how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
707 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 Facts
@publicknowledge.org | The current system is already regulation Look, if a cable system can't reach an agreement with one station, it's legally barred from negotiating with stations in other markets, to carry their signals, even if the "distant" station is willing and able to be carried on the cable system.
There was a lot of BS from Republicans about the government needing to not step into the situation--a situation totally created by government. Until 1992, cable systems could just carry signals without permission, as it was never considered a copyright or unfair competition problem to increase a station's viewership. Then, in 1992, Congress decided to fight big bad cable by creating a "market" where broadcasters, those darlings of localism and community involvement, have all the say. In fact, broadcasters can *require* that they be carried by cable systems, and under these "must carry" rules they don't have to pay cable a dime. Thus, the proliferation of infomercial and home shopping channels. | |
|  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: The current system is already regulation Yea... cable and even satellite is kinda screwed here.
The government did really hand the local broadcasters a big kiss by the whole must carry rule.. they made it even a wetter kiss when the distant signal rule came into play.
If the local broadcaster in my area won't come to terms with my cable operator, they go to the public and tell them they should switch carriers "or lose your programming" (also notice these always seem to happen right about the time of something big, like the Oscars, Superbowl, American Idol Finale, etc. - all shows with known large audience demand?)
Well, If the locals can use this to their advantage, then so should cable and satellite as well. I don't see why if cable can't get a good rate or deal from the local broadcaster in their area, why they can't go to another broadcaster outside their market...
Where's the competition for the cable/sat providers? There is none, and the locals know this. Before satellite started carrying the locals, the cable company could simply say "fine... no deal" and then the locals would simply demand "must carry" status.. that's not the case any more. The only ones that demand must carry are usually the local shopping channels, and other insignificant indes.
The government HAS created somewhat of a monopoly for the locals with their rules, and they HAVE to change, or the consumer is just going to get pissed more and more.
Not to mention, when this happens, other companies like Dish and Direct DO make money and profit from it... they inconvenience the consumer with having to switch services, they often make money on installation fees or guaranteed contract subscriptions..
Yea.. the whole "locals" thing needs to be taken care of, quickly. | |
| |
1 edit | Re: The current system is already regulation The broadcasters HAVE to compete against cable/sat silly!
Broadcasters are not receiving anywhere near the fees of some cable only content channels.
In most areas of THIS country, consumers STILL have little choice in cable providers (usually one) and are forced to pay the "rate" the providers what to charge us. If there was an ala-carte system, then CONSUMERS would get to choice what channels they would want to pay for, NOT the cable company choosing what consumers will get!
I would like to remind you the ONLY FREE channels consumers can receive into their homes is the local broadcast channels. If cable/sat what to charge for a cable package without ala-carte services, then the cable channels SHOULD be forced to pay for the local programming as they pay for whatever else they carry.
Put the choice where it belongs, in the hands of CONSUMERS, not cable/sat providers that lack competition in almost all markets. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: The current system is already regulation said by PaulTT :
The broadcasters HAVE to compete against cable/sat silly! No they don't... how so? the local broadcaster can simply pull their signals from cable.. where's cable going to go for the lost signal? .. no where.. they can't.. they can't get distant signals. So that's silly huh? No.. the local broadcaster has the entire deck in their favor.. they just run scrolls and ads on TV telling the cable customers to hurry up and subscribe to satellite to keep their signals. but I'm silly.. lol
Broadcasters are not receiving anywhere near the fees of some cable only content channels. You don't know what you're talking about... .60 cents per head is pretty much in line of most satellite networks, and in some cases, more. I believe ABC was wanting $1 per head, were they not?
