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. -โค a commonโฃ indicator of a high-stakesโข issue with significant financial implications. The Coalition forโข Local News, backed by broadcast affiliates, โclashesโฃ with Preserve Viewer Choice,โฃ funded by the major broadcast networks, over the critical question of โฃnegotiating rights with streaming platforms.
This conflict stems from the โrapidly changing media landscape and the decline of conventional cable subscriptions. As “cord-cutting” accelerates, retransmission consent payments โข- a vital revenue stream for local affiliates -โข are dwindling. The Coalition for Local News argues that affiliates โshould have the power to negotiate directly with streaming services, mirroring the existing retransmission consent framework withโค traditional MVPDs (Multi-channelโข Video Programming Distributors). Their core argument:โ if a virtual MVPD (vMVPD) functions like a traditional โฃone, it should be regulated as such. Without a seat at the negotiating table,they contend,the funding that supports local news productionโ will be severely jeopardized,a especially pressing concern given the growing number โof “news deserts” across the country.
The networks, however,โค present a different perspective.They assert that the media world has fundamentally shifted, and they are the primary โinvestors in programming that sustains broadcasting, โฃparticularly in the competitive realm of sports, facing increasing pressure from tech giantsโข like Amazon and Netflix.โฃ Theyโข believe they need the autonomy to negotiate with streaming platforms to remain relevant. While major media companies may not โinspire 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 โa complex relationship with the broadcast industry and the broader media ecosystem. Recent FCC actions, including disputes over news โprogramming content and interventions regardingโ entertainment programming like โthe suspensions of Jimmy Kimmel and cancellation โฃof stephen Colbert,โข 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 โissues. โTheโค scope of โthis inquiry โextends โขbeyond streamingโ negotiations, encompassing questions of affiliate preemptive rights over network programming and the potential for “undueโค influence” exerted by networks over their affiliate agreements – including who ultimately controls negotiations with streamers.
The positionsโ 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 โขindustry to critically examine its own future, a necessity given the precariousness of the current surroundings. Ultimately, the industry’s survival may depend on โits ability to adapt and find common ground.
