For years, broadcasters didn't get a nickel out of retransmission consent. But broadcast content is what the cable industry was selling to customers.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What's happened to broadcasting is that broadcasting really used to be... it used to have a very clear public service quotient. And it's more or less now. And it's been lost.
Isn't it only appropriate that, in return for the free use of the public spectrum, broadcasters provide something substantial, something that wouldn't otherwise be provided by marketplace competition?
If the broadcasters were to win on their claims, they'd outlaw the DVR.
I think that the problem with network television is that they cling to the whole business model like they are clinging to the side of a cliff.
Cable had a latitude to move which created less censorship and bestowed upon the artists, the writers and the creators, more liberty to create their shows.
History shows that pay-TV subscribers flee in droves to alternative providers when there is even a rare service disruption - demonstrating a quantifiable value for 'must-have' broadcast programming.
The territory has changed, and a lot of really good actors want to do cable series, but they don't necessarily want to do network TV and make the commitment of 22 episodes or whatever. They find that the liberties and the creative freedoms that you get in cable is more interesting to them than the censorship of a network show.
For those broadcasters who are less than responsible, the FCC needs to have sharper teeth to enforce the law.
There are literally tens of thousands of very good content providers in the world that don't distribute their content through TV channels.
Broadcasters have a responsibility to serve the public interest and protect Americans from objectionable content, particularly during the hours when children are likely to be watching.