2019 Brings Another Wave Of Cable Programming Blackout Feuds Nobody Wants To Address
from the just-cut-the-cord-already dept
We've written for years about how retransmission and carriage fee disputes in the cable industry have grown increasingly common and are only getting worse. The short version: when it comes time to sign a new deal paying for content, broadcasters generally demand huge rate hikes for the same channels. Cable operators then play hardball, and during negotiations one side or the other (usually broadcasters) pulls their content from the cable lineup in a bid to apply the resulting consumer anger against the other guy in negotiations.
According to cable providers, there were 140 such blackouts last year, up from just 8 back in 2010. One of the biggest problems with these feuds: consumers never see refunds, even though they're often left without access to channels they've already paid for, for months. And while regulators from both parties occasionally make some noise about protecting consumers from such tactics, nothing ever actually happens. Generally, these fights are seen by regulators as "boys just being boys," and the consumer impact is routinely ignored.
So as 2019 arrives, so too arrive yet another round of consumers losing access to content they pay for. Millions of Charter (Spectrum) customers in 24 markets this week lost access to local broadcast channels after the cable company couldn't reach an agreement with Tribune Media:
"As many as 24 markets are affected by the TV blackout, including Denver, Houston, New York, Los Angeles and St. Louis. Tribune pulled its signal at 5 p.m. Eastern time after negotiations stalled. The programming outage comes days before sports fans are expected to switch on their cable TV to watch highly anticipated postseason college and professional football games.
The same story is playing out between Verizon (FiOS TV) and Tegna, resulting in Verizon cable TV customers losing access to local broadcast channels just as the NFL playoffs heat up. And while broadcasters often do deserve the blame for the outages for demanding huge and often unreasonable increases, it's fun to watch cable providers (legendary for their own nickel-and-diming) claim they're the ones standing up for consumers:
"The talks stalled because Tegna had demanded a “significant rate increase” for its channels, said Verizon in a statement on its website.
“The rising cost of programming is the single biggest factor in higher TV bills, and we are standing up to broadcasters like Tegna in order to protect you from rate increases,” Verizon said.
Of course it has been made pretty clear that nobody in this dance of dysfunction (including regulators) actually really cares about the impact on consumers. As a result what usually happens is customers get pissed, they're directed by both sides to yell at the other guy, prompting the two sides to strike a confidential new deal. Those costs are then quietly passed on to consumers, and the whole thing repeats itself in a year or two.
The FCC has occasionally pondered rules requiring that the two sides engage in "good faith" negotiations without harming user access to the content they've paid for, but because this is seen as "heavy handed intervention in the markets" in American culture, nothing really gets fixed as we wait, rather uselessly, for "the market" to somehow magically fix itself. But because said market is a coagulation of politically-powerful natural broadband monopolies which avoid genuine price competition (even with the rise of streaming) like the plague, that's not happening anytime soon.
And while consumers can cut the cord and switch to streaming alternatives, we've already seen heavy-handed efforts on the streaming front as well. In its fight with Cablevision in 2010, News Corporation went so far as to get Hulu to block Cablevision broadband customers from accessing all Fox content. Viacom did something similar in 2014 when it blocked all CableONE broadband customers from accessing Viacom content online, even if those broadband users were paying for TV from another provider.
There's ample room for creativity here where broadcasters (increasingly launching their own streaming services) could attempt to ban streaming customers from accessing this as well via IP range blacklists and other absurd, internet-breaking behavior. In the wake of the death of net neutrality and FCC oversight of cable providers, you can expect this particular problem to get notably dumber before we finally, actually decide to impose a simple rule that lets broadcasters bicker and battle all they like over rates, as long as consumers don't lose access to programming they've already paid for.
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, cable programming, isps, negotiations, rate hikes, tv, tv companies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
See also health care costs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, I know. Charge more! That will certainly solve the problem.
Their industry is dying and it is mostly their own fault for charging too much. Not sure what their end game is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was incensed, and I wrote to the station that night to let them know in no uncertain terms. I actually got a reply back last night but I wasn't in the mood to deal with it. I'll read it tonight when I get home to see how they brush me off with the same "we're only being fair and we need to get the word out" BS that they gave me the last time this happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I realize that government regulation gave them the false sense the market would remain that way forever, but the customers are not forced to pay for the less than impressive product and they are leaving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler":
Copyright / exhibition are property rights because A) cost to make / distribute (yes, even for local TV programs), and B) are valuable and can be sold, are certainly NOT just to be grabbed by anyone who wants a cut of the value.
