|
THE ECONOMICS OF THE SWAMP RANT
WILL FREE MARKET ECONOMICS DISRUPT THE RIGGED PRIMARY TV BIZ MODEL?
YES, IF COMBINED WITH CHAIRMAN PAI'S
RAPID ADOPTION OF SUNSHINE AND PROCESS REFORM, THE POTENTIAL OF A NEW MODEL INCLUDING LPTV AS AN EQUAL PLAYER
MIGHT BE POSSIBLE...BUT
THE REAL THREAT TO THE CURRENT RIGGED MODEL
IS HOW OTT
IS ALREADY TRANSFORMING THE TV CONTENT BIZ
AND WILL EVENTUALLY
KILL OFF
THE MVPD MUST CARRY AND RETRANS
GRAVY TRAIN
AND, NOTHING GOOD FOR LPTV & TV TRANSLATORS
MAY HAPPEN
AT ALL
UNLESS THE SWAMP IS DRAINED OF THOSE RESISTING CHANGE
AND
PREVENTING A RAPID CHANGE TO A NEW FREE MARKET FCC
But what do I know? Not much really, as these are all highly complicated and confusing issues with a lot of subjective assumptions made by people smarter than me. While I can read the tea leaves, identify the 27 types of wind, and can name the 47 types of snow, I do not understand how the rigged broadcast model is so mixed upside down. And why ever did the industry agree five years ago to this inefficient mechanism to transform and transfer spectrum usage rights?
Ok, I know that the the current TV biz model is a decades long accumulation of accommodations to content creators, licensees, financial markets, public interest advocates, and the politics of the day. But is this really the time to bring the old rigged system into the new world of possibilities of ATSC 3.0? I fear that it is not wise to do so. If the current proposal/NPRM by NAB/APTS/CPB/AWARN/FCC includes that lighthouse station to carry the ATSC 1.0 signals of the stations while they use their full 6 MHz to convert to 3.0, what is the public benefit? It could mean for years the local viewers get a substandard free signal, while the stations use 3.0 for pay TV services.
Is it anti-competitive for the Table of Allotment stations to band together to provide a solution and new business model without the inclusion of LPTV? Should the current rules be changed so that their proposal can work? What are the ramifications to the LPTV and TV translator industry? The auction is over and this is not a repack nor displacement issue. Do we not have the same 6 MHz channel? And do we not already have no local or national ownership cap? And they of course want our no cross media ownership restrictions. Nor programming requirements. Low regulatory fees. And just one obilgato - local EAS.
One of the biggest failures of the previous administration of the FCC was the lack of rigorous economic analysis of potential impacts from the auction and repacking on LPTV and TV translators. Congress never did their own economic analysis, and quite literally also limited the CBO from studying them. And during the past five years the FCC has never once admitted it had done a study on our impacts.
The only two studies of any depth have been
the GAO Study
requested by the House Subcommittee members, and
our own Big Data
and Big Map work.
CORRECTION
In our last edition we included a TV Newscheck story featuring a quote from an industry analyst, and her comment that the FCC would not be issuing a list of the auction sellers (TV stations) and their new channel assignments. The FCC called us and said that indeed there would be a list issued, which complies with the original auction report and order. Sorry for any confusion.
|