In most areas of THIS country, consumers STILL have little choice in cable providers (usually one) and are forced to pay the "rate" the providers what to charge us. If there was an ala-carte system, then CONSUMERS would get to choice what channels they would want to pay for, NOT the cable company choosing what consumers will get! Stop with the ala cart gripes in the forum regarding locals.. Locals have more of an advantage over any other network becuase you can't bypass the anti-buy-through rules on locals.. you HAVE to have Tier1 in order to buy anything else, so the locals make out better than any other network. Yes, cable is one per city in 99% of the cases.. however, satellite is an option to all US consumers. And, don't confuse a consumer's choice of dwelling as "lack of choice"... even apartment dwellers have the right to satellite.. trees, lack of a southern exposure is not an excuse for "lack of choice"..
I would like to remind you the ONLY FREE channels consumers can receive into their homes is the local broadcast channels. If cable/sat what to charge for a cable package without ala-carte services, then the cable channels SHOULD be forced to pay for the local programming as they pay for whatever else they carry. You don't need to remind me of anything - especially when I've already stated this.. der! Besides, and I'll say it again, so long as cable wants to restransmit the FREE locals into the home AND DOESN'T PROFIT ON THAT, they should have the right to do so, and in my opinion, an obligation to. Any other network outside of Tier1 is a luxury.. again, you're trying to use the locals as an excuse for an ala cart agenda.. sorry, but TV, Tier 2 and above, is a luxury that you CAN live with out.. And, in order to have an argument for ala cart, you need to start with the locals.. the very channel you CAN get for free already, but are FORCED to pay for before you can buy the channels you can't get with out a provider.
Really... sheesh
Put the choice where it belongs, in the hands of CONSUMERS, not cable/sat providers that lack competition in almost all markets. The consumer has the choice.. subscribe, or don't. You're trying to FORCE a business to change it's model .. and there is no lack of competition when you have already 3 guaranteed choices... you would still bitch about 'lack of competition' even if there were 10 wired carriers and 5 satellite carriers unless you had it your way..
Let me give you a small example.. go buy a car.. you take a choice of about 5 models in the car. Often you have to buy features that you don't want just to get leather seats, do you not? Guess what happens when you custom order JUST leather seats direct? .. the price goes up. It doesn't always work like you may seem to think - especially when you have nothing to base your ideas off of other than "the consumer should have the choice".. you do.. go start your own cable company or satellite company and sell how you want.. good luck! maybe then you'll learn why you don't have it your way now. | |
|
| | | said by fiberguy:Yea... cable and even satellite is kinda screwed here. The government did really hand the local broadcasters a big kiss by the whole must carry rule.. they made it even a wetter kiss when the distant signal rule came into play. If the local broadcaster in my area won't come to terms with my cable operator, they go to the public and tell them they should switch carriers "or lose your programming" (also notice these always seem to happen right about the time of something big, like the Oscars, Superbowl, American Idol Finale, etc. - all shows with known large audience demand?) Well, If the locals can use this to their advantage, then so should cable and satellite as well. I don't see why if cable can't get a good rate or deal from the local broadcaster in their area, why they can't go to another broadcaster outside their market... Where's the competition for the cable/sat providers? There is none, and the locals know this. Before satellite started carrying the locals, the cable company could simply say "fine... no deal" and then the locals would simply demand "must carry" status.. that's not the case any more. The only ones that demand must carry are usually the local shopping channels, and other insignificant indes. The government HAS created somewhat of a monopoly for the locals with their rules, and they HAVE to change, or the consumer is just going to get pissed more and more. Not to mention, when this happens, other companies like Dish and Direct DO make money and profit from it... they inconvenience the consumer with having to switch services, they often make money on installation fees or guaranteed contract subscriptions.. Yea.. the whole "locals" thing needs to be taken care of, quickly. The FCC rules are actually pretty fair.
Cable and satellite operators, if given the choice, would simply have one distant national feed for the big four (LA or NYC) and tell all of the smaller independent stations to go piss off.
DirecTV once had national feeds for the big four and the FCC stepped in and put an end to that, creating the situation we have now with spot beam locals. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: The current system is already regulation Um... the FCC didn't step in and put an end to this.. I'm sorry, but you're mistaken.. it was done by a law suit in Florida by local broadcasters and the courts changed the shape of out of market signals. It wasn't the FCC..
