good people into searching for "other" ways to get the content. Then they raise prices again, and other good people fall for the sweet words of the devil on their shoulder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can fight over nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blackouts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackouts
Maybe instead of dealing with Retransmission fees, they go with a Box where Broadcast TV is received by an Antenna Hookup to the Box along with the cable to satellite signal to it for all the other channels.
If you can't get channels by an Antenna, you are free to get them from someone else. Just end this crap once and for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackouts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entitlement Spending
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Entitlement Spending
The deal was ... they keep some of your earnings for you and in return you get your earnings back during retirement. That was the deal and now they want to change the deal because they have borrowed heavily from same and do want to pay it back. This is also seen in the private sector where pension plans are being robbed leaving some with nothing. Why do people still believe anything these politicians have to say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Entitlement Spending
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can anyone explain why retransmission fees are even a thing in the first place?
We already know the fair market value of broadcast TV content: zero. That's what they charge to broadcast it over the air, because it's supported by advertising. Anyone trying to charge money for it is running a scam, and it's a bit horrifying to see that scam upheld by courts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no rational for greed - just lust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those Annoying Cable Channel Blackouts Are Only Going To Get Worse In 2018
https://tinyurl.com/1992cableact
https://tinyurl.com/CableActWikipedia
That act gives broadcasters the right to elect one of two options:
-- MUST CARRY: A cable TV or sat TV is MUST CARRY the station, but the station cannot charge a fee.
https://tinyurl.com/y72x8598
-- RETRANSMISSION CONSENT: A cable TV or sat TV must obtain permission ("retransmission consent") if it wants to carry the station.
https://tinyurl.com/y9hqm4xp
If you don't like this situation, don't complain about it here. Complain to your elected representatives in United States Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this really a zero sum game? I don't think so. Just because cable has become so ridiculous causing people to cancel their service does not mean they will get their video fix elsewhere. Perhaps some of them will simply do without, and they will not be missing much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: explain why retransmission fees are even a thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC Must Carry
Several years ago here in Raleigh,NC the local ABC affiliate (must carry) is actually owned by Disney. In order to carry the ABC affiliate, DISH Network was being told that redistribution rights had increased *and* it *must* also offer multiple DISNEY channels on it's default offering - and pay for those (causing individual rates to rise).
DISH network subscribers lost access to ABC (and Disney) channels for a while until the situation was settled - to the detriment of my pocketbook.
I believe that content owners should not be allowed to own distribution mechanisms. "must carry" must also be eliminated/modified so that if an agreement cannot be reached, another affiliate can be substituted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]