<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Gary Buhrmaster <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com" target="_blank">gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Gabe Rubin <<a href="mailto:gaberubin@gmail.com">gaberubin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
....<br>
<div class="im">> Unless FOX moves away from broadcast, it cannot dictate the terms on which<br>
> it is carried by cable or satellite providers (although FOX did threaten to<br>
> do this over this specific issue). However, FOX could play hardball with<br>
> its other offerings, which are fairly popular and varied (FOX News, FX,<br>
> etc).<br>
<br>
</div>Not exactly true. There is a choice involved. A local broadcaster<br>
can invoke the "must carry" rule, where they require that it be<br>
carried by the cable provider, and then there is no payment by<br>
the cable company to the station (when this rule was made, it was<br>
expected to be invoked by the smaller stations that would otherwise<br>
lose (local) audience). The other option is a negotiated settlement<br>
(payment) by the provider to carry the station. A cable company<br>
may *not* just pick up the OTA signals and rebroadcast them(*).<br>
So, yes, Fox does have some leverage. However, it is (slightly)<br>
mitigated by the threat that they will upset their viewers using<br>
a particular provider (as happened in NYC during the CableVision<br>
dispute, and with Directv).<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You are correct. <br></div></div><br></div></div>