And no, CABLE would not take the national feeds over locals... cable TV wants to remain local over national; always have. Show me a hint of where they've ever shown otherwise? but, the way locals are behaving and extorting the cable operators now with their new found source of revenue, if I were a cable operator, I'd go after distant signals if I could too!
Um... don't people bitch about not being able to buy health care over state lines?? why is that such a big push? .. becuase it allows for more competition and prices.. so why are locals any different? I can tell you why if you'd like... it's becuase by allowing out of market signals, you threaten the AD REVENUE of the locals that need to survive for the good of the public... wow.. "the good of the public"...
So here's how I see it..
Either tax the locals and give them the money and stop the "fees" imposed to cable subscribers which is a growing market to locals..
Set a flat rate for the locals AND stop forcing Tier 1 on to subscribers.
Force a local only tier and set a reasonable price to broadcast.. that ensure the locals still get their ads in front of the people.. but no fee to the locals off of subscription rates.. at that point, it's just a closed antenna service.
And I don't think the FCC rules are fair.. they're 100% in the favor of broadcasters.. and the curve changed as more satellite subscribers came into the picture. Before hand, if cable pulled the signal, the locals would force MUST CARRY.. now, today, not a single large broadcaster uses must carry.. they want restrans agreements with $$ - becuase they can now. | |
| | | | | | Re: The current system is already regulation said by fiberguy:And no, CABLE would not take the national feeds over locals... cable TV wants to remain local over national; always have. Show me a hint of where they've ever shown otherwise? »www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?en···tcarryru
When first passed in 1972, the must-carry rules required that cable companies provide channels for all local broadcasters within a 60-mile (later changed to 50-mile) radius of the cable company's service area. In the mid-1980s, various cable companies, including superstation WTBS owner Turner Broadcasting, brought suit against the FCC, claiming the rules were unconstitutional. In 1985 and 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals found that must-carry rules did, indeed, violate the First Amendment. From then until 1992, stations were only required to carry public television signals and provide subscribers with an option for an A/B switch to allow access to local broadcast signals. This change bode particularly ill for small UHF stations, whose cable carriers could replace them with stronger, more desirable superstations. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: The current system is already regulation That's a nice post, however, doesn't speak to what you were talking about. DISTANT signals were stopped in the late 90's due to a Federal Lawsuit brought up in Florida.
»www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/Sta···866.html | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The current system is already regulation WTBS, WGN, WPIX and others were distant signals. That's what a superstation is, pretty much.
And that's what cable companies began doing - dropping smaller independents in favor of larger superstations.
The old must carry rules did not allow that. They simply stated that any station withing X mile radius MUST be carried and the station couldn't charge for carriage. But of course the cable companies and Ted Turner decided that THEY didn't want the old must carry rules, so they sued to have them change. Funny how that worked out for them. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: The current system is already regulation If you want to talk about oranges, please do.. but I'm discussing apples.
Superstations are not "local broadcasters".... did you not read the link I sent you as reference? It was a Federal case brought up in Florida by local broadcasters when Satellite companies were selling East/West national feeds to people that could already receive locals in their own area designated a B or better signal.
Super stations are not the "networks" such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox..
Please do yourself a favor and stop trying to teach me about television.  .. been in the business way too long. | |
| | | | | | | |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: The current system is already regulation said by fiberguy:It was a Federal case brought up in Florida by local broadcasters when Satellite companies were selling East/West national feeds to people that could already receive locals in their own area designated a B or better signal. Speaking of apples and oranges, your banana here is about satellite television, not cable, and has nothing to do with this.said by fiberguy:Please do yourself a favor and stop trying to teach me about television. .. been in the business way too long. I'd be willing to put his and my years in the business up against yours any day. | |
|
| |
|
