The national switch-over to digital broadcasting, slated for 2009, is a big deal. Billions of dollars are at stake and every TV set in America has to get ready for digital TV — consumer electronics manufacturers stand to make a huge windfall when the switch is flipped.
But despite its importance, this is another topic that really makes my eyes glaze over. Further compounding the soporific effect is the crucial related issue of digital must-carry for local TV stations. (I mean broadcast stations. Those old-fashioned TV providers that use non-iodizing radiating towers to reach rabbit ears.) For those of you not following this snooze-a-rama: cable operators must carry local broadcast stations on their line-ups, and with the switch to digital, broadcasters have the opportunity not only to convert to high-def signals but also to create multiple new programming channels, otherwise known as multicast.
But cable operators are fighting the idea that they will be forced to carry all these new, mostly niche channels under a modified must-carry regime. The New York Times’ Richard Siklos makes the growing fight between cable and broadcast stations more interesting today with this piece. The FCC is about to vote for a third time on the question of whether cable operators will be forced to carry all channels emitted by broadcasters, not just their main programming streams.
It looks like FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who has inexplicably copped an attitude toward cable, is leaning toward the broadcasters’ side. If, in fact, the Commission does mandate cable carriage of all broadcast streams, not just the primary signals, then all bloody war will break out (that’s when must-carry actually gets interesting, when cable fights.)
The National Cable and Telecommunications Association last week sent a lengthy letter to Chairman Martin laying out its arguments against multicasting must-carry and the cable guys are clearly aiming to bring out the big guns — statutory violation, First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, you name it. The legality of must-carry rules in general have already made their way to the Supreme Court twice — cable won once and lost once, but then just barely.
Broadcasters are just clearly trying to find a way to survive in an era where non-iodizing radiating towers are superfluous at best and truly stupid at worst. They say that with all their new channels, they can give cable a run for the money in most major markets, offering up a menu of competitive channels that customers can watch for free — as long as they have multicasting must-carry.
Cynthia Brumfield at 6:30 PM|Comments(2)
A few points on multicasting. What is not often written about is what the broadcasters want to do with these channels. They want to offer local weather channels, home shopping networks and channels with nothing but informercials. There is nothing that can be put on these channels that can't be done better on the web on their webpages. There are already too many channels on cable and DBS. We don't need any more, just better ones with better content. The other point never mentioned by the press is the effect that these subchannels have on the main signal. When a station has high definition, the addition of even one subchannel materially degrades the quality of that picture to the point often time s that is is unwatchable on anything over a 13" screen. Is that what the digital transition is all about, making HD look worse than SD. That will only result in the broadcasters losing even more viewers to those that do not multicast or HD cable channels. It is hard to believe that the broadcasters are squaking over the bill that will allow cable operators to take their HD signal and turn it to a SD version so it can be viewed on legacy equipment. They find it represhensible that cable could degrade thier picture even though they are doing the same damn thing themselves with multicasting. They are just making themselves ever increasingly totally irrelvant.
Posted by: Joe Whip at June 12, 2006 9:42 AM
Broadcasters are being challenged to justify their continued relevance. They could emphasize one of their strengths: their connection to local communities. If multicast must-carry goes through without any emphasis on local content, it will be particularly silly. Why give broadcasters a huge chunk of cable real-estate to fill with network/syndicated fare and infomercials?
It is really pretty bizarre that a 1940s model of TV broadcasting still holds sway with the FCC when over-the-air viewership is down to about 15 percent. Local TV is important, but here's what I've been asking: Let's say web video, some of which may be locally produced, grabs 15 percent of the audience. Will YouTube get must-carry rights?
Posted by: Steven Sande at June 11, 2006 9:00 PM
Blogs We Read
