Government Aid for Big Ten Network and NFL?
November 2nd, 2007 in Powerful Special InterestsIn light of all the issuess facing Ohio policymakers — weak economic growth, an unfriendly tax climate for business, health care, to name a few — what do 22 of your Representatives think is a pressing need? Whether or not cable companies carry the Big Ten Network and the NFL Network. Representative Lou Blessing, a Republican from Cincinnati, has introduced legislation “to require cable operators to participate in arbitration regarding disputes with providers of competing video programming.”
Representative Blessing justified this bill by saying, “When cable operators like Time Warner refuse to consider offering expanded programming because they are more worried about protecting their bottom line than serving Ohio customers, I’m deeply troubled.” This is coming from a member of the Republican Party, which is ostensibly the party that is in favor of a free market. I guess in Senator Blessing’s view, the free market is good except when it comes to watching sports on TV. At that point the government needs to step in and ensure cable companies carry programming that football fans want. Maybe if this bill fails he can ask Attorney General Marc Dann to file suit against the cable companies. It certainly seems they share a similar philosophy.
Of course, what Representative Blessing fails to note is that his (il)logic can easily be applied to the businesses he is trying to help with this legislation, The Big Ten Network and the NFL Network. Isn’t Representative Blessing concerned that these two networks are more worried about protecting their bottom line than serving Ohio sports fans? Where’s his outrage over that? After all, these are multi-million dollar corporations. They are seeking a profit just as much as Time Warner or any other cable company. There is nothing wrong with that. There is, however, something wrong with using government power to benefit these companies.
The bill would set up binding arbitration if a network does not like how a cable operator treats it. The secion in the bill reads this way:
If the provider of competing video programming has reason to believe it has not been treated in a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory manner by a cable operator concerning carriage of the provider’s competing video programming by the cable operator, it may submit a request for commercial arbitration…
You know, now that I think about it, this may be a good idea. Sometimes when I go into a store to buy, say, a box of cereal, I don’t think I’m being treated in a fair or reasonable manner when I have to pay $5 for some Fruit Loops. Maybe Representative Blessing and his colleagues can introduce legislation so that I can submit a request for arbitration between myself and the grocery store. Or maybe I can just go to another store and look for a better deal.
Buckeye Institute Marc Kilmer had an analysis of the situation with the Big Ten Network here.
2 Responses to “Government Aid for Big Ten Network and NFL?”
Leave a Reply
You must log in to post a comment.
|
|
Search
Categories
As an Ohio cable customer who admires the free market, I must disagree with Marc Kilmer’s analysis of H.B. 377. On both the overall picture and specific details, I believe Eye on the Statehouse (EOTS) is misguided.
EOTS paints this issue as an example of the government meddling in the affairs of private businesses. In reality, the situation isn’t so black and white. Since the 1940’s, the cable industry has been known as a “natural monopoly,” which is why it has always been actively regulated by the government in the form of franchising agreements and the like.
Therefore, H.B. 377 isn’t needless government intrusion, but simply the state government tweaking the process and operations by which it currently regulates the cable industry.
As to the specifics of H.B. 377, Mr. Kilmer isn’t telling the whole story. Not only does H.B. 377 require channel providers to show they have not been treated in a fair manner, but it also stipulates that arbitration can occur only in the circumstances where a cable operator owns and operates a channel that would compete against programming owned by an indepedent channel programmer. This is a detail that EOTS failed to report.
To sum it up, I take an opposing view to EOTS. This isn’t an issue of free-market interference. Rather, it’s a clear example of the state telling the cable industry (which is already government-regulated, public-focused, and monopoly-oriented), to play fair with cable programmers.
True, the cable industry has been termed a “natural monopoly” and has been regulated as such. In reality, however, cable television providers only achieved monopoly status due to laws that make it very hard to compete against them. Earlier this year, however, legislators and Governor Strickland ended this situation in Ohio and enacted legislation that opens up the state cable television market to more competition. The laws that gave cable company monopoly status are gone. The comments above trying to justify government micromanagement of the cable industry do not reflect the reality of Ohio’s current cable laws.
HB 377 is indeed needless government intrusion in this industry. As was clearly indicated by Representative Blessing’s words, he thinks the cable companies need to be forced to carry these the Big Ten Network and the NFL Network. Personally, I don’t really care if Time Warner (or any other cable company) carries the Big Ten Network or the NFL Network. This is a fight between two corporations. There is no justification for using the government’s power to tilt the balance in favor of one or the other, however. Ultimately, sports fans will decide the contest by using their purchasing power.
As to the contention that I somehow misled readers about the specifics of the bill, I’m unclear as to why the point you bring up somehow would change the arguments against the bill. So the bill’s arbitration requirement would only apply to cable companies that own and operate a channel that competes against the company bringing the complaint. That may actually make it worse. The way I read this provision is that if a company wants its competitor to carry its programming, and that company feels it is being treated “unfairly” (and what competitor wouldn’t feel this way?), then that company can bring the government in to harass its competition. This provision is in the same spirit as the rest of the bill — using the government to try and tilt the balance of power in a situation that is best resolved by market forces.