Cable networks on multicasting: "just say no!"
By Kevin C. Tofel 
posted Sep 13th 2005 4:18PM
posted Sep 13th 2005 4:18PM
94 cable networks banded together with a powerful message to Congress today. As a group, these networks want Congress to deny what the broadcasters want: legislation for a "must-carry" rule. The broadcasters want Congress to require cable networks to carry all of the DTV channels that the stations are broadcasting.I can see both sides here. If the cable networks aren't required to carry the DTV signals of local broadcasters, there is risk of lost advertising revenue for the networks as their audience could dwindle. On the flipside, cable operators have a limited amount of bandwidth. HDTV channels will certainly take up some of the bandwidth, so the cable companies might want to use remaining bandwidth for non-broadcast programming.
I'm in an area where I can get my local DTV and HDTV broadcasts over-the-air, so I'm OK if the cable operators aren't required to carry my locals. I have satellite anyway, although I'm not yet sure how this applies to the satellite industry. In any case, I'm curious how you feel about this. Should the cable operators be required to carry local DTV signals or should they be allowed to offer the programming of their choice?
It's still (barely) a free country last I checked, if they want to show 108 channels of nothing but bowling, they should be able to.
Multicasting sucks, for the most part. Over the air here in Chicago, they're multicasting:
1) local weather channel (NBC)
2) Local weather channel (ABC)
3) "Local interest" channel (ABC)
4) Spanish language rebroadcast of main channel (WGN)
5) PBS HD (This is a good use of multicasting, I suppose, but why isn't the real PBS station in HD?)
6) 6 Pax substations! Who knew that "PTL Praise the Lord" was still on the air? How many televangelists are there in America?
7) Korean/ Indian/ Polish/ Chinese public access station
8) MeTV (reruns of Baretta and crap like that
In a way, it is cool that I get so many stations with just an antenna. But I'd rather have REAL HD than a bunch of reruns and weather channels.
Don't forget that for every subchannel, there is less bandwidth available for the real channel. On WGN, the Bulls games look like crap because of all the pixelation during fast movement. That's partially because there is a subchannel.
Satellite has the only multicast must-carry rule thus far, but it applies only to Alaska and Hawaii.
I struggle with this. If multicast carriage is mandated, the audience potential becomes huge, which means we'll see more actual programming on those channels--and probably fewer hours of HDTV. Must-carry was meant to foster *local* broadcasting, but local stations don't produce enough local content now, and most local TV news coverage is just appalling.
Cable companies and local stations could negotiate payment or revenue-sharing arrangements in exchange for carriage. With IPTV, Telco TV, etc., the regulation of cable franchises will have less justification once consumers have more options. It's a mistake to have deregulation before you have real competition, though.
The cable companies need to improve their network capacity in line with what the local broadcasters are putting out. If they can't then they should lose their franchise and someone else who can should come in. The technology exists to do so.