In regards to providing consumers with access to out-of-market programming, NAB is telling the FCC it would be unwise to “burn down the house to roast the pig.” In other words, DMAs are an essential part of the modern television business.
Beyond that, there is no viable alternative to the DMA system.
In comments to the FCC, NAB pointed out that Nielsen carefully crafts DMA definitions based on actual viewing patterns. DMA definitions are based on research, not guesswork.
Further, the advertising revenue upon which television stations rely to stay in business are inextricably tied to the DMA system.
NAB noted that in a prior proceeding a mere four years back, “…the Commission did not endorse any alternatives to DMAs for
defining TV markets and did not recommend any notable changes to the DMA system.”
NAB acknowledged that the primary reason the issue is under discussion is to address concerns of viewers who live across a state line from the center of a multi-state DMA. The complaint is that it is they are often unable to get information pertinent to their own state.
NAB said that “…no changes to current law or the DMA system are required for MVPDs to provide viewers with non-duplicative out-of-market programming, including the local news, weather and sports of in-state stations. If members of Congress believe that more viewers want access to the local programming of out-of-market TV stations in their state, they should encourage local MVPDs to reach additional agreements with broadcasters for the retransmission of their local programming – permission which local stations have every incentive to grant and which they have already granted in a number of cases. MVPDs’ often expressed wish to import duplicative national network and syndicated programming into local markets, however, has no bearing on consumers’ access to locally-oriented programming.”
NAB stressed that DMAs are central to the television business. “Replacing the DMA structure underpinning the entire local television and advertising marketplaces ‘[s]urely” would be “burn[ing] the house to roast the pig.’”
NAB offered alternatives in its conclusion.
“NAB strongly believes that the Commission and Congress can successfully promote localism, but not by undermining the DMA system. The challenges broadcast television stations face in providing local service, especially in rural areas, arise from the economic realities of TV broadcasting and local news production in medium and small markets. Because altering the mechanics of defining markets will not address these fundamental economic issues, the Commission must look elsewhere for ways to enhance local service. To effectively promote localism, including in rural areas, NAB urges the Commission to: (1) preserve TV translators and low power TV stations in the incentive auction process; (2) adopt rational ownership rules, including ones that recognize the special challenges faced by TV stations in smaller markets; (3) refrain from altering the rules governing retransmission consent to tilt negotiations in favor of consolidated MVPDs; (4) refrain from undermining broadcast stations’ ability to enter into and enforce exclusive programming contracts with networks and syndicators; and (5) require DIRECTV to provide local-into-local service in all 210 DMAs. All of these actions would foster increased localism, consistent with congressional intent and long-standing FCC policy.”
