I guess bob didn't want us to see this...

....

Powell Ready to Nix Multicasting
By Ted Hearn multichannel.com 1/20/2005 1:42:00 PM
Cable operators would not have to carry multiple digital services
provided by local TV stations under a plan favored by Federal
Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, an FCC source
confirmed Thursday.
TV stations want carriage of all free services by cable, but Powell is
sticking to his 2001 vote that cable should be required to carry just
one programming service, the source said.
The issue of so-called multicast must-carry refers to the small
percentage of commercial TV stations that elect mandatory cable
carriage. All public stations are required to elect must-carry and,
thus, would be hurt the most by Powell’s proposal.
Powell’s approach would not deny stations that negotiate carriage with
cable operators the right to demand distribution of multiple services.
Powell’s decision to advance the multicast issue comes as a federal
court considers a request by Paxson Communications Corp., a large
TV-station owner, to force the FCC to issue final cable-carriage rules
for digital-TV stations within 30 days.
The FCC told the court that Paxson’s request should be denied because
final rules were issued in January 2001 and rejected multicasting rights
for digital-TV stations.
Paxson and other TV stations asked the FCC to reconsider. Because the
FCC failed to take action on the reconsideration request, Paxson went to
court to force the agency’s hand.
An FCC source confirmed that Powell intends for the five-member agency
to vote on multicasting at its Feb. 10 meeting.
It was unclear whether Powell wants to couple the multicasting issue
with a broader plan to end TV stations’ transition to all-digital
broadcasting by Dec. 31, 2008. Under that plan, developed by FCC staff,
digital-TV stations would possess multicast must-carry rights.
In recent years, Powell has signaled his willingness to move the
multicast issue, but divisions among FCC members sidetracked a vote.
Republican commissioner Kevin Martin supports broadcasters, while fellow
Republican commissioner Kathleen Abernathy has been less clear about how
she would vote.
Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein are expected to back
broadcasters, but not before the FCC has adopted a range of
public-interest obligations for digital-TV stations.
Many broadcasters have argued that multicast-carriage rights are
critical to the industry’s ability to compete in a world of hundreds of
channels on pay TV platforms.
But the cable industry has countered that handing TV stations many
additional slots on their systems would, in addition to raising serious
First Amendment issues, tempt stations to air infomercials and other
low-value content aimed at reaping quick profits.
Cable also argued that TV stations should not be able to claim channel
space by default when cable networks -- which don’t have FCC licenses --
need to bargain for carriage.
In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a law requiring cable
operators to allocate one-third of their channels for TV stations
demanding carriage was consistent with the First Amendment. Multicast
must-carry was not directly addressed in that case.

Why would I not want you to see it? I have only talked about it here 20
times in the last month or so including today.

I have said that Powell was against multicasting must carry.
I have said that the Supreme Court voted for must carry of ONE program 5
to 4 in a very wishy washy way. It could have gone either way.
I have said that Powell has resigned.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
altogether.
I have talked about every aspect of this.

Bob Miller


Matthew L. Martin wrote:
...

Powell Ready to Nix Multicasting
By Ted Hearn multichannel.com 1/20/2005 1:42:00 PM
Cable operators would not have to carry multiple digital services
provided by local TV stations under a plan favored by Federal
Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, an FCC source
confirmed Thursday.
TV stations want carriage of all free services by cable, but Powell is
sticking to his 2001 vote that cable should be required to carry just
one programming service, the source said.
The issue of so-called multicast must-carry refers to the small
percentage of commercial TV stations that elect mandatory cable
carriage. All public stations are required to elect must-carry and,
thus, would be hurt the most by Powell’s proposal.
Powell’s approach would not deny stations that negotiate carriage with
cable operators the right to demand distribution of multiple services.
Powell’s decision to advance the multicast issue comes as a federal
court considers a request by Paxson Communications Corp., a large
TV-station owner, to force the FCC to issue final cable-carriage rules
for digital-TV stations within 30 days.
The FCC told the court that Paxson’s request should be denied because
final rules were issued in January 2001 and rejected multicasting rights
for digital-TV stations.
Paxson and other TV stations asked the FCC to reconsider. Because the
FCC failed to take action on the reconsideration request, Paxson went to
court to force the agency’s hand.
An FCC source confirmed that Powell intends for the five-member agency
to vote on multicasting at its Feb. 10 meeting.
It was unclear whether Powell wants to couple the multicasting issue
with a broader plan to end TV stations’ transition to all-digital
broadcasting by Dec. 31, 2008. Under that plan, developed by FCC staff,
digital-TV stations would possess multicast must-carry rights.
In recent years, Powell has signaled his willingness to move the
multicast issue, but divisions among FCC members sidetracked a vote.
Republican commissioner Kevin Martin supports broadcasters, while fellow
Republican commissioner Kathleen Abernathy has been less clear about how
she would vote.
Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein are expected to back
broadcasters, but not before the FCC has adopted a range of
public-interest obligations for digital-TV stations.
Many broadcasters have argued that multicast-carriage rights are
critical to the industry’s ability to compete in a world of hundreds of
channels on pay TV platforms.
But the cable industry has countered that handing TV stations many
additional slots on their systems would, in addition to raising serious
First Amendment issues, tempt stations to air infomercials and other
low-value content aimed at reaping quick profits.
Cable also argued that TV stations should not be able to claim channel
space by default when cable networks -- which don’t have FCC licenses --
need to bargain for carriage.
In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a law requiring cable
operators to allocate one-third of their channels for TV stations
demanding carriage was consistent with the First Amendment. Multicast
must-carry was not directly addressed in that case.

