Answer Guy
join:2006-07-28
Grass Lake, MI
 ·Alltel Axess
| reply to jsz0
Re: Online
You still don't get it. Public access TV recording is still not free. Someone is paying for you to get access to this equipment. The CATV companies are paying for it by price increases on basic service rates for ALL CUSTOMERS! In some locations, the people are paying for it by additional taxes.
In the case of Internet video, it falls upon the person that wishes to use the service to pay the costs. This is a better model in today's age of cheap computers, cameras, sound equipment and software. I have everything to do this today in high quality and I didn't purchase any of it for that purpose. If it was your hobby, you can get started doing it for less than $1,000. A sharp change for the $20,000-30,000 it would have cost 15 years ago for similar quality.
As technology changes, rules need to be rewritten and changed to keep up. Keeping an outdated system such as PEG just makes no sense. One or two government channels is about the maximum for local government and school information. At some point, even this will be entirely on the Internet, but at this point that step is too early. Everyone else can reach a much larger audience using the Internet video sites. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| If going 100% streaming/internet isn't good enough for any other channel/network today, then why is it good enough for local access?
Books are cheap to buy (and even print these days) too, so why not get rid of the library? You'd save way more money...
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| To me this is one of those things that started rather accidentally and has now become an entitlement or right.
It just so happened that Cable TV grew up as a local community phenomenon, it was originally CATV or Community Antenna TV. Some community decided to toss this burden on them, and others picked it up and ran with it. Then the FCC mandated it.
Now it's become a cause. There are organizations defending "our right to public TV channel access!!"
I just wish it was possible to have a discussion where we list pros and cons rather than have these causes and fights. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| said by MyDogHsFleas  : Some community decided to toss this burden on them, and others picked it up and ran with it. Then the FCC mandated it.....I just wish it was possible to have a discussion where we list pros and cons rather than have these causes and fights. Well, technically, it's not 'mandated' by the FCC, it was placed into law by Congress who said communities want it can get it, but if the community doesn't want it, the cable co. doesn't have to provide it. I'm being picky. 
I think it's possible to have that pro/con fight, but there are few debates that don't devolve into a cause these days.
I did look up the last survey done in 1998 in Austin and it showed that 30% of then Time-Warner viewers watched public access frequently/occasionally. Many, many channels on cable would kill for numbers like that. Granted, the survey is ten years old, but I've seen similar numbers in more recent surveys in other places.
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" |
|
