It’s not at all shocking that all but one of the positive reviews cited by Anna Eshoo (D-CA) come from cable, satellite and telco entities. What other possibility is there for such a one-sided bill?
Eshoo’s staff release stated, “The Video CHOICE (Consumers Have Options in Choosing Entertainment) Act would eliminate television blackouts caused by retransmission consent disputes and give consumers greater flexibility to choose the channels they receive each month from their pay-TV provider. The reactions from key stakeholder groups have been positive.”
The positive reviews come from:
*Verizon
*Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance
* Public Knowledge (the lone reviewer not in the MVPD business)
* DISH
* American Television Alliance
* American Cable Association
* The Rural Broadband Association (NCTA)
* NTCA)
* CenturyLink
RBR-TVBR observation: This pretty much proves that there is nothing fair about this bill. MVPDs are tripping over one another to praise it, with not one single broadcast entity adding its voice to the accolades. That’s because the bill clearly takes sides in favor of MVPDs.
The practical effect of the bill will be giving companies like Time Warner Cable license to be as obstinate as they desire during negotiations without suffering any consequence whatsoever.
We don’t blame TWC for wanting to get the best rate it can. However, at some point it has to acknowledge the going rate that has been established through hundreds of these negotiations.
It’s not like the expiration date of a given retransmission consent contract is shrouded in mystery. It’s built in from day one. There should be no problem to take a look around, see how retransmission pricing is going and reaching a new agreement on time.
If TWC insists on going beyond expiration, it can’t have access to the programming it refuses to pay for. It’s sad that innocent TWC subscribers are victims of TWC’s negotiating tactics, but that is the case. Please don’t try to pin the blame for this on broadcasters.
