No major cable operator hates paying broadcasters for the right to retransmit their free over-the-air programming more than Cablevision. Last year, it allowed ABC and Fox stations to go dark on Cablevision systems while trying to hammer out payment deals. So it’s interesting to see the three-point plan that Cablevision submitted to the FCC today to ensure that subscribers aren’t deprived from seeing the Oscars or the World Series while companies work out their differences.
First, it wants regulators to prevent broadcasters from packaging their services in a way that would require pay TV services to carry cable channels they don’t want in order to land programming from a must-have network such as ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC. Second, if the cable operator can’t strike a deal with a network’s local station, then Cablevision wants the freedom to cut deals that would enable it to import signals from out-of-market network affiliates. And, third, Cablevision wants to be able to publicize the fees that broadcasters want.
“Consumers are the ones who are harmed when broadcasters pull or threaten to pull their networks from cable systems,” Cablevision COO Tom Rutledge says.
Sound like a consumer-friendly plan? “I guess the answer is ‘maybe,’ ” says Media Access Project Policy Director Andy Schwartzman. He says it’s “unclear” whether the FCC has the right to tell network owners how to sell their channels. Also, giving pay TV services the opportunity to import signals from out-of-market network affiliates “could have an adverse effect on localism,” he says.
Cable and satellite companies say that consumers will end up bearing the brunt of broadcasters’ growing efforts to receive cash for their over-the-air transmissions. Pay TV operators will pay $3.6 billion for these deals in 2017, up from $1.1 billion last year, research firm SNL Kagan estimated this week.


If the cable companies shouldn’t have to pay for channels they don’t want to carry, then I shouldn’t have to pay for channels I don’t want to watch, right? If the cable company gets to buy channels a la carte, the consumer should get to do the same.
hear-hear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those of us who use online services instead of cable are already watching a la carte. The nets and cablers are arranging deck chairs on the Titanic and ignoring the obvious; consumers want a la carte. We want to skip wrestling and Indy Cars and add A&E and BET, or vice versa — just let the consumer choose. Some consumers may even opt to ignore a few of the big 4; NBC has little that I want to see, same goes for ABC.
The problem is, the cable companies will price the ala-cart stations in a way that you’ll pay the same amount for, say, 30 of them that you would if you bought the whole thing.
I’m all for it…but only if cable companies start letting us consumers pay for only the stations WE want.
How about go all the way and let consumers pick the channels they want and not get stuck with packages of channels they don’t want also.
It is hilarious that Cablevision is claiming it is trying to protect the consumer with this plan. Before even making this request they should have pondered what their response is to their subscribers when they call in asking for the exact same thing. Most consumers only watch a handful of their cable channels, but dare ask if you can get an a la carte package, and the answer is always a resounding ‘NO’.
do i care if i see a broadcast channel from across the country…nope…not a bit..esp if it will lower cable cost or stop it from going up…now if everybody decides not to carry a local channel, not a cable co, not a sat. co….well guess that is a problem ..question: do stations make more money off advertising or carriage fees?
I’m glad I’m not the only one that read that as “We want to stop tv networks from doing to us *exactly* what we do to the end-consumer.”
Although in principle that it is a fair argument in reality it’s just ignorant of the economics involved. A la carte pricing would be substantially higher for the A la carte consumer as well as the cable “package” consumer because the rates that providers pay are based on that everyone will be exposed to their channels. So, you’re not clever or smart for suggesting a la carte for consumers, you’re just ill-informed by sound bytes from politicians.
As for Cablevision, they are out of their collective minds. They are by far the worst-run and most pathetic cable provider in the US and this is just a desperate ploy to have the government come in a correct their poor business decisions. First of all, it’s well beyond the bounds of the FCC’s jurisdiction but second it would have disastrous implications on the industry as a whole. Cablevision is suggesting that they want to be able to extort and strongarm local affiliates and networks to do things their way because they’re too cheap to and poorly run to play nice. It’s funny how none of the other cable providers in the US have this issue.
