Digital TV Facts: The Latest

AT&T supports rules that would give cable channel slots to local digital TV multicast services, according to a senior executive:

“We’re more than happy to put this programming on our network,” Robert Quinn, senior vice president for federal regulatory affairs at AT&T, said in a telephone interview. “We support multicast must-carry.”

Quinn’s remarks in a Reuters interview on Tuesday would appear to contradict an FCC filing from the company last week, reported in Multichannel News:

“It is AT&T’s belief that decisions affecting carriage of programming offered by local commercial broadcast stations should be subject to commercial discussions between content owners and video providers,” the company said in a June 9 Federal Communications Commission filing…

AT&T maintains that rules governing cable TV do not apply to its new IPTV video service. Both stories say AT&T is negotiating with broadcasters to carry multicasts.

• Links: Reuters, Multichannel News

Multicasts, the additional broadcast channels now sprouting up thanks to digital TV, are a frequent topic here at DTV Facts. You know all about them, sure. But remember, dear reader: you are part of a media-savvy elite. (You’re smart. That’s why I like you. That and your smile.)

Most viewers have never heard of multicasts, of course. But now the mass-audience phenomenon known as the New York Times has a Sunday article about multicasting, currently in the headlines because FCC Chairman Kevin Martin intends to make cable systems carry the channels, whether they want to or not (and mostly it’s not).

Pointing to the explosion of new channels in Britain, the article holds out the tantalizing possibility that U.S. viewers will soon enjoy 30-plus over-the-air channels for free. Alas, it’s probably a mirage.

Why? First, let’s talk about Britain. Say what you will about the food, the UK is the poster child for successful implementation of digital TV. The burgeoning variety of channels, extensively promoted under the Freeview name, has led to faster adoption of broadcast digital TV in the UK and given pay-TV a run for its money. That’s unlikely to happen here, for two reasons in particular:

• In the U.S. (unlike Britain), the increasing prevalence of HDTV broadcasts limits the spectrum available for multicasts—something the Times never mentions.

• Getting acceptable over-the-air digital TV reception presents more of a challenge in the U.S., because of our ATSC broadcast standard. (Britain uses DVB.) Many Americans will need rooftop antennas, for example, to reliably receive digital broadcasts. Tuner technology is said to be improving, however, which may lead to better reception for more viewers. (USDTV, as the article mentioned, is rolling out a digital pay-TV service delivered over the air in a few cities. If their product succeeds, it may bode well for free multicast channels.)

At any rate, we will see many more multicast offerings (and, perhaps, fewer full-strength HD broadcasts) if cable carriage is mandated.

Earlier:
• Will TV’s new rules serve big players or public?
• FCC can rule on multicasts, Stevens now says
• FCC chair’s multicast plan draws more fire from Congress

• Link: New York Times

If ABC can stream ad-supported prime-time shows on the internet one day after they air, and make money doing so, why wouldn’t the network do the same with video on demand?

That question—and it’s a dangerous one, potentially—is posed by Michael Willner, CEO of cable operator Insight Communications. For now, it may be just hot air. But let’s for a moment take this exercise, however speculative, up to the next level: If a broadcast network can distribute its shows via the net and VOD, for how long does it remain a broadcast network? For how long does the network still need its affiliates?

Affiliates won’t go away anytime soon. They have local ties and broad audience reach, including mandated cable carriage. They may soon gain additional cable channel slots for multicasting—slots that are otherwise very difficult to come by. They have 24 hours of air time to fill each day, and when they aren’t showing network programming, they’re promoting it.

But what favors affiliates most, perhaps, is sheer inertia. Our whole system of television, initially designed with an inherent bias in favor of local broadcasting, has grown up around them. Networks are in the habit of distributing their programming in this way, and audiences are in the habit of watching it this way.

Habits can change, though, and eventually they will. That process has probably already begun. I really wonder about this: Are affiliates on the verge of a long struggle for their very survival?

Earlier:
• Will TV’s new rules serve big players or public?
• To make multicast TV local, stations need viewer content

• Link: Broadcasting & Cable

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s move toward multicast must-carry has prompted what amounts to a rebuke from two senior Republicans.