No. See first answer, and take out your assumption that "ads" will pay for all. IF the content were given away for free as you clearly think possible, there wouldn't be any guarantee that the ads you were paid for are left in to be seen, someone else would show theirs instead.
Faulty premise as stated above: CONTENT IS NOT FREE TO PRODUCE. You've been reading Techdirt too long.
Again, your notions are wrong because Techdirt is wrong. Those who work and pay for content own it. Period. It is not "free" to make and it is not "free" to grab and share or monetize or otherwise distribute.
The US Constitution addresses exactly what you don't understand by trying to guarantee that those who work and pay to create have an "EXCLUSIVE" right enforceable in court. It's a primary Right of persons, not optional grant by Congress.
Since you've somehow failed to grasp all the above in many years at Techdirt, I will fail to straighten you out, so the reward for me is not thrill of educating, but hoots at your incapacity. You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler":
Ang guess what, I am going to use that antenna to pirate the biggest TV sporting event, the Super Bowl!!!
Yes you heard that, I am going to watch the game for FREE using an antenna.....
Go ahead and try to send the copyright police to come get me!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler":
Well then I just want you to know how much I pirate free OTA TV using my rabbit ears. Major sporting events, network "must-see" bullshit, or whatever else is on the major networks and on their secondary channels and networks. ALL FREE!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! FOR FREE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler":
The easy answer is: Because Comcast pays to rebroadcast those channels both from the local affiliate AND the national affiliate, so they pass on that cost to you. Companies like Comcast paying those fees are why the local news station can afford to keep the doors open to broadcast the free version of the signal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler":
Almost. What I mean is, "...so how can the broadcasters get away with charging a cable company like Comcast a fee for transmitting free content, so that they have anything to pass on to me in the first place?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can watch OTA broadcast channels without paying for a cable subscription. If the broadcast channels do not want me to watch their programming without first paying for the privilege, they should tell the government to ban OTA antennas.
You refer to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution. Good. Let’s go over that, shall we?
Article I establishes the legislative branch of the federal government (i.e., Congress).
Section 8 establishes the enumerated powers of Congress (i.e., powers that the Constitution grants Congress, subject to the individual rights listed therein).
If a majority in Congress believed copyright as it stands no longer promoted “the Progress of Science and Useful Arts”, they could change copyright until they felt it did. Congress could shorten copyright terms and the courts would likely agree, with little-to-no dissent, that the act of doing so is both wholly constitutional and well within the power of Congress. (Whether the courts could agree on if shortening copyright terms would cause some form of provable “harm” to copyright holders in general, I could not say.)
Copyright is not a permanence. It is not an “inalienable right”. Copyright in the United States exists as it is because Congress says so—and Congress can change it any way it wants, whenever it wants, because the Constitution says it can. If copyright law were as set in stone by the Constitution as you seem to believe, how was Congress able to extend copyright terms such that the United States public domain stopped growing for decades?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: by securing ... to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
That's just your usual gainsaying to appear that you even can make a counter: is not what I stated, not the law, not the facts, not reality, not sense at all.
First, it's funny that you're suddenly going to original intent -- as you "SovCits" do. But you're not actually reading the Constitution, you're jumping to this paraphrase:
Which is NOT borne out by the body of law developed. Also, since whenever, the US Congress signed onto whatever Treaty that was which extended copyright. I don't support that Treaty (exactly, but skip details here), but that's pretty much the operative Law which is current interpretation of the Copyright Clause (not entirely for the worse, but I was skipping that).
Anyhoo, key words are "securing" -- which means it's an individual Right that Congress is to try and guarantee -- and "exclusive Right to their" which means that NO ONE ELSE has any right as such in one's work. (Oh, just skip fair use that you want to trot out, which must first BE fair, NOT taking content and re-broadcasting somehow.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do remember to breathe once in a while, blue. Your body takes in oxygen, not corporate semen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I went to the original language to determine the original intent. You think you know the original intent because your view of copyright is so strict that it borders on religious dogma.
The literal text of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution is this: “The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[.]” Quoting the Constitution means I read at least that part of it.
The literal text of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 says Congress has the power to establish copyright law, which means it also has the power to change copyright law however it wishes. Granted, these days, corporate stooges hold that power by way of shoving money into the pockets of our Congressional delegates, but the principle remains the same regardless.
If Congress so chooses. Remember, the literal text of the Copyright Clause says Congress has the power to secure copyright, not that it must exercise that power “or else”.
What it means is no one has any right to create and distribute copies of someone else’s copyrighted works. (Well, that, and derivative works.) That right lies in the hands of the author/copyright holder. But the funny thing is…
…Fair Use allows for the creation and distribution of a work that incorporates part (or possibly even the entirety) of someone else’s work provided that work is a substantial transformation done for the purposes of commentary or parody. (This is a simplified definition, but that should make it understandable for you.) A work such as, say, a CinemaWins¹ video relies on rebroadcasting part of someone else’s work with additional commentary from the video’s author.