This part is very misleading:
Cable and satellite companies say that consumers will end up bearing the brunt of broadcasters’ growing efforts to receive cash for their over-the-air transmissions. Pay TV operators will pay $3.6 billion for these deals in 2017, up from $1.1 billion last year, research firm SNL Kagan estimated this week.
No, what cable and satellite providers have done that these deals will invariably require rate hikes. This piece makes it sound as if the providers are appealing on behalf of the poor consumer. They’re not. They’re just laying it out there because they will pay and so will the consumer.
I’d have cable right now if I could choose what I wanted and the price reflected that. DVDs, Netflix streaming and the internet are doing me just fine right now, though.
You dont want pay for cable channels ala carte… It would end up costing a fortune…
I don’t get how these broadcast networks were given free spectrum back in the 90s, and then they basically double-dip and charge cable and satellite companies to also air their channel.
If consumers have their own antenna it’s free, so why are they basically being charged for these channels if they subscribe to cable and satellite?
I’m just saying other cable channels don’t have these special rights that local broadcast channels have. It now turns out the spectrum they were given free in the 90s is very valuable, so they should have to pay the taxpayers for it if they want to charge them for receiving their signal on cable and satellite.
The must-carry rules have become “forced to carry”!
And when it the FCC going to add low-power stations and sub-channels to the “must carry” rules?
Why don’t they and other cable and satellite companies build into the Cable / Sat Boxes a built in Digital TV Antenna that automatically switches to it if there is a loss of a cable signal for that free broadcast TV Network? That would solve the problem.
First time ever commenting… but I HAD TO chime in. It looks as if I am just going to echo some others. How can a cable company have that much arrogance to claim they bare the yoke of protecting consumers? They claim they are “protecting” consumers by saying THEY should choose our channel lineup while denying our ability to choose. I am so enraged by this. If I had any faith in the FCC in doing the right thing they would respond to this request with a mandate that all consumers must be provided with ala carte selection!
Yeah let consumers choose which stations or networks they want to see. On my lineup, I probably watch only 10 -20 percent of the channels in the basic package…Why do I need to pay for all thse other channels -ranging from a dozen ESPN to shopping and Christian channels to a bunch of others I dont care for…And t hen in the higher tier, I may only want one channel but I would be forced to pay to get 20-40 channels that I dont want so I dont subscrib.e
This is a pretty easy fix, actually. If a broadcaster is using the public airwaves for free (which the networks affiliates all are doing) then they shouldn’t have the right to demand retransmission fees. If they want to charge cable companies for their programming then give up the very valuable bandwidth that you have been using and join the free market economy like everybody else. But that’s not going to happen, is it?
Public airwaves should be free to all retransmitters with compensation to the broadcasters. Free should mean free. Save the negotiating for fee-to-see channels.
Cablevision’s chairman, Charles Dolan, said he wanted to offer a-la-carte years ago, but the program supplier contracts would not let him.
For example, in order to pay ESPN a certain rate per subscriber, ESPN requires that it be visible in all homes above broadcast-only basic. Many also tie one network to another, for example if you want to carry Disney Channel you also had to carry ESPN Classic, etc.
The out of town thing sounds great, but how long would the network keep that station as an affilite after they got carried instead of their owned-and-operated station?
If Cablevision can decide what channels to carry, why doesn’t the FCC let the customer tell Cablevision what channels they want to pay for?
Can someone educate me on these retransmission deals?
The networks have a deal with their affiliates, right — the networks split ad revenues with the broadcast station in exchange for the network’s programming? Why are cable providers not treated as network affiliates, wherein the networks just split ad revenue with the cable provider? Aren’t cable companies, like broadcast stations, just a distribution method for the network’s shows?
Why are network shows yanked when cable companies fail to negotiate with broadcast stations for retransmission? Shouldn’t the station’s local programming be the only shows affected, like local news and syndicated reruns?
Actually, the networks CHARGE the local affiliates for the programming they carry. The affiliates expect to make up for that by selling commercials that you see at home, that are paid for by advertisers in your local market.
If the advertisers don’t believe that local (potential) customers are watching, they don’t buy advertising, and the local station can’t buy the network programming.