RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Luke Guillory <lguillory () reservetele com>]

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 () 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 () nanog org] On Behalf Of Jameson, Daniel
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:46 PM
To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog () 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 () nanog org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mezei
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:28 PM
To: nanog () 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.?