A Lesson for Congress on Retrans Negotiations?

[Commentary] Admittedly, national budgetary policy is more complex than most (but perhaps not all) retransmission negotiations, but then the adverse impact of the accompanying disruption is vastly greater as well. Unlike a retransmission dispute, however, where the public can fully restore service with a set of rabbit ears, nothing I can buy at my local Radio Shack will open the national parks or allow Federal Communications Commission staffers to return to their desks to process my applications.

Given the high stakes, it is interesting that there are actually far more protections against failed negotiations in the retransmission context than in the congressional context. For example, unlike Congress, parties to retransmission negotiations are subject to the FCC's rule requiring good faith negotiations. While those who assert that the current retransmission process is broken frequently argue that merely policing the negotiation process to ensure the parties are negotiating in good faith is not enough, it seems like those rules might actually be fairly useful in the current congressional conundrum. For example, a party violates the FCC's good faith rule if it refuses to show up for negotiations, unreasonably delays negotiations, refuses to put forth more than a single unilateral proposal (the "take it or leave it" approach), or fails to respond to a proposal by the other party. Some might argue that such restrictions limit a party's freedom to negotiate, but all retransmission negotiations are conducted within that regulatory framework, making retransmission negotiations more regulated than most, and giving proponents of adding yet further layers of restrictions a high hurdle to jump.