Dish Pulls CNN, Doesn't Think Customers Still Paying For It Are Missing Much

from the you-really-don't-want-to-buy-what-I'm-selling dept

As another shining example of the fading value proposition of traditional cable, Dish Network last month pulled all Turner Broadcasting stations (including CNN, Headline News, and Cartoon Network) from their lineup because the two sides couldn't agree on a new retransmission fee contract. As we just got done saying, these feuds are growing more and more annoying as paying consumers not only lose access to content, but get bombarded with marketing missives as both sides try to blame the other guy for being greedy (See Turner's SaveMyShows.com website and Dish's DishStandsForYou.com website).

In Dish's case, customers have lost access to content but they're still paying the same rates. Yet speaking this week on the company's earnings call, Dish CEO Charlie Ergen told customers eager to watch election coverage that not only may they never get CNN back, they really shouldn't miss it because nobody watches cable news these days anyway:

"When we take something down we’re prepared to leave it down forever. Things like CNN are not quite the product that they used to be. You can imagine: CNN down on election night would have been a disaster 15 or 20 years ago. Now there are plenty of other places for people to get news. In fact a lot of people get news not from TV but from their devices."

While that might be true (given that CNN, like most cable news, is now more unintentional cultural satire than news), it's odd to hear a cable exec telling people they don't need to buy what he's selling, especially since the majority of cable channel lineup bundles are increasingly bloated with similarly-inane content. Ergen added that while the company does listen to customers, they're not going to here, since it's nice that Dish will save a buck:

"If we’re not going to be in a relationship with Turner then we would not have to raise our prices next year. And that would be slightly cash positive for us from a cash flow perspective. Yes, we listen to customers. But we would save a big, big, big check from a cash flow perspective. And for those folks who don’t care about news and cartoons, we have other news and cartoon shows."

Again, that's probably not particularly comforting to Dish customers who are getting less content yet paying the same amount of money to Dish.

Some of this is just traditional Charlie Ergen negotiations bluster, given it's hard to sell TV content if you tell all of the people making it to go to hell. Unlike many cable execs, Dish and Ergen do see the cord cutting writing on the wall, and are planning to launch a live Internet video service sometime before the end of the year. However, that service again relies on the good graces of the broadcasters if it's going to survive; the same broadcasters who've been waging legal war against any disruptive technology that could possibly topple the traditional cable cash cow, whether it's Dish's automatic ad-skipping DVR or Aereo. Turner says they were originally on board with the project, but after the last month's feuding says they're reconsidering the green light.

Even if it's a little ham-fisted, Ergen's trying to make the point that the current TV ecosystem and these often bi-annual rate hikes simply aren't sustainable. It's the same point being made by small and mid-sized cable companies that have started to leave the cable business entirely because they can't afford to participate, and it's same point being made by cord-cutters who are tired of paying an arm and a leg for an ocean of crap content.

Filed Under: cable tv, charlie ergen, cnn, retransmission, retransmission fees, tv
Companies: dish, dish network, turner

Aereo: Okay, Fine, If You Say We Look Like A Duck, We'll Quack Like A Duck

from the let's-pay-up dept

In the wake of the Aereo ruling, I'd been meaning to do a post questioning whether or not the ruling had effectively overturned the ruling in the ivi case from a few years earlier. We had seen some people in our comments point out that, following the Aereo ruling, Aereo had an easy solution: just start paying retransmission fees. Except... that's exactly what ivi had tried to do, and the court had shut them down, using almost the opposite reasoning as the Supreme Court. Specifically, the Second Circuit appeals court (the same that had decided in Aereo's favor) ruled that internet services were not cable companies under the law, and couldn't just pay retrans fees:

Congress did not, however, intend for Section 111's compulsory license to extend to Internet transmissions. Indeed, the legislative history indicates that if Congress had intended to extend Section 111's compulsory license to Internet retransmissions, it would have done so expressly -- either through the language of Section 111 as it did for microwave retransmissions or by codifying a separate statutory provision as it did for satellite carriers. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 111, 119.

Extending Section 111's compulsory license to Internet retransmissions, moreover, would not fulfill or further Congress's statutory purpose. Internet retransmission services are not seeking to address issues of reception and remote access to over-the-air television signals. They provide not a local but a nationwide (arguably international) service.

Accordingly, we conclude that Congress did not intend for Section 111's compulsory license to extend to Internet retransmissions.

So, uh, which is it? Aereo has now decided that if the Supreme Court is going to call it a duck for looking like a duck, it's damn well going to quack like a duck too. It has told the lower court that it intends to pay retransmission fees under Section 111, more or less claiming directly that the Supreme Court overruled the ivi ruling. For what it's worth, Aereo's "wacky" (but seriously questionable) "competitor" FilmOn, already made a similar declaration of being a cable company, though as we've learned with FilmOn, you should take almost every claim it makes with a huge grain of salt.

Of course, this is a big problem with the Supreme Court's ruling. By coming up with this wacky "looks like a duck" test, it's encouraging companies like Aereo to use that test in a variety of ways, even though copyright law has never worked that way. Lots of things that "look like" each other face different rules: think of terrestrial radio and internet radio stations. Under the "looks like a duck" test, internet radio stations should be able to declare themselves the same as terrestrial radio stations and stop having to pay performance fees to musicians.

And, of course, the networks themselves don't like Aereo embracing the duck, even though the company is only doing so because of the network's own lawsuit.

On July 1, however, its counsel suggested that Aereo has rethought its entire legal strategy and will raise before this Court a brand new defense based on Section 111 of the Copyright Act. Aereo never before pled (much less litigated) Section 111 as an affirmative defense. Whatever Aereo may say about its rationale for raising it now, it is astonishing for Aereo to contend the Supreme Court’s decision automatically transformed Aereo into a “cable system” under Section 111 given its prior statements to this Court and the Supreme Court.

But it's not Aereo that made that decision. It's pretty clearly the Supreme Court and its stupid "looks like a duck" test. The entertainment industry might want to be careful what it wishes for. It applauded the dreadful looks like a duck test, and now it's freaking out when Aereo actually tries to apply it.

Filed Under: cable company, cable tv, copyright, retransmission fees, section 111, supreme court
Companies: aereo, filmon, ivi