It’s Christmas Eve in Montana. You turn on your TV for a time-honored viewing of It’s A Wonderful Life. But you can’t find the Christmas classic, or even the NBC affiliate that’s supposed to be carrying it it. Or perhaps you’re in North Carolina, hoping to watch some NBA basketball after the Christmas feast. Or northern California, settling in to watch your 49ers finish out the regular season. And you can’t.
For viewers in eight media markets, TV blackouts are coming at an unfortunate time. The real Grinch, say cable and satellite advocates, is broadcast conglomerates trying to steal consumers’ money by hiking up prices to carry their stations. Sorry, Scrooge, broadcasters respond, but you’re to blame for your unwillingness to pay a fair amount for our service.
So, what’s the cause of all of this bickering? The disputes stem from an issue most people don’t give much thought — retransmission consent agreements. Current law requires cable and satellite providers to meet every few years with local TV stations to determine how much they’ll pay to keep the affiliate’s programming on their lineup. If they can’t settle on a number, subscribers to that regional provider lose access to the station until the negotiation is resolved.
In Montana, for example, Bonten Media Group — which owns NBC Montana — is at odds with DISH Network over payment for its programming. DISH claims the group is trying to triple its prices; NBC Montana said that number is misleading and its demands are still below the prices some major cable channels command. In the meantime, DISH customers in Missoula, Butte and Bozeman will be without Sunday Night Football, Parks and Recreation and all other NBC programming.
“These blackouts are increasing rapidly because these broadcasters realize that they can play these TV companies off of one another,” said Brian Frederick, spokesman for the American Television Alliance. ATVA’s partners include a number of cable and satellite companies, such as DISH, DirecTV and Time Warner Cable.
The problem, Frederick said, is when broadcast companies force price hikes by blacking out stations on one company and telling customers to find a new provider. The company, lacking a popular channel and losing viewers, is then pressured into a bad agreement to avoid losing market share. Then the same tactic is used on the next provider when its retransmission consent agreement is re-negotiated.
Those claims are part of a manufactured crisis, countered the National Association of Broadcasters’ Dennis Wharton. Satellite and cable companies are unwilling to pay a fair price, he said, and are resorting to disruptions — NAB doesn’t like the term “blackout” — in hopes of pressuring Congress to intervene.
“Their motivation here is to try to get the TV viewers who are pawns in their little game here to call Congress and say, ‘I want my TV back,’” Wharton said.
Will it work? That remains to be seen. Sources on both sides said they expect Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., to unveil legislation soon that would eliminate retransmission consent rules. Scalise proposed similar legislation with then-Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., in 2011. Meanwhile, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., is pushing a bill that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to grant interim carriage of stations while negotiations are ongoing. It would also give consumers choices on purchasing broadcast stations through cable and satellite providers. It’s unclear if either bill can gain traction in the House.
ATVA has not endorsed any specific legislation — “There’s a lot of potential solutions,” Frederick said — but the group supports efforts by members of Congress to reform the current law. It’s also calling on the FCC to do more to “protect consumers.”
Wharton said that push for reform has led to more viewers getting blacked out so that satellite and cable companies can use them as an example of why the rules are unfair. He advised blacked-out viewers to find a new provider or even use their antenna — whatever it takes to watch their Christmas specials.
What We're Following See More »
President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”
It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”
It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.
Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.