Bob Miller wrote:
Why would I not want you to see it? I have only talked about it here 20
times in the last month or so including today.

I have said that Powell was against multicasting must carry.
I have said that the Supreme Court voted for must carry of ONE program 5
to 4 in a very wishy washy way. It could have gone either way.
I have said that Powell has resigned.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
altogether.
I have talked about every aspect of this.

Guess what? Even a lame duck FCC chairman has far more credibility than
you do.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Matthew L. Martin wrote:



Guess what? Even a lame duck FCC chairman has far more credibility than
you do.

Matthew


Powell is against allowing broadcasters must carry of their multicast
digital programming. I agree with him. Even if he loses the Supreme
Court will overturn any decision by the FCC that allows multicast must
carry IMO.

So what are you talking about?

Bob Miller

Bob Miller wrote:

That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
altogether.
I have talked about every aspect of this.

Bob Miller


I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
for their High Definition broadcast).

wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:


That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
altogether.
I have talked about every aspect of this.

Bob Miller



I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
for their High Definition broadcast).


Since bob contradicts himself and argues against his own self interest
at the drop of a hat, it is nearly impossible to figure out what it is
that he really wants. The only thing that is clear is that he is _NOT_
going to get the FCC to change the ATSC modulation scheme from 8-VSB to
COFDM.

He keeps predicting that the FCC will do just that. So far he has been
100% wrong in his predictions. I'm sure that he will keep his perfect
record.

Matthew

wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:


That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
altogether.
I have talked about every aspect of this.

Bob Miller



I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
for their High Definition broadcast).

Both are true. Broadcasters including Sinclair want must carry laws to
include must carry of multicast programming and Sinclair wants to charge
for their HD content. There is not mutually exclusive self interest here.

Bob Miller

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:


That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
altogether.
I have talked about every aspect of this.

Bob Miller



I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
for their High Definition broadcast).


Since bob contradicts himself and argues against his own self interest
at the drop of a hat, it is nearly impossible to figure out what it is
that he really wants. The only thing that is clear is that he is _NOT_
going to get the FCC to change the ATSC modulation scheme from 8-VSB to
COFDM.

He keeps predicting that the FCC will do just that. So far he has been
100% wrong in his predictions. I'm sure that he will keep his perfect
record.

Matthew

You are right it is confusing.

Here it is in a nut shell:

It is in our business interest that 8-VSB is permanent BUT that it have
receivers that work fixed not mobile. That is why you find me ecstatic
that 5th gen LG receivers work and we were one of the first to test them.

It is in my and your personal interest that the US Congress not be able
to be bought by every special interest that holds out a buck. That
Congresspersons don't have to spend all their time raising money and
have no time to do anything but rubber stamp legislation actually
written by those special interest and which our Congresspersons don't
even have time to read.

It is in my personal interest that MY and YOUR spectrum be used with the
best modulation that allows all of us to benefit the most at the least cost.

So personally I am for a COFDM type modulation universally while it is
in our business self interest that 8-VSB be permanently affixed to
current broadcasters who thereby cannot compete with us while we use
COFDM mobile and fixed.

It is why a clear thinking Sinclair executive and top RF engineer, Nat
Ostroff, is both happy that there is now a viable 8-VSB receiver and
moans that long term broadcasters will be savaged by the likes of
Qualcomm who can and will use COFDM to compete in the broadcast DTV
market with the advantage of COFDM.

Bob Miller

Bob Miller

Both are true. Broadcasters including Sinclair want must carry laws
to
include must carry of multicast programming and Sinclair wants to
charge
for their HD content. There is not mutually exclusive self interest
here.

Bob Miller


Ah, I see. So Sinclair wants "must carry laws", but they also want to
charge (thus forcing the cable companies to pay them or face legal
action). That would be great for Sinclair wouldn't it.

If I'm understanding this correctly, I'd favor a "must carry for free"
option. Interest in over-the-air programming hasn't declined, when used
the term "prime time" programming generally refers to NBC, ABC, CBS,
FOX, WB and UPN in the early evening hours. How much does a prime time
ad cost on a major network? How much would the same ad (at the same
time slot) cost on one of the major cable networks (USA, TNT, TLC,
etc...). I would imagine there is a huge price difference (and
rightfully so, since local networks are "free"). Let's not even get
into prime time sports events (Super Bowl, World Series) or other
special events (Oscars, Music Awards). Prime time still has a much
larger audience, even if most of its audience pull their signal via
cable or satellite.

So if they're already getting the advertising dollars -and- if they
invested in DTV infrastructure to conform to FCC mandate, why does
Sinclair think they have the right to charge the cable providers.

It comes down to what you can do and what is ethical.

Sinclair comes across to me as a very unethical company and that's easy
to qualify. They are trying to charge cable providers (which will
translate into high rates for cable subscribers) for DTV signal which
by FCC mandate they are required to provide. Sinclair has the
statistics, they know how many US consumers have sat and cable
services. Of course they would LOVE to profit off every viewer and this
strategy allows them to do that, thus (if a success) eliminates free
over the air broadcasting. If successful will Sinclair cut advertising
cost? No, they will probably increase advertising cost because a "must
carry" mandate would give them a larger audience.

So Sinclair would win big time, Sinclair investors win big time, it's a
loss for the US public (again, the majority of us have some form of
subcription based television service, these fees will be passed down to
us) and it's a loss for FREE over the air broadcasting!

Sinclair refused to air an episode of Nightline, deciding that its
tribute to fallen military personnel was a liberal political stunt.
Names of the then-only-523 killed troops were read. Later in the
year, liberal elite Sinclair ordered its stations to air an
anti-Kerry propaganda film