Press Release
Consumer Groups Oppose 'Multicast Must Carry'
Contact: Timothy Karr, 201-533-8838
WASHINGTON -- Consumer groups today urged Congress to reject any proposals that would require automatic cable distribution of every channel local broadcasters choose to provide following the digital television transition, known as "multicast must carry." When broadcasters are forced to switch from analog signals to digital signals, they will be able to produce up to six channels of programming for every channel they have now.
In a letter to the House and Senate Commerce Committees, Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, Free Press, and the Center for Digital Democracy wrote, "…there exists no compelling public policy reason at this time to extend this requirement to all digital channels, nor is there a significant consumer benefit of doing so… A decision on multicast must-carry is premature and should not be made before a thorough consideration of viewpoint diversity, consumer benefit, and policies that will increase access to diverse content through technologies that use the public airwaves."
The groups argue that the dominant broadcasters would only see their already significant megaphone amplified under multicast must-carry, creating the very outcome that Congress has sought to avoid when it rejected FCC's broadcast ownership rules—the expansion of the reach of dominant media voices.
For example, in a digital environment, FOX, CBS and NBC alone would own stations capable of broadcasting 400 or more channels in the top 25 markets, all of which would have to be carried on cable and satellite systems
"Because, at this time, most Americans lack access to alternative sources of local video content and information independent of broadcast television, it is premature for Congress to enact policies which enhance the control of broadcasters over video content on cable and satellite systems," the groups wrote. "We urge you to reject multicast must-carry until such time as Congress can consider it in the context of broader policies to expand consumer access to high-speed broadband technologies that expand access to diverse sources of news and information."
A copy of the letter can be found below.
September 7, 2005
The Honorable Joe Barton
The Honorable John Dingell
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Multicast Must-Carry
Dear Congressmen Barton and Dingell:
As Congress considers mandating a hard date for the digital television transition as part of budget reconciliation, we strongly urge you to oppose legislation that would require automatic cable distribution of all the digital channels that television broadcasters choose to provide—known as multicast must-carry.
Digital television transmission enables each current TV station to broadcast the equivalent of at least six stations worth of programming in place of the current analog channel. Current law requires cable carriage of a broadcaster's primary channel to ensure that cable subscribers have access to the national broadcast networks and any available local news and information.
However, at this time, there exists no compelling public policy reason to extend this requirement to all digital channels, nor is there a significant consumer benefit of doing so. Further, there is no meaningful public benefit that could be created by new public interest obligations that is sufficient to mitigate the significant harms that multicast must-carry would impose—the strengthening of broadcaster control over content and viewpoints through expansion of the distribution platform. A decision on multicast must-carry is premature and should not be made before a thorough consideration of viewpoint diversity, consumer benefit, and policies that will increase access to diverse content through other technologies that use the public airwaves.
Multicast Must-Carry Offers No Consumer Benefit
Congress should not assume that multi-cast channels will provide valuable content, including local news and information. The broadcasters' track record of declining standards in local news and an increase in homogenous network content suggests just the opposite. Given the costs of programming, it is far more likely that additional digital channels will merely repurpose content already available over the primary channel or offer content similar to that already on cable. In those cases where the content broadcast on additional digital channels is of local value, consumer demand will drive cable providers to seek permission to retransmit it, eliminating any need for a congressional mandate.
New Public Interest Obligations Are NOT Sufficient to Justify Must Carry
New or expanded public interest obligations provide no guarantee that multicast programs will provide increased local coverage, that multicast content will be of any unique value to the community or that diverse viewpoints will be aired. Equally important, additional public interest obligations do not prevent dominant national broadcasters that own and operate local stations from favoring their own points of view and political preferences to the detriment of an open, democratic use of the public airwaves. No hourly quota of local programming can ensure that broadcasters offer diverse viewpoints and true public services.
The history of content-based obligations demonstrates that few broadcasters actually live up to their obligations. Broadcasters skirt the rules by defining content in a way that purports to meet their obligations under the letter of the law, but falls well short of meaningful public service in most cases. In any case, however, the broadcaster acts as the gatekeeper, controlling what views, content and information is offered to the viewing public. The standard for meeting public interest obligations has declined to such an extent that most Americans are not even aware they exist—hardly a fair return for the free use of the public airwaves.
There is little evidence to suggest that new public interest obligations for multicasting would be any more effective—a small token in exchange for a major windfall for the broadcasters. As long as expanded public interest obligations allow broadcast outlets to define and control the programming that purports to meet them, and even if such programming is ostensibly "local," such obligations are not remotely sufficient to mitigate the adverse impacts that multicast must-carry brings.
