US FCC Head Suggests Expanding 'Must-Carry' Rules (on Cable Television)

1 posted on 04/25/2006 8:33:27 PM PDT by HAL9000

Cable (standard) is now over 50 bucks. I've thought seriously of cancelling it.

2 posted on 04/25/2006 8:37:06 PM PDT by buckeyesrule (Kellie haters suck!...and they're probably all FAT!!!)

I'm not exactly sure I understand what the reasoning behind "must carry" laws in the first place are...

3 posted on 04/25/2006 8:41:42 PM PDT by MrBlueSky2005

>>"One of the reasons why I think it was a real missed opportunity for the commission to have not addressed multicast carriage in such a way that it would have allowed broadcasters to produce multicast broadcasting in a digital era and having all of those signals carried by the cable companies is that would have provided for an increase in the number of free over-the-air signals that would be available to someone even if they just bought a set-top box," Martin said at a National Association of Broadcasters conference in Las Vegas.<<

So they want to force cable companies to carry channels that they would not choose to carry based on the economics in order to subsidize cables competition (over the air TV).

Gosh, I wonder why the cable companies dont like that idea?

4 posted on 04/25/2006 8:48:11 PM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)

Cable isn't such a hot deal around here either at 56 bucks for the basic. We had it for a while last year but I let it lapse, just wasn't worth it to me. I sort of miss Fox News but it isn't what it used to be. The wife still wants cable and as far as I'm concerned if she gets a job she can get it and pay for it.

I used to use a ten foot C-band dish but it got to be a hassle constantly having to switch vendors to get a decent value on packages so the last several years the gear has just been sitting idle and I don't know if you can still even buy analog C-band programming.

I am full of opinions about cable TV. As for must carry rules for cable (and regulation in general) I think that in areas where one cable operator is a virtual monopoly (which is the case in almost every market), along with other regulation they should be required to carry all local broadcasters and the local broadcasters should in turn be required to allow the cable operators to carry them. On the other hand I think that overbuilt areas should be free of all regulation. I also don't think that local governments should be allowed to grant exclusive franchise to any cable operator. I also don't think that telcos should be restricted from providing cable TV service, nor should cable operators be restricted from providing telephone service. I would love nothing more than a true competitive market without regulation. But hey life isn't perfect.

No matter what happens though, technologies are going to change and whatever regulations exist today will likely not fit well with whatever comes down the pike tomorrow, and may in fact even stifle the development of those potentials. These proposed must carry rules are contemplated because the present rules apply to the legacy analog broadcast stations, and those stations start going off the air next year. My reception is pretty good here for the locals, but at only 6 air miles away, the 1.8 million watt ERP NBC affiliate does fuzz a bit in the summer growing season when the green on the surrounding trees is at it's thickest, even when I can still see the tower lights through those trees. People (cable and satellite subscribers) will be unhappy to awaken to the day their favorite local station has ceased broadcasting it's legacy signal and conflicting regulations result in that network being unavailable to them because they reside within the theoretical grade B contour even though surrounding concrete and vegetation prevents off air reception in their particular reality. So, to just maintain the status quo, that particular set of rules will need some kind of modification.

5 posted on 04/25/2006 10:08:42 PM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (Oregon - a pro-militia and firearms state that looks just like Afghanistan .)

So they want to force cable companies to carry channels that they would not choose to carry based on the economics in order to subsidize cables competition (over the air TV).

Gosh, I wonder why the cable companies dont like that idea?

More information is always better than less information, and if the only way I could get it was to pay someone to pump it to my house through a hose I would buy it. Most cable plants are highly leveraged and the cost of that financing is the largest part of their operation expense. That cost is not affected by the extent to which the capacity of the plant is utilized. The cost of carriage of the local signals, especially digital, is negligible.

Over the air DTV starts it's transition to primary status next year. When it becomes mainstream it is going to be a real threat to cable as we know it today. DTV broadcasters have the ability to deliver multichannel programming from each individual station, and I expect they will. Cable will need to deliver the whole package as well if it is to survive, and I'm not so sure it will. Must carry won't hurt them, becoming outmoded will.

6 posted on 04/25/2006 10:37:50 PM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (Oregon - a pro-militia and firearms state that looks just like Afghanistan .)

There is a case for imposing some rules (e.g. network neutrality) in order to balance the fact that cable companies almost always have a local monopoly imposed by government franchise (unless and until the latter goes away).

I just don't see the rationale for including must-carry under this rubric, however.

7 posted on 04/26/2006 5:05:40 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)

To: Dave in Eugene of all places

>>Cable will need to deliver the whole package as well if it is to survive, and I'm not so sure it will. Must carry won't hurt them, becoming outmoded will.<<

So if this is something Cable needs to do economically then why have government bureaucracy force it on them with expanded regulation?

And BTW, there are alternatives to Cable. I use DirecTV, there is also Dish and soon IPTV will start to be a replacement in much the same way that Voice over IP is an alternative to regular phones.

8 posted on 04/26/2006 5:27:23 AM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)

Dishes aren't always a practical alternative. For example, I dare you to make one work on the north side of a multi story apartment building (that is if the property owner would allow it). IPTV doesn't exist yet, so it isn't an alternative yet. Get back to me when it does.

I'm no fan of regulation, but I believe it is sometimes a good idea where there is a product or service that is delivered by what is essentially a monopoly. Personally I'd rather have no monopoly (and even a duopoly isn't much better). I live in a market that used to be controlled by the entity that invented cable TV and believe me I have seen it all. The large cable operators have a history of business practices that have stifled effective competition and those issues have not been entirely corrected. Until they have, regulation needs to remain on the table.

9 posted on 04/26/2006 11:03:42 PM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (Oregon - a pro-militia and firearms state that looks just like Afghanistan .)

To: Dave in Eugene of all places

>>Dishes aren't always a practical alternative. For example, I dare you to make one work on the north side of a multi story apartment building (that is if the property owner would allow it). IPTV doesn't exist yet, so it isn't an alternative yet. Get back to me when it does.<<

Unfortunately that is all I can say on that matter.

BTW, the reverse of that is true - there are rural areas with no cable but Sattelite is everywhere.

10 posted on 04/28/2006 2:45:23 AM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794