TV Providers Petition FCC for Help in Fee Dispute > A proposal

A proposal

reply to Joe12345678

reply to fifty nine

reply to fifty nine
I've been saying this for a while... a long while.. years in fact, however, I take exception with some of your wish list.

reply to fifty nine

I agree with just about everything you said, but ...

reply to Joe12345678
The lines are already run and just sitting there. The sat is already there and needs to operate as well.

reply to fifty nine

reply to funchords

reply to fAcEtIOUs

reply to fiberguy

said by fiberguy:

Ah-ha!!!

Well, first of all, TV stations also have costs, which include salaries, transmission costs, utilities, rent, taxes, just to name a few. Ad revenue used to totally cover this but in today's declining ad market that's not longer the case.

NO! .. aha! ... Sorry... but, they survived BEFORE cable customers paid them any money.. they should still be surviving with out it. You're trying to compare two different business models here, and it's FAR more expensive to operate a cable network than it is to operate a TV station.

Broadcasters make their money on ad revenue... maybe the next time you guys put up a fight for DVRs ability to skip commercials, you won't care that you're paying the locals money every time you skip those nasty commercials... you can't have your cake and eat it too..

It sounds like a lot of people here still don't get it.. You can't starve out the locals by trying to not view their ads and also bitch about the increase in your cable bills when broadcasters want more money... Otherwise, enjoy PBS on 7 different channels.

And, $10 a month for just locals? .. currently, we pay $11.50 for tier 1 ... why do you think $10 is justified? With a price like that, you're already basically saying that the cable companies aren't making money on the locals or any of the tier 1 programming.

SOME areas charge upwards to $20 a month for what you are improperly calling "broadcast basic".. it's limited basic or economy basic.. "Broadcast basic" was an actual tier that USED to exist which was just in fact, the locals. Don't confuse the two. But, the average price of limited basic is about $13 a month which I find reasonable.

reply to fiberguy

quote:

---

Nice pipe dream.. so you're saying "not a penny more" ..."keep them in the clear".. and now you're trying to be a lobbyist here and demand the cable companies give up more network and "not make a penny more"... no... can't agree with you here. You're trying to strong arm and extort your wishes out of an issue that is already corrupt by the government. The local networks are a free resource for all people in this country, and I believe that includes the cable companies. Delivering the signal is a benefit to the locals just as much as it is to the cable companies. Cable should simply re-transmit the signal as they always have. Getting into the nuts and bolts of what they do... well, if you want pure, raw, un-modified signals, get your antenna out.

---

For one, I didn't give an analogy.. but I will be glad to, now.

For anyone that believes that local broadcasters should pay for signals becuase they have "rights" to them, should NEVER say that "becuase your Wifi comes over on my property and it's unsecured, I'll have the right to use them as I see fit"... there you go. However, yes, the signals are free to the public... Look, I already told you that there should be no profit on them, if you can't see that, you're too busy finding the reply button than you are reading. But I still don't see that they need "permission".. I think the whole "must carry" and "permission to carry" is Bull Crap given to the broadcasters back in the 90's. That rule was largely to protect the smaller broadcasters from being shut out by cable operators.. however, in all their glory, the government f*cked that one up too.. again, another example of the government at their best!

By the way, don't go there and ATTEMPT to try and even bring in CDs and Radio into this "for sale" becuase I NO where even eluded to it.. what I DID elude and even said was that businesses are already allowed to display signals from TV OTA in their establishment as it is.. they simply pay a royalty, but that's business.. we're talking about the home end user "for use in the private home"

As for satellites... those are a different story... the fact they transmitted in the clear gave home users the ability.. however, that's not necessarily the "public airwave" the same as it comes to local broadcasts.. Satellite networks scrambled their signals - problem solved. However, the government doesn't allow local broadcasters to scramble their signals, for a reason... think about it.. I'm not stupid, NOR did I claim ANYWHERE that I was setting the rules.

Also, when you say "they should pay the COST and nothing more"... What cost? to the cable operator? According to the local government, the "COST" has been defined by the charge allowed by Tier 1 basic... so it seems they're already doing that.. and as I said before, I already agree with this.. how many times do I have to say this in this thread, and any other topic I've posted on regards to this.

