Broadcasters may have to pay extra for the right to deliver Mobile DTV
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted February 27th 2010 4:51PM
posted February 27th 2010 4:51PM
As a geek who just wants to enjoy gadgets, it can be very hard to understand the complicated spider web of media rights -- it's easily the kind of thing that puts one into an outrage when things like Hulu being pulled from Boxee happen. The problem is of course money, but this one is just too crazy, so we'll spell it out for you. Lets say a broadcaster pays NBC for the exclusive right to broadcast the network's signal in the Los Angeles area. Now obviously the exclusivity means that the broadcaster is the only one who can deliver that content in that area. Well evidently just because they paid for the right to broadcast the signal to HDTVs and cable customers, doesn't necessarily mean they own the rights to broadcast that signal to mobile portable device. Yeah, that's right, networks want broadcasters to pay extra for that. The part that makes this really ridiculous is that the older NTSC standard worked just fine on mobile portable devices without any extra licensing fees, but now that we have one type of signal for stationary, and one for mobile, they have to pay more. Gotta love those content creators.
OTA is OTA. Why does it matter if the receiver is portable?
Ben,
Your affliate model is wrong. The networks pay the affilates to carry the programs. The rates are negotiated and usually the lowest rate card hourly rate (like Sunday morning at 3AM). For that fee, the station gets to sell spots locally in the network show as well as broadcast that program with network advertising exclusively in their grade A boradcast area. In some cases there is overlap in affliate coverage (like Vancouver BC and Bellingham Washington and Windsor Ontario and Detroit MI).
Syndicators of off network programming also guarantee local broadasters exclusive use (which was part of the problem with WTBS when it was the first television station on the SAT back in the 1980s).
There is another relationship between the program producer and the network in which the network get the rights to broadcast the program for a specific number of times within a specific timeframe. After the time or number of broadcasts, the producer has the right to sell the program to others (hence a program can enter syndication while still in first run on the network).
Now the producer has obligations with all the talent and unions that are used to make the programming and there are costs for multiple runs and other markets. The producers can enter into agreements with other companies in other countries which can also encumber rights and incur other talent/union/director obligations.
We used to budget a network show or tv movie for two runs (our budget had to include the re-run residuals) and often delivered a show to the network for less than it cost to make.
So it boils down to who sells which rights to which means of distribution to whom. And new methods of distribution always result in new labor contract costs with SAG and WGA and DGA . So the new technology invites new costs. There was no way to control that pesky NTSC signal, but it could only be broadcast twice by the network back in those days (which is why a show pre-empted for a Presidential speech on the east coast would be bumped on the west coast as well not to incure the "first run").
@johnw248
Thanks for the through explanation, but that was already my understanding. What did I write to make you think otherwise?
@BenD You've made comments on the engaget padcast that your local affiliate had "bought the rights" to a network show. That's not correct, they're paid to broadcast that show. The only money they make is from local spots which are available (used to be 2:30 per half hour) in the network program plus the small fee for the broadcast time. The pay off is the quality of the network supplied programming to carry into their local news, etc. (We could also go into the prime time access rule and restrictions on network ownership of programming both of which have sunset.)
In the days of radio, the advertising agency owned the show (or the sponsor and the agency) and the network just carried it on the wire to the station. But that was the begging of the model.
But most of the restrictions and encumbrances come from contractual obligations and labor contracts (hence the DVD region coding when Toshiba came to Warner Bros during development to head off another battle like they had with vcr's).
Thats all.
@johnw248
Sorry but I think you misunderstood me, I was trying to say that the affiliates pay for the exclusive rights to broadcast a show. I didn't mean to infer that a local affiliate actually owned the show.
@BenD I think that he's trying to say that they don't pay, they GET paid to broadcast the shows.
@10nisman94
They get paid to broadcast the ads that come with the shows, but I'd hardly say broadcasters get paid to to broadcast the shows.
Regardless of exactly how the money changes hands, the bottom line is that a local affiliate own the exclusive rights to the network shows in a certain market for a certain period of time.
It is an important distinction though, because the way I say it makes it sound like all the ads are sold local which obviously isn't the case.
Thanks
@BenD No, the local affiliate stations get paid, by the network, to carry network programming. In other words, WPXI in Pittsburgh has a dual revenue stream: They are a network affiliate of NBC, so NBC pays them to carry NBC programs. They also get a number of "avals" or commercial breaks per show, usually 1:30 to 2:00 minutes/half hour.
This is the exact opposite of the cable model, where the cable company pays the network for the right to carry the network programming.
@(Unverified)
We are arguing semantics and ultimately saying the same thing. The bottom line is that advertising money flows to the affiliate, and if the affiliate didn't pass on the national commercials they'd be in breach of the contract. And no I would still not say that the affiliate gets paid to broadcast a show, instead I'd say they get paid to broadcast the commercials.
That just dumb movie, mobile device you still has to watch ads anyway. If you has to paid extra to watch public channel than those mobile tv will go to durst. Only way succesul is to had mix cable and publica tv with small fee that is lower than your home cable bills.
Actually is better for cable or dish company offer this dervice for like extra $10 a month least for like 2 year that would sales.