After decades of cable and satellite dominance, internet-based digital streaming services have totally upended the market for home video in just a few short years. Streamers now outspend traditional broadcasters to develop programming, dominate the Emmys, and capture more viewing than any form of distribution.
Overall, 46 percent of viewers say streaming services are their “first stop” when looking for something to watch.
This free-market revolution is delivering to consumers unprecedented value, quality and choice — thanks to “constant and open competition” that has seen nearly 3,000 video streaming services launch in recent years, from large national brand offerings to hundreds of small, independent services covering unique communities and subjects.
Streaming has also helped pry open the long-closed lane of public affairs coverage — allowing FedNet to innovate ways for people to watch and follow Congress, from the first live-streaming coverage of Congress in 1996 to the innovative streaming channel launch in 2022. The service is free, whether or not the viewer subscribes to cable. It has brought Congress into the streaming age.
A recent letter from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., suggesting live TV streaming services should sign up (and pay!) to carry C-SPAN raised so many eyebrows.
C-SPAN is a well-known brand and a powerful incumbent in public affairs. Streamers are free to pay its high licensing costs and carry its programming if they desire. FedNet is happy to compete with C-SPAN on the merits and price — and with a lean structure, modern technology, streaming-first mindset, and lack of multimillion-dollar executive salary overhead, it thinks it can win many of those competitions.
There is no call for members of Congress — however well intentioned — to put their thumbs on the scale and pressure these private companies to carry it (or any other programming). Instead, those decisions should be made by free-market forces, supply and demand, and private negotiations.
This congressional intervention in public affairs licensing is especially troublesome at a time when powerful legacy forces who can’t beat streaming in the marketplace have been actively trying to shackle innovative new services with a host of outdated regulatory burdens to try to slow us down.
The biggest offender is agitation by local broadcast television stations to gain negotiating leverage against streamers that carry live programming by asking the FCC to reclassify them under the legacy cable and satellite regulatory structures. This would drive up programming costs and impose ill-fitting obligations designed for the 1980s media ecosystem.
Experts are virtually unanimous; this would be a terrible idea. The Internet Technology and Innovation Foundation observed, “This vibrant (streaming) sector has grown rapidly, in part because it has not been subject to the morass of regulations that saddled the traditional cable industry during its infancy.”
Consumer Reports testified that reclassification would be “hugely damaging.”
And consumers flatly reject the idea that streaming services should be regulated like cable systems — not a surprise when seven out of 10 voters (and even higher percentages of younger and more diverse voters) view streaming favorably.
Piling on new costs and mandates in this way would be especially damaging for hundreds of small and independent streamers that serve unique interests and a wide range of diverse and underrepresented audiences — one of streaming’s biggest “value adds” to the modern media ecosystem. Services featuring foreign language programs and niche networks offering everything from high school sports to horror films to military history would all be at risk.
While the initial target of reclassification is live (or “linear”) TV streamers, regulations have a way of expanding to fill all available space. Other legacy burdens being considered for streaming include universal service charges (which are ultimately paid by the consumer), mandates for advertising, and state-based taxes and fees. These would all add cost and friction to the well-functioning and competitive streaming market consumers benefit from today.
To stay viable and to continue to grow, FedNet needs to continue evolving revenue models, from streaming ads to sponsorships and licensing our content to other streamers. Still, we are very proud to be in our third year as the only channel providing an unfiltered view of elected officials to the majority of Americans.
Congressional efforts to stack the deck for a legacy service should be an alarm bell for everyone who wants free markets and open competition to replace the static, overregulated legacy media environment that shackled consumers and businesses alike for decades.
Instead of looking backward for legacy mandates, burdens and obligations, state and federal policymakers should continue supporting the open competition and choice that is driving streaming innovation and growth forward.
