Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) apparently think so based on the cable- and satellite-friendly bill they submitted today called the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act. It would end retransmission consent — the rules that require pay TV providers to negotiate deals with local broadcasters to carry their programming. It doesn’t stop there: The proposal also would end restrictions that enable syndicators to sell shows exclusively into different markets. And it would scrap rules that bar cable companies from importing network programming from out-of-market stations when they can’t strike deals with local broadcasters. DeMint used the trendy magic words — “job creation” — to support the bill. To promote innovation, he says, “we need to stop issuing new regulations and instead remove and modernize rules written to address the last century’s business and regulatory models.” DirecTV agrees, saying that the proposal would “eliminate byzantine regulations that shackle innovation, competition and consumer choice.”
But when it comes to wielding political clout, the bill’s supporters probably are no match for the National Association of Broadcasters which says it “respectfully” opposes the legislation. “Current law ensures access to quality local news, entertainment, sports and life-saving weather warnings. The proposed changes to the Communications Act strike at the core of free market negotiations and broadcast localism, thereby threatening a community-based information and entertainment medium that serves tens of millions of Americans each day.”

Here I was just thinking it’s time to RE-regulate TV. Bringing back a new version of the Fairness Doctrine would be a good start. That would go a long way to bringing back actual “news” again, in place of reading of the press releases we get now.
The “fairness doctrine” is the government regulating of free speech and it’s a terrible idea. Do you honestly want some elected official, or worse a bureaucrat, deciding what should and shouldn’t be said on television? It’s one of these liberal ideas that is way better in theory than it will ever be in practice.
The first ammendment extends to everyone, kemosabe, even those you don’t agree with. Sometimes freedom of speech is infuriating, but it’s one of these things that is better to have than not to have.
Actually the Fairness Doctrine would lead to more opinions aka free speech being broadcast then we currently have. By requiring all sides to be addressed equally, I’m not saying I would agree that all Dems are liberal progressives, but at least the Sunday news shows might actually have someone from Labor speaking when the subject is a labor issue unlike a recent week when the subject were the then proposed Free Trade Agreements and there wasn’t a one to be seen. Or last week when there were 3 Republicans for every Democrat. How about a well spoken Republican on Olbermann and an equally well spoken Democrat on Hannity?
If the Fairness Doctrine WOULD bring about “fairness;” then why did it not do it previously. When the “fairness” doctrine was “the law” previusly, the only viewpoint that was exposed, was the liberal viewpoint. You liberals have very short memories, and seem to be oblivious to the fact that it’s YOU that would be forced to allow more NON Liberal opinions on air.
The idea of the “fairness” doctrine is that libs believe they will control Gov, which would then DECIDE FOR US what is Conservative. Considering the very poor track record of the liberal media, and liberal bureaucrats; it is obvioius they believe that they would limit the speech of those they don’t agree with; just as they did previously.
It’s not about Fairness, but control.
You libs don’t like the free market because it undermines your lies. You can’t compete in the realm of ideas. You are not the majority, nor are you even a significant minority. The exception being the media, entertainment, and certain residential enclaves (e.g. The People’s Repbulic of Santa Monica).
Of course conservatives are against anything that would prevent FOX from broadcasting their made up ‘facts’.
I highly doubt we’d see progressives promoting the Fairness Doctrine if MSNBC, Current TV, and Air America had as much prominence as Fox News and conservative talk radio.
Fox News is irritating and radio hosts like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are a bunch of assbags, but hey, they’re providing something that people want: news slanted with a right wing viewpoint. I don’t know why people want biased news as opposed to just getting the news, but you can’t blame them for acting like a business and exploiting it.
The First Amendment protects the opinionated viewpoints of conservative media. Like rodeo clown said, freedom of speech can get irritating, but it’s something that is better to have unrestricted as opposed to repressing it. And besides, if you’re irritated by Fox News, just change the channel to the left wing MSNBC and Current TV, or more centrist CNN. There are other outlets out there besides news with a conservative bias.
