Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Rosco T.

(6,496 posts)
Sat May 11, 2013, 01:09 PM May 2013

For once I can support John McCain on something....

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/298609-mccain-works-on-a-la-carte-cable-tv-bill

McCain working on bill to allow for 'a la carte' cable TV packages
By Brendan Sasso - 05/08/13 06:24 PM ET

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is working on legislation that would pressure cable and satellite TV providers to allow their customers to pick and choose the channels they pay for, his office confirmed on Wednesday.

Consumers have long complained about the rising costs of cable TV packages and having to pay for dozens or even hundreds of channels just to gain access to the few that they watch.

But McCain's legislation, which he is expected to introduce in the coming days, will likely face furious opposition from both the TV broadcasters and cable providers.

(snip)

n addition to pressuring cable providers to offer channels a la carte, McCain's new bill would bar TV networks from bundling their broadcast stations with cable channels they own during negotiations with the cable companies, according to industry sources. So for example, the Disney Company, which owns both ABC and ESPN, could not force a cable provider to pay for ESPN in order to carry ABC.

The industry officials said the bill would also end the sports blackout rule, which prohibits cable companies from carrying a sports event if the game is blacked out on local broadcast television stations.

Dropping the rule would have the most effect on the National Football League, which requires broadcasters to black out games if the local team does not sell out the stadium. The rule is meant to encourage fans to buy tickets to see the game live.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/298609-mccain-works-on-a-la-carte-cable-tv-bill#ixzz2T0MgwJg6
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

PATRICK

(12,227 posts)
2. Isn't this moot?
Sat May 11, 2013, 01:44 PM
May 2013

or are some other big players coming to supplant a doomed industry? It would seem McCain is trying either to help them do something necessary for their own survival(but would cut into profits) or something for the benefit of the public(REALLY hard to believe). This seems unlikely and unpalatable for any of these people(including McCain) so there must be more to it other than panic chicken absurdities emerging from the clubhouse.

Probably wants to personally get those blacked out games on his sports channel and will dump the rest of the bill.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
3. Actually, McCain has been a thorn in the side of the big broadcasters for a long time
Sat May 11, 2013, 02:10 PM
May 2013

Back when he was on the Commerce Committee he argued that the digital transition was a huge giveaway to the broadcast industry. I think he's seen some of the reports about the Cablevision/Viacom antitrust suit over "bundling" of programming and reports of the Aereo case and decided it was an opportunity to revive an issue he was interested in in the past. (He introduced an a la carte bill back in 2009 but it went nowhere). Public interest groups have saluted McCain for introducing this bill. Chances are it won't become law, but it keeps the discussion about the issue from disappearing. McCain will be testifying at a previously scheduled hearing on Tuesday.

As for the sports blackout piece -- that appears to be a case of his staff and the media both not completely understanding the issue. The rule that he has proposed limiting almost never is invoked. It only applies when a team is playing a game at home that is not televised on local television and another broadcast station is "imported" that has the game on. So, if you were in Baltimore and the Orioles were playing a home game against the Tigers and the game was not broadcast on over the air television by a Baltimore station, the team could force a cable or satellite company that serves Baltimore and to black out a Detroit station that is broadcasting the game if that Detroit station is part of the cable operator/satellite company's line up in Baltimore. This scenario virtually never, ever occurs.

MH1

(17,537 posts)
12. The scenario occurs when the home game isn't sold out, AND
Sun May 12, 2013, 09:03 AM
May 2013

the league and/or franchise has some agreement with the local station.

That said, lately I've been seeing lots of games on TV with obviously not-sold-out stadiums (Philly, sigh) so blackout rules aren't in effect most of the time. I think it might be mostly a football thing? Anyway, the reasoning I always heard was to encourage people to actually go to the game (we did pay for that big stadium, remember) rather than sitting at home watching it on TV.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
14. it is a very narrow rule that is not contingent on sell outs
Sun May 12, 2013, 11:35 PM
May 2013

The rules referenced in the McCain bill are very specific and very narrow. They allow the holder of the tv rights to a sporting event that is not being broadcast on a local over the air television station licensed to the community where the event is occurring to prevent a cable system or satellite company from bringing in a "distant" over the air station that is broadcasting the game.

For example, when the Washington Nationals played the Chicago Cubs this weekend, the games on Friday and Saturday were available on MASN -- a non broadcast cable network -- but not on any of the DC broadcast stations. So if the game had been broadcast on WGN from Chicago and the DC area cable system was carrying WGN, the Nationals could have demanded that WGN be blacked out. It wouldn't matter whether the game was sold out or not. On the other hand, and again without reference to whether the game was sold out, the game today was on MASN and the local DC CBS affiliate. As a result, if the game had been on WGN and WGN was carried by the local cable system, the Nationals couldn't demand a blackout.

By way of explanation, this rule dates back to the 1970s (originally it applied only to cable and was extended to satellite much later). I've been advising clients on the application of this rule since the 1980s.

chillfactor

(7,566 posts)
4. I agree whole heartedly regardless of what other posters say....
Sat May 11, 2013, 02:11 PM
May 2013

My bill keeps going up...I pay $83.61 a month for TV and I do not watch three-fourths of the channels..I would love to be able to pay only for the channels I watch....which would leave out FAUX NOISE and CNN-Faux-Lite

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
10. You misread what the proposed bill does.
Sun May 12, 2013, 02:05 AM
May 2013
"I would love to be able to pay only for the channels I watch."

That's not what the proposal would accomplish. It would only prevent ABC from requiring the cable to accompany ABC with ESPN and Disney. If the cable network does not include ESPN and Disney, then ABC would not be provided. It does not prevent cable companies from "bundling," such as offering ESPN only as part of a "sports package" which includes a whole bunch of channels. You either get all of those channels, or you don't get ESPN, and this proposed bill does not address that.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
11. incorrect. it addresses both wholesale and retail bundling
Sun May 12, 2013, 08:31 AM
May 2013

satellite and cable distributors lose certain benefits if they don't offer subscribers certain channels (broadcast channels and other channels owned by broadcasters) on an a la carte basis. Programmers (the broadcaster in particular) lose certain benefits if they don't agree to allow their services to be purchased by distributors individually (wholesale unbundling) AND to be sold individually at retail.

matt819

(10,749 posts)
7. You do realize, however. . .
Sat May 11, 2013, 03:43 PM
May 2013

that as soon as McCain realizes that this has support from Democratic and liberal constituents, he will disavow any association with this bill and condemn its very existence, and then vote against it.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
8. I bet he doesn't get support from a lot of Democrats
Sat May 11, 2013, 06:51 PM
May 2013

And, no he won't disavow association with the bill. In fact, he's sought out a seat at the witness table at next week's hearing.

Meanwhile, Hollywood hates this bill.

McCain, for all his multitude of faults, has been consistent on this issue. Its not the first time he's proposed legislation to push a la carte options. He won't be successful this time either, but not because he's running away from the issue.

Brigid

(17,621 posts)
9. So our Senators can do that,
Sat May 11, 2013, 08:00 PM
May 2013

While our infrastructure is a mess, our schools are a mess, we still have sequestration, too much unemployment . . . You get the idea.

MH1

(17,537 posts)
13. Yep. It is certainly our most pressing issue.
Sun May 12, 2013, 09:07 AM
May 2013

Sigh.

But of course, no one wants to deal with the actual important stuff. Because you know, if we put people to work fixing infrastructure, it would lower the unemployment rate and improve the economy, and that would make Obama look good. And no matter what, that is one thing republicans won't stand for!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»For once I can support Jo...