An FCC decision to compel cable companies to devote additional channels to local broadcasters “would contradict two prior Commission decisions and usurp congressional authority,” Martin was told in a letter Wednesday from House Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the subcommittee on telecommunications and the internet.

Here’s how Kung Fu Quip describes the letter (under the headline “Pimp Slapped”):

It’s as close to a “what the hell are you thinking” note as I have ever seen.

The congressmen are not exactly congratulating Martin on his drive and initiative. Instead, they warn the FCC against presuming that the law setting the 2009 cutoff date for analog broadcasts affords the commission any new discretion to enact a multicast carriage rule:

If Congress had intended to require carriage of multiple streams, it would have explicitly done so either in the original must-carry provisions [of the Communications Act] or in the digital television provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act.

Martin apparently would like a multicast vote even before the commission’s next public meeting, now moved to June 21.

Earlier:
FCC should leave multicast must-carry to Congress, Stevens says

• Links: Kung Fu Quip: post and letter [pdf]; Broadcasting & Cable

The way we watch television for many years to come may be determined by lobbying and rulemaking currently underway in Washington. FCC chairman Kevin Martin, according to several reports, is ready to propose new regulations that would give local stations additional channel slots on cable systems. In Congress, meanwhile, new telecom legislation is in the works, including proposals for national video franchises.

Why should cable companies be required to carry local stations’ multicast channels? The FCC, broadcasters and some members of Congress have various legal theories or rationalizations. Near as I can tell, they come down to this:

1. The public interest is served by:

• the availability of free television, which provides news and information to the public;

• the availability of local television, which informs viewers about their local communities;

• the availability of a diverse television programming, which gives voice to many points of view and enriches public debate.

2. Multicast must-carry fosters the continued existence of free, local TV while enhancing programming diversity.

While I pretty well agree with point No. 1 (in theory, anyway), I do not see multicast must-carry as the best or only way to accomplish it.

Let’s stop and think about this. A multicast carriage requirement would just fast-track a new, hastily constructed wing onto the sprawling muddle of existing broadcast regulations. If we’re to have sensible regulation that truly serves the public, regulators must start to recognize over-the-air TV in its current context—shrunken, if not marginalized—and stop seeing it as the dominant television platform that it was in the 1950s. Let me be clear, though: What’s shrunken is the reception of TV over the airwaves, which is down to perhaps 15 percent. Broadcasters are not marginalized, however; they remain very powerful, largely because they were granted privileged access to most viewers through cable TV and now enjoy wide carriage via satellite TV services, too.

From its earliest regulation, broadcast television was treated as a scarce resource because of its use of public spectrum, which is finite. But television, especially in the broader sense of any video content accessible from our homes, is no longer a scarce resource, and it no longer even requires use of the broadcast spectrum.

Broadcast television may seem to be modernizing—after 13 years and billions of dollars, TV broadcasts will go all-digital in 2009. But let’s be honest: we aren’t ushering in “Tomorrow’s TV Today!”—as the FCC breathlessly calls it on its promotional website for DTV. In techie terms, we’re cutting over from an old legacy system to a newer legacy system. But we’re still on big iron. Broadcast TV is the equivalent of a mainframe, controlled by various sys admins in Washington. And despite the interactive capabilities built into digital broadcast TV, most Americans watching TV over the air will use their TV sets as dumb terminals. What’s more, the cutover to digital TV is unlikely to lead to a resurgence in over-the-air viewership, and may in fact contribute to further declines.

Is it not odd, if not bizarre, that simply because some small slice of a community watches a particular television station over the air, the federal government gives the owner of that station the right to claim space on a cable system? Video over the internet, though dwarfed by TV, is growing at a very fast rate. When 15% of people watch net video, some of which is locally produced, will we then say that YouTube should have guaranteed space on every cable system?

The changes in the video section of the marketplace of ideas need to be recognized, and the nation’s regulatory environment must be sorted out and made to serve today’s public. If we truly value free, local, diverse TV programming, we should insist that our representatives in Washington find a way to make free, fast broadband available to all Americans, while enshrining net neutrality principles that preserve an open internet. Technical challenges remain before internet video can challenge broadcast TV, and broadcast TV won’t, and shouldn’t, go away. But rather than doling out special favors, we need to look to broadcasters to justify their own relevance. Most have more than sufficient resources to ensure their continued viability.

