dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-11-26 14:38:29: The retransmission fees broadcasters charge pay TV operators to carry their content have been the source of increasingly obnoxious conflict the last few years resulting in all manner of content blackouts and bad behavior by both sides. ..

prev page · 1 · 2


Super Marcel

@responsys.com

Love my antennas

Great signal, no fee. And broadcasters are not going to pull their signal off the air as they would lose the use of the spectrum.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ITALIAN926

Re: Downward spiral

Yes and there are new business models that have every product you see in a show/movie paying to be there, which was not nearly as prevalent in the old days.


anonome

@verizon.net

Redonculous!

Pay extra for something that most viewers can watch for free by "shelling out" (once) for a good antenna.

Actually, the "pay TV" operators should start charging the local broadcasters for the privilege of having their content "re-transmitted" to their subscribers, which increases the viewership for the stations--not the other way around. Very few people subscribe to "cable" in order to get local stations. (Sure, there are some--for good reasons; but the percentage is infinitesimally small.) And if they don't want to pay, then don't carry them. No skin off their noses.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to Super Marcel

Re: Love my antennas

Actually I foresee a future where they do just that. Make their shows only available via PayTV subscription or PPV via the Internet. They then sell or trade the spectrum to the big 2-3 telecommunications companies who use it to make sure there will never be significant competition to their market.

Win Win for them. Lose lose for us.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


scott2020

join:2008-07-20
MO
reply to armed

Re: It ain't that simple

Because the cable company can still raise your rates, and keep the money instead of giving it to the broadcasters. Does a new $1.50 a month per subscriber retrans fee cover their costs? Or would $.50 per month do it, and the extra $1 is pure profit for doing nothing? No one knows, because they won't tell you the truth.
--
+++ATH0


jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
reply to megarock

Re: There is an issue...

The consumer, regardless of their intelligence level, has no real control in this market at all. What about the millions of people that stayed with their provider and were willing to do without CBS, Disney, Viacom, or whatever flavor of the month renegotiation was taking place?

The only option a consumer can take that will impact this broken business model is to drop their subscription TV completely once the provider signs a new contract at a much higher rate. What kind of consumer choice is that?

You go first, I'll be right behind you.

A similar business model is taking root online as well with such sites as ESPN 3 that forces a provider to pay them millions so that their subscribers can legitimately gain access to the service. They won't allow a consumer to pay $20 per month to access the site, there is no option available for this, and the broadcasters don't ever want you or me to have this level of control over the market.


Super Marcel

@responsys.com
reply to KrK

Re: Love my antennas

True enough. Hopefully, by then, we'll have a la carte over the top channels.

armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter

1 edit
reply to scott2020

Re: It ain't that simple

On the other hand how do you know that the supposed $1.50 isn't exactly the cost of new retrans fees? And who is actually lying... the cable co's or the broadcasters? What is the rate of return vs actual expenditures and is the profit margin today better than last year or ten years ago?

Costs go up. I pay more for almost everything.

As I said "It ain't that simple" and simple solutions to complex problems almost never apply when it comes time to implement.

Do you have any evidence that the cost breakout for retrans fees is less than what they say it is?

armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to anon_anon

Re: Downward spiral

A contention without proof.

Here's another way to look at inflation in cable prices. In 1963 I paid $18/month for 12 channels. Inflation since 1963 is approx. 651%. Ergo I should be paying about $117/month today for just 12 channels. Of course I now pay much less than $117 for 10 times the number of channels.

So much for the old "profits go up and service goes down" argument for cable companies.... eh?

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to CXM_Splicer

Re: More, more, more!!!

said by CXM_Splicer:

said by ISurfTooMuch:

Here's the problem with the entertainment industry and businesses in general: they always want more profits, no matter what.

I agree with this with one clarification... This phenomenon primarily affects publicly traded companies and is a result of

1) Companies worrying more about their stock price (and pleasing Wall St) than actually running their business

2) The current interpretation of Shareholder Primacy which dictates that business decisions should be made to maximize profits to the shareholders.

These two closely related factors cause businesses to adopt the 'exponential growth' model you describe. If profits aren't increasing it is considered a loss. Unfortunately I don't think they are going to 'learn their lesson' anytime soon. Greed has been let out of its cage and it isn't going back willingly.

This is why I knew "Don't Be Evil" was dead when Google went public. Once they had shareholders to keep happy they would have to do the same thing as everybody else in the industry.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

armed

join:2000-10-20
reply to n2jtx

Re: Antenna or Bust

I really like the new version of the show.

Every program has its likers and haters.

armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to ISurfTooMuch

Re: More, more, more!!!

I am far from impressed with the average American's understanding and control of their personal economics. Uncontrolled consumption and rampant debt is the byword of too many "households" today. When comparing large business and individual management of money I generally see companies doing a far better job.

Most large companies are doing quite well while the masses wallow in their own inability to self control expenses. Banks are the one big exception to that observation.


Simon707

@184.151.127.x

Let it die

Just let TV die, good riddance.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to armed

Re: More, more, more!!!

said by armed:

Most large companies are doing quite well while the masses wallow in their own inability to self control expenses. Banks are the one big exception to that observation.

Don't forget the government (Well, they really aren't a company... but still!)

It is an interesting paradigm you point out and I wonder how you think we got here. What caused a country of mostly financially responsible, politically involved, fairly well educated people to evolve into people who only care about the latest TV season and the release of the newest toy?

