Broadcast television in an IP world

Luke Guillory lguillory at reservetele.com
Fri Nov 17 22:54:04 CST 2017


We have 1 channel out of 15 or so that's still a must carry, the others dropped that once they knew cable ops needed them so they went with the "well charge instead of requiring you to carry us" route.





Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation

Tel:    985.536.1212
Fax:    985.536.0300
Email:  lguillory at reservetele.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jameson, Daniel
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:46 PM
To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

In the US certain channels have the *must Carry* designation.  Which puts a retransmitter in a poor negotiating position,  essentially the provider can charge whatever they want.

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mezei
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:28 PM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On 2017-11-17 16:37, Luke Guillory wrote:
> Have you seen what the OTA guys charge for retrans rights? They don't
> want to do this,


Fair point. Coming from Canada, OTA stations, because are freely available, can't charge distributors (BDUs (MVPDs in USA) so their revenues are purely from advertising.

So that changes the equation. If going OTT allows them to shut down their OTA transmitters (and not pay for conversion to ATSC3) it could result in lower operating costs.

In canada, BDU subsriptions are down and if the trend continues, NOT making programming available on the net means you miss the boat.


In the USA, perhaps OTA stations could go to subscription model pn Internet to replace the MVPDs revenues and end retrans disputes.?


More information about the NANOG mailing list