As new legislation begins to take account of changing technology, will the public interest take center stage? Not with this Congress, it seems. Moves toward telecom “reform” are being driven by the demands of industry lobbyists, especially representatives of large phone companies seeking national video franchises that would compete with cable TV. Here, from Drew Clark, is a troubling tidbit:

If Bell advocates of the [House] telecom measure are not able to generate support against a neutrality amendment, the measure could slip to next week, said industry sources.

Telecom lobbyists want to crush net neutrality before allowing legislation that regulates telecommunications companies to go forward. This is an outrage.

Most Americans watch TV for several hours each day. Do you suppose many are even aware of what’s taking place? I wonder at our chances of getting new regulations that will benefit the public in other than incidental ways.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) suggested today that Congress, not the FCC, should decide whether local stations get additional channel slots on cable systems for their new multicast offerings.

• Link: Broadcasting & Cable

The biggest stumbling block on the road to the 2009 changeover to digital TV is the danger that millions of cable TV customers would lose access to local broadcast stations. We now have another indication that the FCC wants to head off that problem. Ted Hearn in Multichannel News:

The Federal Communications Commission is planning to examine the obligations of cable operators to ensure that consumers with analog-TV sets can view digital signals of local TV stations, an agency source said Monday.

The 2005 digital TV law does not permit cable companies to downconvert local broadcast signals before sending them over the cable to subscribers’ homes. That’s not good news for folks who have only analog cable—the majority of cable households today. They might need converter boxes to continue receiving local stations, unless presumably the cable company could negotiate agreements with broadcasters to allow analog conversion. Neither option would please the cable industry.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin has publicly wrung his hands over the possibility that analog cable customers would lose access to local channels. At the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) convention in April, he pointed to another federal law from 1992 that requires cable companies to provide “viewable” broadcast signals.

Sensibly but belatedly, NAB appears to be dropping its earlier objections to analog downconversion.

In December we noted two key issues that remained unsettled following the initial approval of last year’s DTV legislation by Congress. Martin hopes to address both of them—multicast must-carry is the other—at the FCC’s public meeting on June 15.

Earlier:
• When the best cable TV box is none at all
• Senate bill would protect local channels for cable TV customers

• Link: Multichannel News

A plan to give additional cable channel slots to local digital TV stations could be put to an FCC vote on June 15, according to Multichannel News. It’s a big giveaway, and apparently Kevin Martin is in a big hurry. Not so fast, says the Campaign Legal Center, an election-watchdog organization. The nonpartisan group is again calling on the FCC to require broadcasters to commit to providing local public-interest programming before considering such a proposal:

The Commission’s formal rulemaking process on the public interest obligations of broadcasters in the digital age has already dragged on for more than six years without any rules being issued. To proceed with digital multicast must-carry rules without having enacted clear, meaningful public interest obligations would put the cart before the horse yet again at the expense of the American public.

Will the FCC grant these new privileges across the board—even to those stations that, according to recent reports, have broadcast “fake news” reports provided by corporate PR firms or the Bush administration, without disclosing their origin?

Local television broadcasters can play a key role in informing their communities—and a great many do. If they want to remain relevant in a world of expanding video choices and platforms, local content is a core strength they can build on. To grant new privileges without new commitments would be a huge mistake.

Earlier:
• Digital TV and the public interest
• To make multicast TV local, stations need viewer content

• Links: Campaign Legal Center, Multichannel News, about.com

We know what’s prevented the FCC from mandating cable TV slots for the new local digital multicast channels (an issue chairman Kevin Martin now wants to reopen). Not what, but who: The two Democrats on the FCC who, until last week’s Senate confirmation of Bush nominee Robert McDowell, had equal say with Martin and the commission’s other Republican member.

Public interest requirements for local broadcasters should take precedence over cable carriage of the new broadcast television channels, according to Democratic commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps. I agree. Station owners’ demands for cable carriage of their primary television signals already have a privileged legal status, predicated upon the notion that local TV serves a public purpose. (A countervailing notion is predicated upon the actual viewing of local television programming.)

