The Retransmission Consent Process is Working as Congress Intended

Recognizing the value of broadcaster programming, federal law allows broadcasters to negotiate for the retransmission of their signals by cable and other multichannel video providers (MVPDs). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reviewed the current state of retransmission consent and reported, “Our review of the record does not lead us to recommend any changes to the retransmission consent regime at this time.” In spite of the FCC’s rejection of the need to alter the current structure, some in the cable industry have distorted the issue, arguing that the system should be changed. Retransmission consent negotiations between local television broadcasters and cable and satellite companies are private, market-based discussions.

When enacting the 1992 Cable Act, Congress stressed that it did not intend to dictate the outcome of negotiations between broadcasters and MVPDs. Retransmission negotiations are fair and market-driven when exercised. The market system has evolved organically since Congress formulated retransmission consent and must-carry in the 1992 Cable Act, when Congress wisely recognized that cable operators derive great value from broadcasters’ signals. Thus, retransmission consent negotiations are an important mechanism by which local television stations receive the acknowledged value that this programming brings to MVPDs.

•  When this issue comes up please vote to allow free market negotiations between broadcasters and cable operators without government intervention.

Broadcast Performance Royalty Bills Introduced

Both sides are lining up again to fight the battle over broadcast performance royalties. Legislation was recently introduced in Congress, HR 848, that would impose a performance royalty for the use of music on broadcast stations. This new fee, or “tax,” would be in addition to the royalties already being paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, which are collected to compensate composers of music. The new “performance tax” would be paid to the performers of the music and the record companies.

MAB, in coordination with the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and the other 49 broadcast state associations, will continue its fight to oppose the legislation, arguing that musicians have always received fair compensation through the free promotion given through exposure of their music on broadcast stations. And while the proponents of the tax cite that satellite and Internet radio have to pay the royalty, MAB has been quick to point out that there are vast differences between subscription-based services and free over-the-air radio.
The legislation introduced in the newly installed 111th Congress is very similar to the bill submitted during the 110th Congress.

At this point, more than 100 members of Congress, including three from Michigan have signed House Concurrent Resolution 49. The resolution, also known as the “Local Radio Freedom Act,” was introduced on Thursday, February 12 as a bipartisan effort to oppose any new performance fee on local radio stations. MAB anticipates an identical resolution to be presented before the Senate in short order. MAB will continue to work with Michigan’s congressional delegation to fight any effort to impose new fees on local radio stations.

Radio broadcasters should know that the challenge from the recording industry has again been issued, and there will be a major fight ahead that could very well dictate the future operations of many broadcast radio stations.

click here for the talking points
click here for HR848 that would impose the royalty
click here for HCR 49 opposing any new performance tax

•  Thank you again for your support on Performance Tax

LPFM - Low Power FM Station Drop in's Threaten Reception

HR 1147, "The Local Community Radio Act of 2009" was introduced on Feb. 24th. The bill would allow thousands of low power FM station to be licenses and would do away with the third adjacency rule. The Bill quotes a statement made by the FCC claiming that "we are committed to creating a low-power FM radio service only if it does not cause unacceptable interference to existing radio service."

What interference is acceptable? A host of reasons why the FCC thinks LPFM Community Radio stations are necessary is listed in the bill. If the economy were not difficult enough the Radio industry now to fight Performance Tax as well as LPFM.

click here to read the LPFM bill

FCC Localism – FCC docket #04-233

The MAB filed comments and joined the National Alliance of State Broadcast Association in a joint filing against the return to heavy regulation of the rules of the past. We encourage members of congress to write the FCC and tell them that turning the clock back more than a decade is not good policy. Not only would the proposed new rules require 24/7 personnel at studios, which with today’s technology is not necessary, it would require broadcasters to move their studio’s back to their city of license. The studio is already within the grade A contour of their city of license, it is not necessary to be in the exact community. Often zoning and suitable locations for towers and studio’s were not available in the city of license that is why the FCC allowed the move in the first place.

•  Congressman, we ask you to send a personal letter to the FCC admonishing them to set aside Docket no. 04-233 Localism, as these rules have already been vetted by the FCC in years past and are unnecessary in our world of advanced technology. They would only force small independent stations to be less local.