And your definition of “fair” would likely be “less than one percent of one percent of the original work”, given the strictness of your perverse interpretation of copyright law.
¹ - Yes, CinemaWins, not CinemaSins. CS is far too negative for my tastes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler":
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler&q
Exactly as I predicted. You don't bother trying to argue with what I wrote (indeed logically can't since began by stating you didn't understand), just dodge with childish quip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re lucky anyone bothers at all, when they should be telling you to G.F.Y.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In this context? It means “go fuck yourself”. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think they should have to pay much, necessarily, but for sure they shouldn't get to charge for being carried, at least not to the people already within their broadcast viewing area.
TV stations get wider audiences and more ad revenue as a result and have to do basically nothing, cable companies can charge appropriately for the bandwidth to carry the channels but can make it up in higher subscriber numbers... everybody wins, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too important to fail, and big has nothing to do with it
In the mean time, while the dispute is ongoing, the cable company still gets paid, and in the end pony up whatever the broadcasters demand. So both get paid while the consumers get screwed. That is...if they get screwed and don't find alternatives for their TV jones, which could be streaming, or torrenting, or Netflix, or something else entirely which (as cord cutting goes) leaves both the broadcasters and the cable companies in the lurch.
Funny how these companies think the value of their products/services are a need, rather than a want. Given the state of broadcast news these days, not even that is important, let alone necessary. When the last cable customer cuts their line and doesn't buy an OTA antennae, will the lesson get learned? Somehow, I think not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cut that cable!
And as to retransmission fees: That's a bonkers consequence of copyright -- something broadcast for *anyone* to pick up, free, now you charge for it if it is the cable company broadcasts it further?
It might make sense if there was a requirement not to remove the ads or not to change the timing. But it was BROADCAST, no license...now furthering the range of the transmitter can be charged for????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's where it all went wrong
In October 1994, the FCC gave stations a choice of being carried under the must-carry rules or under a new regulation requiring cable companies to obtain retransmission consent before carrying a broadcast signal. The retransmission consent ruling gave desirable local stations increased power to negotiate the terms of carriage the cable company would provide, including channel preference.
So the local stations can either choose must-carry or re-transmission consent when dealing with cable-cos. The former means that the cable-co has to carry the channel, but they don't have to pay to channel owner to do so. The latter means that the cable-co is not required to carry the channel, but if it does it has to pay a re-transmission fee to the station owner.
Here's where everything goes to hell. The station owner is always going to choose the re-transmission fee option, because must-carry doesn't get them any money. That option means that the cable-co doesn't have to carry the channel, but the station owner knows that people will scream bloody murder if they can't watch their favorite network shows or sports, and the cable-co will eventually have to cave in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tegna's statement:
Translation:
"All the other providers caved to our extortion, such a shame Verizon is holding out.
Additional note: as of last night, the Tegna-Verizon dispute appears to have been resolved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clash of the titans... Verizon vs. Disney
Days before the new year, Verizon notified me that they were playing chicken with Disney. The fact that I can't tell you who won (I guess I don't look at Disney-created content on cable) speaks volumes about the true value of Disney's offering.
Apologies for the length, but here's the threat language:
"Despite what you may be hearing from Disney, we have been negotiating a renewal agreement to keep their networks, which include those from Disney and ESPN, as well as ABC affiliates in Philadelphia and New York, in our lineup.
Disney is currently proposing that Verizon pay hundreds of millions of dollars more for its programming, despite the fact that many of its key networks are experiencing declining viewership. In addition to the proposed rate increase, Disney is also demanding we include, and pay for, another regional sports channel, the ACC Network, in order to continue bringing you all the other Disney and ESPN networks we do today. The rising cost of programming is the biggest factor in higher TV bills and we are standing up to networks like Disney, refusing to accept these huge increases.
We’ve given Disney a reasonable offer to continue providing you access to its networks. Unfortunately, as of today, they have rejected our offers and there is a possibility that we won’t be able to reach an agreement with them prior to our contract expiration on December 31, 2018 at 5pm EST."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I show my mom how to stream shows now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't have cable. Never have. Neither of us sees any real reason to, as between Netflix, Amazon Video, YouTube and free streaming services set up by the various broadcasters, we're not missing anything we actually want to see. And I don't see any good reason why our kids, when they come, would change that calculus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dying beasts tend to lash out chaotically. This will get worse before its all over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]