Without strong, enforceable local-content requirements, why should the FCC carve out more cable real estate for broadcasters? What stands in the way of more local programming is the cost of producing it. Weather and local news (much of it repurposed) fill air time on some multicast services, but the primary source of content will probably be—as with most broadcast programming— networks and syndicators.

What if broadcasters drew on the talents of their viewers? Content produced or selected by users is fueling the internet video boom—and threatening further erosion of local-TV viewership. As networks and producers gain new ways to reach into viewers’ homes, bypassing the affiliate gatekeepers, local stations will feel increasing pressure to justify their existence. The barrier to wider acceptance for YouTube and its kin, and internet video in general, is the perceived inconvenience in terms of platform and usability, not to mention bandwidth. But what’s easier to use than broadcast TV, which happens to have abundant bandwidth? Independent-minded creators of net video might cringe at the very thought of being coopted by TV. But many would relish the opportunity to put their work before more eyeballs.

If viewer-produced mashups found a mainstream audience, perhaps a few of the powers-that-be in television—or Congress—would even think twice about decimating citizens’ fair-use rights by enacting the broadcast flag.

Would down-and-dirty user production values ever make it on a broadcast channel? I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know. But user-created content needn’t cost stations anything, and where better to experiment with innovative forms of local programming than on these new channels that most people have yet to even discover?

Earlier:
• Digital TV multicasting: More local channels for free

Channel slots on cable systems for local digital TV multicast channels may get a fresh look from the FCC, Broadcasting & Cable reports. Commission chairman Kevin Martin, in line with his remarks at the broadcasters’ convention last month, may put the multicast must-carry question before the panel again, now that it has a Republican majority.

Digital television allows each local broadcast station to provide up to five or six channels of programming at once if they so choose. (During HDTV broadcasts, which use more of their allocated space in the broadcast spectrum, fewer additional channels are attainable.) Broadcasters have announced several multicasting initiatives in recent months, and regulations requiring cable companies to carry the channels are a key priority for the broadcast lobby.

Making multicasts available via cable would expand stations’ economic potential—at a time when Congressional proposals could threaten stations’ leverage in retransmission-consent agreements and deny broadcasters the ability to protect HD broadcasts from downconversion by cable systems. The “signal degradation” issue is also on Martin’s radar, John Eggerton reports.

Earlier:
• FCC chair would consider multicast carriage
• Digital TV multicasting: More local channels for free

• Link: B&C

The switch to digital TV broadcasts will affect cable customers, too (and if you’re not worried about it, the FCC chairman is). When they wake up on Feb. 17, 2009, some cable subscribers may wonder what became of certain local channels.

While Consumers Union has sounded the alarm over what will happen to analog cable households when over-the-air analog TV goes away, most media coverage has ignored the issue.

In our main section, a new article examines what the change to digital TV means for cable customers. Topics include:

• The move toward digital cable

• New local multicast channels

• Link: Digital TV Facts

Cable carriage of local digital TV multicast channels is the second controversy broached by FCC chairman Kevin Martin in his NAB appearance today.

Martin would be willing to consider requiring cable operators to give channel slots to multicasts “if a majority was willing to look at that.” The commission is equally divided along party lines currently, pending approval of another Republican appointed by President Bush. Both Democrats have opposed multicast carriage. Bush plans to keep Martin on the commission for another five-year term, Drew Clark reported today, and to keep him in the chairman’s seat.

For broadcasters, a decision to give each local station up to five or six channels on a cable television system would be like money raining down from the sky. But Todd Chanko of Jupiter Research smells greed, it seems:

Demanding both digital [multicast] must-carry and retrans payments from the MSOs is a dangerous game of chicken. Broadcasters ought to soft-pedal the entire retrans issue—after all, without cable carriage they’d have no audience against which to sell advertising.

That’s largely true. Recent announcements of plans for a range of original programming for multicast services would suggest an expectation among some players that broadcasters may win at least partial cable carriage for multicasting (say, two or three channels apiece). Now is the season when broadcasters are making demands, but the name of the game is negotiation. Sometime before 2009, we will find out what they will settle for.

• Links: Chanko, National Journal’s Insider Update