I would argue that business/the short term economy benefits from this new-found religion of Consumerism but I can't believe it is the only factor. Too many drugs in the 70's? Over paternalization by the government? A shift in education? How did we get here and, more importantly, how do we fix it?


scott2020

join:2008-07-20
MO
reply to armed

Re: It ain't that simple

No one will truly know what their cost structure is when it comes to these fees. Does it cost them $1 per month more now than it did last year to rent out cable modems? Does it cost $1.50 per month more now to "administer" the "plan"? Does it cost $2 per month to comply with FCC regulations? Multiply that by X million users and see big buckets of money flowing in for doing very little. The "because we can, and you'll pay it" fees are almost everywhere on everything, and brings in lots of free money.
--
+++ATH0

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to CXM_Splicer

Re: More, more, more!!!

Unfortunately, we're in the same pattern that occurs to any large empire. At first, the country is either poor or, at the very least, not prosperous, which means that the population and government have to spend wisely. Eventually, expansion and economic dominance bring prosperity, which leads to excess. This not only means excessive spending but also a shift in focus by the population toward entertainment, since many people believe the basics in life are pretty much assured, so they can focus on pleasurable things. Of course, this is a mistake, since a politically rudderless country can't continue to do the things it did to get it to its position of prominence, so the beginnings of decay set in, but, since people aren't really paying attention, they don't see it, or, even if they do see it, many aren't equipped to shift back into economic and political engagement mode in order to effect a change. So the empire slowly falls into decline as other nations and empires ascend.


spelling_b

@comcast.net

2 recommendations

reply to CXM_Splicer
About the new religion of Consumerism - well this started in the 80s with the Baby Boomers. There was a delusional belief of unlimited optimism and growth, which was actively pushed and maintained by the country's leadership. We should all have bigger houses, bigger cars, and bigger boats. Of course everybody also needs all new brand-name appliances, furniture, and clothing to fill these big houses. Just look at the figures of average single family house sizes from the 50s up to the last couple of decades. Keep in mind that family sizes aren't any bigger than they were back in the 50s. If anything they've shrunk.

This is an interesting story with an interesting date:

Behind the Ever-Expanding American Dream House
»www.npr.org/templates/story/stor···=5525283

"I believe that you can live out your fantasy," Frisby says. "That is what I'm doing. That is what my wife is doing. That is what other people are doing when they build or buy a house like this."

Note that this story was done back in 2006. He's right though: many, many people then were indeed living out a fantasy. How many of them are still within this fantasy?

Earlier generations (pre-Baby Boomer) were permanently changed by the Great Depression. That event altered their attitude toward spending money, because many of them did not have any money to spend. They also didn't have credit cards, or usury level payday loan/title loan stores on every corner. Those generations well understood the difference between needs and wants, and the value of saving what you can. Unfortunately this severe mentality and militant thrift ended with the Baby Boomers. Thriftiness used to be a high virtue and now it is almost considered a vice. Instead of militant thrift we have militant consumerism.

How to fix it? Well the only way is to reject consumerism entirely and return to an attitude of serious minded thrift. Recycling gets lots of lip service, but you hear less of the complete phrase: "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." Those first two words are critical. Recycling by itself does no good if we don't reduce consumption, and to do that we can reuse. Most everything possible can be bought used and second hand - the only real exception I can think of is food, and for most people stuff like underwear and socks! Just about everything else can be acquired in thrift stores and on craigslist and such.

I think one thing that underlies this is how many people quickly refer to themselves as consumers. As if our only purpose here is to buy, buy, buy. It's time to stop using the label "consumer". How about citizen, or human being? One thing that would help, as difficult as it is now, would be for people to turn off the television and unplug from Hollywood and pop culture. How many people would have little to talk about with each other if not for popular tv shows and movies? Those great earlier generations did not have all this escapism. They faced a harsh reality head on and they were wiser and stronger for it.


Corehhi

join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC
reply to armed

Re: Downward spiral

Where did you have cable in 1963??? I was in up state NY, Endwell to be exact and we couldn't get cable until the early 80's.

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to spelling_b

Re: More, more, more!!!

The article you linked to was quite interesting. My wife and I have a three-bedroom house that was built back in the 1950s. We have one child and another on the way. While they can each have a bedroom, that leaves none for guests. Do we need a bigger house? Nope. When guests come, someone can sleep on the couch. I did that growing up, and it was never a problem.


spelling_b

@comcast.net
reply to ISurfTooMuch
ISurfTooMuch, I always enjoy reading your posts. I didn't mean to be so excessively wordy in mine, but it's something I feel strongly about. I kinda ran out of steam at the end but like you summarized, it's all tied together. You basically nailed it here with your post. That was accurate and precise. Good job!

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
Thanks! I enjoy writing, and it's nice to see that some folks like to read my insane ramblings.

One of these days, maybe I'll start a blog or something. I already have the domain registered.


linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
Reviews:
·TracFone Wireless
·CenturyLink

This is insane

I cut the cable cord years ago because of the insane price for a washed out picture. I like the big dish better than any system I ever had. It worked! I picked every channel I wanted including 7 channel and paid $25/mo.in 1992. Now I have what I like on Dish and pay $50 and have 5 times more channels. What I don't like about either system is the creeping piggyback infomercials.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1
reply to spelling_b

Re: More, more, more!!!

said by spelling_b :

About the new religion of Consumerism - well this started in the 80s with the Baby Boomers.

Rain Check - Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), is the first of two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the must carry rules imposed on cable television companies.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Bro···mmission