As for the DTA... "The telecom act requires..." .. I think you need to come into date now.. there are systems out there that are already removing ALL analogs from their networks... ALL analogs INCLUDING locals.. seems that the laws/enforcements are already changing or laxing up a bit.. The way around this is they are supplying equipment to all households and no charge.. seems that what you're saying is no longer valid.. and, I guarantee you that the next round of regulation will also remove this in its entirety. Also, mind you, cable is always based on ONE television set, not every set in the house. So far, the systems that HAVE removed all analogs, locals included, have negotiated that and provided more than one DTA. So apparently a DTA is enough. Further, and I'm just going based on your EXACT words "The telecom act requires that a customer be allowed to use his own reception equipment." You're incorrect.. it states they must be transmitted in the clear, at this time. "his own reception equipment" as you state it, means that transmission in the clear isn't required.. the way YOU say it, it would also mean that they could purchase their own addressable equipment as well which would satisfy "his own reception equipment"... as you stated.

As you fail to see, the signal is the same signal be it OTA or over the cable or satellite lines.. but somehow, you think that the signal "to all homes" changes on how its delivered - and it's not. Broadcasters FIRST have a responsibility to the public good.. albeit, things like Football and American Idol seem to be in the spotlight, however, their requirements are what are most important to the FCC.. not the programming THEY chose to transmit.

Signals don't become a "premium" just becuase they come over cable or satellite.. besides, your last statement is contradictory to your entire post.

reply to funchords
Then don't bitch when you have to pay for the locals on cable or satellite...

What is so hard for you to get? They have to make money somehow...

We could wind up like England and pay a tax for your antenna... you want that instead? .. even then, they still have commercials.

reply to fifty nine

reply to fifty nine
You're provider, SE, is an exception, not the rule tho. Most of the Tier 1 prices are in the lower $10 rage.. usually under $15 on average. The higher Tier 1 prices are scattered throughout the east coast.. and yes, I've seen some Tier 1 prices at what you say yours is.. I believe the DC area has a few systems that cost that much... still, WAY high, but you can thank your F/A for that one.. they allow those rates.

Further... CBS is a network, not a local broadcaster. The locals sell their own ads to generate revenue. While many are owned by Clear and other large corporations, some are owned by smaller groups. If a network like CBS is hurting for ad revenue, there is a reason for that - it means their programming sucks and isn't gathering an audience and their "book rates" are falling, as well.. so let them go cable. The local broadcasters are still going to be in business.. and if they fail.. oh well. They're still a business that operates over the public airwaves. Again, maybe if people, like you, stop trying to avoid the ads, maybe they wouldn't have to go all cable. You can't have it both ways there buddy...

This second source of income ins pure BS.. this collects user fees from end users to pay for local broadcasting signals...

If they want to go all cable, and I want the network, then fine, if I chose to have it, I'll pay for it then.. but it doesn't change the fact that locals are dipping into the pockets of citizens for television that is supposed to be ad supported and free. SIMPLY becuase it's transmitted over cable or satellite doesn't change that fact..

Further, their monopoly shouldn't be supported. The broadcasters can play satellite against cable to raise their fees... what choice does cable or satellite have? Either pay the fee or lose the signal? Raising their fees only pissed off their subscribers when it happens... if this is the case, it's another form of monopoly that shouldn't be allowed to happen - not even by the standards of most users here. Then government needs to allow cable and satellite to buy distant signals, at a price, and insert their OWN ads on those networks as well. Fair is fair..

If locals want to start playing games and acting like their satellite counterparts, they should be ready to play the game all the way through.. only THEN will the locals knock their crap off.

reply to fifty nine
Which version of the channel do cable providers pass on?

Analog
Digital simulcast
HD

Normally basic cable only includes analog. To produce the analog version cable providers are decoding the signal and remodulating it.

In your agreement can Cable providers now drop the analog signal? or the digital simulcast? and just provide the HD signal as if it were OTA?

What about the sub-channels often included in the OTA signal? Do they have to be included in the Broadcast Basic signal? in analog? and/or digital simulcast?

reply to fiberguy