Broadcast Battles: Networks, Affiliates, and the Streaming Future
The future of local broadcasting is caught in a fierce internal struggle, highlighted by the formation of opposing coalitions in Washington D.C. - a common indicator of a high-stakes issue with significant financial implications. The Coalition for Local News, backed by broadcast affiliates, clashes with Preserve Viewer Choice, funded by the major broadcast networks, over the critical question of negotiating rights with streaming platforms.
This conflict stems from the rapidly changing media landscape and the decline of conventional cable subscriptions. As “cord-cutting” accelerates, retransmission consent payments - a vital revenue stream for local affiliates - are dwindling. The Coalition for Local News argues that affiliates should have the power to negotiate directly with streaming services, mirroring the existing retransmission consent framework with traditional MVPDs (Multi-channel Video Programming Distributors). Their core argument: if a virtual MVPD (vMVPD) functions like a traditional one, it should be regulated as such. Without a seat at the negotiating table,they contend,the funding that supports local news production will be severely jeopardized,a especially pressing concern given the growing number of “news deserts” across the country.
The networks, however, present a different perspective.They assert that the media world has fundamentally shifted, and they are the primary investors in programming that sustains broadcasting, particularly in the competitive realm of sports, facing increasing pressure from tech giants like Amazon and Netflix. They believe they need the autonomy to negotiate with streaming platforms to remain relevant. While major media companies may not inspire widespread sympathy, they are engaged in their own existential battle against Big Tech.
The FCC’s Role: A Complex Landscape
The Federal Communications Commission finds itself in a challenging position, navigating a complex relationship with the broadcast industry and the broader media ecosystem. Recent FCC actions, including disputes over news programming content and interventions regarding entertainment programming like the suspensions of Jimmy Kimmel and cancellation of stephen Colbert, demonstrate its willingness to engage in industry conflicts.The question remains: whose interests will the FCC prioritize in this dispute between Big Tech, major networks, and independent broadcasters?
Last week, the FCC initiated an inquiry, titled “Exploring Market Dynamics Between National Programmers and Their Affiliates,” signaling a deep dive into the issues. The scope of this inquiry extends beyond streaming negotiations, encompassing questions of affiliate preemptive rights over network programming and the potential for “undue influence” exerted by networks over their affiliate agreements – including who ultimately controls negotiations with streamers.
The positions of the involved parties are starkly divergent. However, a crucial question arises: who truly benefits from the uncertainty created by this FCC review? The regulatory ambiguity may, at the very least, force the broadcasting industry to critically examine its own future, a necessity given the precariousness of the current surroundings. Ultimately, the industry’s survival may depend on its ability to adapt and find common ground.
