Retrans Must Be On The Table: Why Broadcast Reform Can't Ignore The Elephant In The Room

The broadcast television industry stands at a crossroads.

As streaming services reshape how Americans consume media and tech giants command unprecedented advertising dollars, traditional broadcasters are crying out for regulatory modernization to remain competitive. Yet any meaningful reform of broadcast regulations must confront a fundamental issue that has grown increasingly problematic: the outdated retransmission consent system that has morphed from a 1990s compromise into a consumer-harming revenue machine.

The Case for Broadcast Modernization

The call for regulatory reform is not without merit. Current broadcast ownership rules, some dating back to the 1940s, create artificial constraints that prevent local stations from achieving the scale necessary to compete with unregulated digital platforms. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has aptly described these ownership caps as "arcane" and "artificial," noting the irony that relatively small TV station groups must compete with tech giants like Google and Facebook without the benefit of consolidation that could generate economies of scale.

A bipartisan coalition of 22 senators has recognized this reality, urging the FCC to modernize regulations that no longer reflect how Americans consume news and media. The National Association of Broadcasters has similarly called for bold reforms, arguing that outdated rules hinder local broadcasters' ability to invest in journalism and serve their communities effectively.

The Retransmission Consent Problem

However, any discussion of broadcast deregulation that ignores retransmission consent reform is fundamentally incomplete. The current system, established by the 1992 Cable Act, has evolved far beyond its original intent. What began as a mechanism to create a marketplace for retransmission rights has become a tool for extracting ever-increasing fees from cable and satellite providers — costs that are inevitably passed on to consumers.

The numbers tell a stark story. Local TV stations generated $14.3 billion in retransmission fees last year, up from $12.3 billion in 2020. These fee increases consistently outpace inflation, forcing many smaller cable operators out of the television provisioning business altogether. Numerous small- to mid-sized MVPDs have shut down their TV services rather than pass extreme programming price hikes on to customers — citing the inability to negotiate retrans rates as favorable as those secured by larger operators.

More troubling is the weaponization of broadcast TV “blackouts.” Over the past decade, failed retransmission consent negotiations have resulted in more than 1,200 station signal interruptions across the country, leaving consumers without access to programming they've (ostensibly) paid for. These disputes are purely about money, with broadcasters routinely yanking signals until their "ransom demands" are met, as Consumer Reports aptly characterizes the practice.

The Altafiber Solution: A Potential Model for Reform?

Last week, a regional telecom firm called Altafiber, a Cincinnati-based provider of voice, video and broadband internet, publicly floated an intriguing new plan designed to allow TV station owners to grow locally and nationally without the FCC having to adopt new rules or fearing much in the way of judicial scrutiny.

Altafiber's innovative "social contract" proposal directly links broadcast ownership deregulation to retransmission consent reform. Under this framework, TV station mergers that would normally violate FCC ownership rules could receive automatic waivers — but only if acquiring stations agree to cut their retransmission consent fees by half over three years, with savings passed through to consumers.

This approach recognizes a fundamental truth: Allowing greater broadcast consolidation without addressing retransmission consent creates an even more problematic imbalance in negotiating power. As Altafiber noted in its FCC filing: "Lessening broadcast ownership restrictions without compensatory measures will hurt consumers.”

The Path Forward

Make no mistake, the broadcast industry's consolidation arguments have merit — automation and economies of scale can reduce costs and improve efficiency. But regulatory modernization cannot be a one-way street that benefits only broadcasters while leaving consumers continually vulnerable to higher costs and service disruptions.

Any comprehensive reform must address the retransmission consent system that has clearly become a source of viewer consternation and economic harm. Whether through Altafiber's social contract model, mandatory arbitration mechanisms, or other innovative approaches, retransmission consent reform must be integral to — not separate from — broader broadcast deregulation efforts.

The stakes are too high for half-measures.

As traditional pay-TV penetration dips below 50% for the first time in decades, and smaller operators exit the market due to unsustainable programming costs, the television industry faces an existential moment far different from the 1992 Cable Act era. Reform that modernizes ownership rules while ignoring retransmission consent dysfunction would be like renovating a house while ignoring a crumbling foundation.

If broadcast regulation truly needs reform — and it surely does — then retransmission consent must be on the negotiating table. The future of local broadcasting and consumer welfare depends on getting this balance right.


Tim Hanlon

Tim Hanlon is the Founder & CEO of the Chicago-based Vertere Group, LLC – a boutique strategic consulting and advisory firm focused on helping today’s most forward-leaning media companies, brands, entrepreneurs, and investors benefit from rapidly changing technological advances in marketing, media and consumer communications.

Previous
Previous

More Targeting Brings Advertisers Big Lift in Results, TransUnion Study Finds

Next
Next

A Cannes-Do Attitude