The airwaves are owned by the public, and that concept of public ownership of the airwaves, predates the modern liberal state, so you are going to have to come up with a better rant than “free speech.” The fact is we own the airwaves, and, yet, only 6 companies make money off it.
In one law they want to criminalize the Internet but now want to make it okay to steal content for cable and satellite providers.
My head hurts…
I should be allowed to choose which networks in what cities I want to watch — like local tv networks of Los angeles and new york city and to be able to see shows such as say access hollywood live and other syndicated shows that are not available in my local markets.
I agree. I am tired of subsidizing crap so I can watch something I am interested in. Time for a la carte.
I’m going to point to Doug B a moment, just to agree with him. The entire ordeal going on to regulate the internet is frightening. Especially for someone like me who is just getting started in the whole ‘having a website’ business.
However, I’m a bit confused by what this bill will really do. I mean, I stand by anything that pulls censorship away from entertainment and art.
I do find it funny though that the National Association of Broadcasters “respectfully” opposes the legislation. Well, that’s just dandy isn’t it?
This proposal, if adopted, would end over-the-air television as we know it and obliterate the syndication market. All major league sports would migrate to cable, as broadcasters would not be able to compete with the limitless financial resources of ESPN and the RSNs. Naturally DirecTV is for it, as they’d love nothing more than to put OTA television out of business, leaving consumers with no other choice than to pay them and their ilk a monthly fee.
Will, you make it sound good. Sign me up.
BTW I DON’T have to pay the monthly fee, I can choose NOT to watch.
Time for a la carte!
I certainly hope this passes! It’s inane that in this day and age we are not allowed (by law) to watch any signal that is technically available to us… I never understood why the government feels the need to artificially protect the local station re-transmission model which technology has outgrown years ago.
Broadcast TV is in deep trouble.
This would pretty much kill it once and for all.
Not that that would be such an awful thing.
There’s probably a better use for the spectrum.
But it would kill a ton of local TV jobs.
NHBill, I have to disagree with you. It’s likely that MORE local jobs would become available as costs for locals would actually decrease as they turn to non-broadcasting methods. There would be a move MORE and better local coverage.
Xmitters are costly.
So lets get this straight…
Big media wants to limit the internet to give US less choice
But increase their territory to give THEM MORE WAYS TO CHARGE
You’re getting it! This is all about Big Wireless, Big Cable and Big Satellite putting local TV out of business and dividing the spoils amongst themselves.
Repealing retransmission consent would END negotiations between local TV stations and cable/satellite by making EVERY local station “must-carry” (or for satellite “carry one, carry all”) for free–thus actually making it HARDER for cable & satellite to import out-of-market stations. This bill is more for the cable & satellite industries than the broadcasters (who obviously oppose it). The headline is wrong; the bill would NOT “deregulate” TV.
Obviously, the Lobbyists & Special Interests are spreading the big bucks around. In Washington $$$$$$’s get things done no matter if its right or wrong! Take note to the sponsors of this bill for future reference…
When Republicans start talking about something using the words “job creation” you can be sure that it means more money to their special interest friends.
What this will likely mean is that DirecTV or DISH or Comcast can go ahead and charge me extra for carrying the local channels I get as part of the “basic” package. Yeah, great, that created a boatload of jobs! Instead, why not allow a la carte pricing so we can pick which channels we want to pay for. My current package includes several hundred channels, 90% of which I never watch but am forced to buy nonetheless.
Maybe by “job creation” DeMint means this will make his friends and corporate suits even more wealthy so they can hire more gardeners and maids.
VOTE THESE ASSHOLES OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
A la carte pricing is “allowed” – the cable/satellite providers choose not to offer it. They also already can charge you more for the “basic” package if they so choose.
So why does this law bother you? Oh, it was proposed by Republicans. That obviously means it’s bad.
In the future, it might be good to read the legislation and look at what it actually does before you pontificate that it may allow companies to do things that are already legal? It might spare you some embarrassment.
This is why people are occupying wallstreet