Multicast Must-Carry Poses Substantial Risks
Multicast must-carry would significantly strengthen broadcaster control over content offered to cable and satellite subscribers. By requiring carriage of six or more channels, multicast must-carry expands a broadcaster's distribution platform by at least six-fold, expanding their market power much in the same way as allowing ownership of additional stations would. In 2003, Congress spoke out strongly against the Federal Communications Commission's attempt to loosen broadcast ownership restrictions in order to prevent this very outcome—the erosion of diverse viewpoints and the strengthening of already dominant voices. Indeed, multicast must-carry requirements would transfer an immense amount of market power to a small number of dominant players.
In large markets where some broadcast networks are already allowed to own more than one television station, the problem of marketplace dominance would be exacerbated. In a digital environment, FOX, CBS and NBC alone would own stations capable of broadcasting 400 or more channels in the top 25 markets, all of which would have to be carried on cable and satellite systems. Similarly, broadcasters that own a large number of stations in smaller markets will enjoy an enhanced platform for their views. For example, Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns over 60 stations including several in the same market, would have 335 channels which cable providers would be required to carry.
In short, these dominant broadcasters would see their already significant megaphone amplified under multicast must-carry, creating the very outcome that Congress has sought to avoid when it rejected FCC's broadcast ownership rules—the expansion of the reach of dominant media voices.
Consideration of Multicast Must-Carry is Premature
At the same time as broadcasters seek to expand their control over content provided to television viewers, they have actively sought to prohibit other means by which the public may access content. Specifically, broadcasters have argued for exclusive control of wholly unused, publicly owned spectrum within the broadcast bands—the empty channels that broadcasters neither need nor are licensed to use.
In many markets, more channels are empty than occupied. These channels could be allocated for unlicensed use by wireless broadband providers to offer affordable high-speed Internet access to the 65 percent of American households that lack it, giving them access to diverse viewpoints, sources of information, and video programs that are independent of dominant broadcast voices. Wi-Fi technologies using unlicensed spectrum have already proven successful even in small bands that are relatively difficult to use. If the unlicensed approach to the airwaves were extended to the other parts of the spectrum, these technologies would flourish, providing new opportunities to speak and be heard.
Spectrum policy is therefore not only important for enhancing competition in broadband markets, it is a critical tool for mitigating the effects of media concentration—the effects of which will only be worsened if Congress requires multicast must-carry. Because, at this time, most Americans lack access to alternative sources of local video content and information independent of broadcast television, it is premature for Congress to enact policies which enhance the control of broadcasters over video content on cable and satellite systems.
We urge you to reject multicast must-carry until such time as Congress can consider it in the context of broader policies to expand consumer access to high-speed broadband technologies that expand access to diverse sources of news and information.
Sincerely,
Gene Kimmelman
Public Policy Director
Consumers Union
Mark Cooper
Research Director
Consumer Federation of America
Ben Scott
Policy Director
Free Press
Jeff Chester
Executive Director
Center for Digital Democracy
In a letter to the House and Senate Commerce Committees, Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, Free Press, and the Center for Digital Democracy wrote, "…there exists no compelling public policy reason at this time to extend this requirement to all digital channels, nor is there a significant consumer benefit of doing so… A decision on multicast must-carry is premature and should not be made before a thorough consideration of viewpoint diversity, consumer benefit, and policies that will increase access to diverse content through technologies that use the public airwaves."
The groups argue that the dominant broadcasters would only see their already significant megaphone amplified under multicast must-carry, creating the very outcome that Congress has sought to avoid when it rejected FCC's broadcast ownership rules—the expansion of the reach of dominant media voices.
For example, in a digital environment, FOX, CBS and NBC alone would own stations capable of broadcasting 400 or more channels in the top 25 markets, all of which would have to be carried on cable and satellite systems
"Because, at this time, most Americans lack access to alternative sources of local video content and information independent of broadcast television, it is premature for Congress to enact policies which enhance the control of broadcasters over video content on cable and satellite systems," the groups wrote. "We urge you to reject multicast must-carry until such time as Congress can consider it in the context of broader policies to expand consumer access to high-speed broadband technologies that expand access to diverse sources of news and information."
A copy of the letter can be found below.
September 7, 2005
The Honorable Joe Barton
The Honorable John Dingell
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Multicast Must-Carry
Dear Congressmen Barton and Dingell:
As Congress considers mandating a hard date for the digital television transition as part of budget reconciliation, we strongly urge you to oppose legislation that would require automatic cable distribution of all the digital channels that television broadcasters choose to provide—known as multicast must-carry.
Digital television transmission enables each current TV station to broadcast the equivalent of at least six stations worth of programming in place of the current analog channel. Current law requires cable carriage of a broadcaster's primary channel to ensure that cable subscribers have access to the national broadcast networks and any available local news and information.
However, at this time, there exists no compelling public policy reason to extend this requirement to all digital channels, nor is there a significant consumer benefit of doing so. Further, there is no meaningful public benefit that could be created by new public interest obligations that is sufficient to mitigate the significant harms that multicast must-carry would impose—the strengthening of broadcaster control over content and viewpoints through expansion of the distribution platform. A decision on multicast must-carry is premature and should not be made before a thorough consideration of viewpoint diversity, consumer benefit, and policies that will increase access to diverse content through other technologies that use the public airwaves.
