Broadcasters, DBS Remain Far Apart on Uplink Cost-Sharing
Broadcasters and direct broadcast satellite providers, in talks on cost-sharing for satellite uplink facilities for at least several weeks, remain far apart on paying for them (CD June 24 p2), said several industry officials. Broadcasters want to pay little if anything for DBS terrestrial facilities to receive the signals of nearby TV stations so they can be beamed up to satellites for relay to subscribers, they said. But conversations are said to be continuing, with the NAB taking the lead for broadcasters and Dish Networks heavily involved.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Little progress has been made since House Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., oversaw a hearing to mark up satellite distant signal legislation June 25, said broadcast and communications industry lawyers. Both sides had felt some pressure to reach a deal before the hearing in case amendments were added to the satellite reauthorization bill (HR-2994) requiring satellite to carry channels in all 210 TV markets and letting them import signals from stations in nearby cities when markets didn’t have the full complement of stations, they said. Renewal legislation must pass by year’s end, when the current law expires. An NAB spokesman declined to comment.
The passage of a “clean bill” with only a narrow manager’s amendment and slim chances the full House Commerce Committee will soon mark up the bill have reduced pressure to reach a deal, broadcast lawyers said. Dish is said to continue to seek a legislative end to the so-called death penalty, a court injunction barring it from importing distant signals, and it’s still possible a deal could be reached on that if the company agreed to serve all TV markets with local signals. Broadcasters may have lost some leverage to get favorable cost-sharing terms on backhaul facilities from satellite because no so-called short market amendment was introduced, said a communications lawyer.
Financial pressures on the TV industry with sagging ad sales amid the recession may be one reason broadcasters are resistant to paying for the satellite uplink facilities, said several industry lawyers. “These are record lows,” said broadcast lawyer Erwin Krasnow, pointing to a BIA forecast last week that ad revenue this year will be on par with 1995. That’s “a good barometer of the willingness of broadcasters and their appetite to take on new expenditures,” he said. And broadcasters don’t pay for such facilities at the head ends of cable systems, many of which have borne heavy costs, noted a cable lawyer.