Programming blackouts reach a decade-high due to disputes

Television Blackouts in U.S. Reach Decade-High Over Fee Fights [Bloomberg]

Programming fee disputes have resulted in all-time highs for channel black-outs this year. Roughly 19 million subscribers have been affected by the five blackouts that have taken place so far in 2010. This is the highest blackout level for a single year since 2000.

The disputes have involved some big name companies, including Dish Network and News Corp., Cablevision and Disney among others, and have resulted in viewers losing channels during the Oscars and several high-profile professional sports games. The situation this year could get worse, as Cablevision and Dish are in the throws of negotiation with News Corp., which has resulted in some Fox programming going dark for Dish customers. The same could happen to Cablevision customers should negotiations break down.

I’ve written on this topic several times, and it’s a situation that is not likely to improve any time soon.  When a single network has the exclusive rights to extremely high-demand product, the laws of monopoly come into play.  When that happens, content providers have the ability not only to charge whatever rate they desire but also to demand that their programming be placed on the most widely distributed package making everyone pay for it. 

Meanwhile, as prices for the networks increase at alarming rates, consumers are demanding more optionality in what they pay for forcing distributors into pushing back harder than ever to keep consumer rates low.  That's why this problem is on the rise.

Programmers and distributors will continue to battle over these rates. Meanwhile, alternate measures are being considered, including everything from a la carte pricing to requests for the FCC by the American Television Alliance to change the retransmission consent rules to prohibit broadcasters from pulling their signals while negotiations continue in good faith. 

Let's hope for some good common sense between networks and distributors and remember what this is all about -- consumers.

Comments

[Mohit]

Thank you; it's a huge relief to know that the ctindoion was caught before it could progress.@Chuck I figured since I wrote about the beginning in 2007 I should write about the finish as well.@WeaselMomma We're very happy too!@Liz It is good news. Glad you dropped by!@Melisa again, I have my wife to thank for being determined and using technology to capture the event and prove it for all to see. We're also fortunate that he had two of those little seizures during the first EEG, so the doc could see it's unmistakable.

[Adam]

The fundamental basis for imripvong overall wealth through trade mutual self interest works well for anyone with a stake in the game for water.What doesn't work is that the entire market of, what, 60-80 withdrawn water, remains in the hands of a hereditary aristocracy, controlled by about 0.13 percent of the population.That tends to create tensions by those who depend on the water holder, when say, a rural aristocrat wants to sell his or her water right (because it affects their related business interests and property values, without any personal gain).It also creates tensions when say, an urban aristocrat wants to buy and retire water rights (for similar reasons).I guess it breaks down to the resentment of the envious (doesn't work) of the greedy (works), or sour grapes at not getting to play in this game of marbles, or the tension of efficiency (works) against inequity (doesn't work).

[name]

"When a single [network] has the exclusive rights to extremely high-demand product, the laws of monopoly come into play."

Doctor, heal thyself

[Ghpr57]

Michael,
Very good post. You seem to hit the nail right on the head.
Sadly, I wish your own company, Insight, would remember that it's "all about consumers". Unfortunately, it seems Insight feels it's "all about money" as they continue to empty promises and turn a deaf ear to their subscribers needs.