Multicast Must-Carry Offers No Consumer Benefit
Congress should not assume that multi-cast channels will provide valuable content, including local news and information. The broadcasters' track record of declining standards in local news and an increase in homogenous network content suggests just the opposite. Given the costs of programming, it is far more likely that additional digital channels will merely repurpose content already available over the primary channel or offer content similar to that already on cable. In those cases where the content broadcast on additional digital channels is of local value, consumer demand will drive cable providers to seek permission to retransmit it, eliminating any need for a congressional mandate.
New Public Interest Obligations Are NOT Sufficient to Justify Must Carry
New or expanded public interest obligations provide no guarantee that multicast programs will provide increased local coverage, that multicast content will be of any unique value to the community or that diverse viewpoints will be aired. Equally important, additional public interest obligations do not prevent dominant national broadcasters that own and operate local stations from favoring their own points of view and political preferences to the detriment of an open, democratic use of the public airwaves. No hourly quota of local programming can ensure that broadcasters offer diverse viewpoints and true public services.
The history of content-based obligations demonstrates that few broadcasters actually live up to their obligations. Broadcasters skirt the rules by defining content in a way that purports to meet their obligations under the letter of the law, but falls well short of meaningful public service in most cases. In any case, however, the broadcaster acts as the gatekeeper, controlling what views, content and information is offered to the viewing public. The standard for meeting public interest obligations has declined to such an extent that most Americans are not even aware they exist—hardly a fair return for the free use of the public airwaves.
There is little evidence to suggest that new public interest obligations for multicasting would be any more effective—a small token in exchange for a major windfall for the broadcasters. As long as expanded public interest obligations allow broadcast outlets to define and control the programming that purports to meet them, and even if such programming is ostensibly "local," such obligations are not remotely sufficient to mitigate the adverse impacts that multicast must-carry brings.
Multicast Must-Carry Poses Substantial Risks
Multicast must-carry would significantly strengthen broadcaster control over content offered to cable and satellite subscribers. By requiring carriage of six or more channels, multicast must-carry expands a broadcaster's distribution platform by at least six-fold, expanding their market power much in the same way as allowing ownership of additional stations would. In 2003, Congress spoke out strongly against the Federal Communications Commission's attempt to loosen broadcast ownership restrictions in order to prevent this very outcome—the erosion of diverse viewpoints and the strengthening of already dominant voices. Indeed, multicast must-carry requirements would transfer an immense amount of market power to a small number of dominant players.
In large markets where some broadcast networks are already allowed to own more than one television station, the problem of marketplace dominance would be exacerbated. In a digital environment, FOX, CBS and NBC alone would own stations capable of broadcasting 400 or more channels in the top 25 markets, all of which would have to be carried on cable and satellite systems. Similarly, broadcasters that own a large number of stations in smaller markets will enjoy an enhanced platform for their views. For example, Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns over 60 stations including several in the same market, would have 335 channels which cable providers would be required to carry.
In short, these dominant broadcasters would see their already significant megaphone amplified under multicast must-carry, creating the very outcome that Congress has sought to avoid when it rejected FCC's broadcast ownership rules—the expansion of the reach of dominant media voices.
Consideration of Multicast Must-Carry is Premature
At the same time as broadcasters seek to expand their control over content provided to television viewers, they have actively sought to prohibit other means by which the public may access content. Specifically, broadcasters have argued for exclusive control of wholly unused, publicly owned spectrum within the broadcast bands—the empty channels that broadcasters neither need nor are licensed to use.
In many markets, more channels are empty than occupied. These channels could be allocated for unlicensed use by wireless broadband providers to offer affordable high-speed Internet access to the 65 percent of American households that lack it, giving them access to diverse viewpoints, sources of information, and video programs that are independent of dominant broadcast voices. Wi-Fi technologies using unlicensed spectrum have already proven successful even in small bands that are relatively difficult to use. If the unlicensed approach to the airwaves were extended to the other parts of the spectrum, these technologies would flourish, providing new opportunities to speak and be heard.
Spectrum policy is therefore not only important for enhancing competition in broadband markets, it is a critical tool for mitigating the effects of media concentration—the effects of which will only be worsened if Congress requires multicast must-carry. Because, at this time, most Americans lack access to alternative sources of local video content and information independent of broadcast television, it is premature for Congress to enact policies which enhance the control of broadcasters over video content on cable and satellite systems.
We urge you to reject multicast must-carry until such time as Congress can consider it in the context of broader policies to expand consumer access to high-speed broadband technologies that expand access to diverse sources of news and information.
Sincerely,
Gene Kimmelman
Public Policy Director
Consumers Union
Mark Cooper
Research Director
Consumer Federation of America
Ben Scott
Policy Director
Free Press
Jeff Chester
Executive Director
Center for Digital Democracy
