how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to fifty nine
Re: A proposal I've been saying this for a while... a long while.. years in fact, however, I take exception with some of your wish list.
said by fifty nine:Since the cable companies seem to think that because the signals are broadcast over the air, they're theirs free for the taking, ... umm... they are free for the taking.. always have been until congress changed the rules.. they are the PUBLIC airwaves... anyone, even business, can put up an antenna and open their doors and show the content that comes over the air.. why should cable be any different? All they're doing is passing the signal to the homes....
.... and are now asking for the Government to beat down broadcasters, You say "beat down"... I say "bring things back to where they were before the government created this mess...
I have a proposal:
1. Make the locals only tier (broadcast basic) free or close to it. Regulate it so that the monthly fee, if any, is ONLY what it costs the cable company to deliver the signal to you, and not a penny more. This has to be audited and enforced by the FCC. Make this apply to DBS providers (DirecTV, DISH) as well. For new customers, a one time installation charge not exceeding installation costs will be allowed. The only exception I have with this is you make it sound like something worse than it really is. This whole "not a penny more" is crap.. They have posted installation rates and they should be charging exactly what they charge anyone else. Customers need to be aware that they're going to pay full rate on install work, there will be no promotions, etc. period.. nada.. I also believe that the customer SHOULD be prepared to pay ALL service calls to the home for anything found beyond the outside of the house.. not the ground block,... THE OUTSIDE.. Under this scenario, which I support, the customer pays all normal fees associated with it.
2. Revoke all waivers for encryption of locals, including the one granted to Cablevision. All locals must be in the clear. No exceptions. I disagree. TOTALLY disagree. The waivers, in some cases, were done for network security reasons which I support. What I do believe is that a DTA should be included in the local tier's rate. HOW the signal is delivered is irrelevant in my opinion as satellite, as you posed, requires a box too.
3. Make all cable companies pass the signals for locals as-is. This means no bit starving that degrades quality whatsoever, not the current rule regarding "material degradation" that is subjective at best. Providers that use MPEG-4 will not be exempted from this fule. 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.
After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If cable companies want to redistribute programming from local stations and not pay a penny for it, they shouldn't have to charge a penny for it either. Fair is fair.
Broadcasters can then stop complaining that they're being ripped off, and cable companies won't have to negotiate any carriage fees because there won't be any. And this is a point I agree 100%.. and the only point I agree with in whole. This is the way it used to be for the longest time..
Customers won't have to rent equipment and their bills won't go up. We're talking about signals here, not equipment - don't tie the two together. As it stands, they have to be in the clear anyway. By the way, you DO realize that locals not only charge for their base signals, but they also negotiate on the "ability to carry the HD signal IN ADDITION" correct?
It went from not having to pay, to many of them FORCING cable / sat to pay, to then making it about what TYPE of signal needed to be paid for as well. ABC is ABC.. FOX is FOX.. however, too many of the local broadcasters hurt themselves, in my opinion, when they were crying IN PUBLIC about their HD signals stating "we had to pay all this money to upgrade to HD and we want to be paid for it".. which is why I've said all along that the cable tv subscriber has been paying for the digital upgrades all along. | |
| said by fiberguy:... umm... they are free for the taking.. always have been until congress changed the rules.. they are the PUBLIC airwaves... anyone, even business, can put up an antenna and open their doors and show the content that comes over the air.. why should cable be any different? All they're doing is passing the signal to the homes.... So by your analogy I can record songs from the radio and sell CDs? Is that even legal?
Remember also that years ago cable stations were picked up in the clear over satellite, so this whole "free signals" thing doesn't matter. But anyway the FCC sets the rules, not you.
The only exception I have with this is you make it sound like something worse than it really is. This whole "not a penny more" is crap.. They have posted installation rates and they should be charging exactly what they charge anyone else. Customers need to be aware that they're going to pay full rate on install work, there will be no promotions, etc. period.. nada.. I also believe that the customer SHOULD be prepared to pay ALL service calls to the home for anything found beyond the outside of the house.. not the ground block,... THE OUTSIDE.. Under this scenario, which I support, the customer pays all normal fees associated with it. They should pay the COST and nothing more, because beyond that they are profiting while taking programming distributed over the air for free.
I disagree. TOTALLY disagree. The waivers, in some cases, were done for network security reasons which I support. What I do believe is that a DTA should be included in the local tier's rate. HOW the signal is delivered is irrelevant in my opinion as satellite, as you posed, requires a box too. A DTA is not enough. The telecom act requires that a customer be allowed to use his own reception equipment. This satisfies the requirement.
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.
If you want free signals get your antenna out. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | 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. | |
| said by fiberguy: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! Here's a bit of a history lesson for you.
Must carry has existed since 1972. It was designed so that local stations didn't lose market share to imported signals from distant stations. Because before today's 500 channel universe, cable TV consisted primarily of over the air signals and a few satellite signals. All cable operators were required to carry all stations within a 60 mile radius.
But must carry was challenged in court (by Ted Turner, no less) and the courts ruled that must carry violated the first amendment, so the rules were dropped, and cable operators were required to only carry public TV stations, and give viewers an A/B switch.
That didn't work out too well for smaller independent stations, who lost out to stronger superstations delivered over satellite.
Then the current incarnation of must carry took shape, where broadcasters were given the option to negotiate the terms of their carriage or force must carry. It didn't violate the first amendment and it gave protection to smaller independents.
That's why it would be pretty difficult to go back to the old must carry legislation.
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" Cable operators are reselling a product created by someone else. Why can't the creator of that content charge them a fee? It's the same exact thing as recording off the radio and selling CDs.
As for the DTA... "The telecom act requires..." .. I think you need to come into date now.. The telecom act section 629:
"...assure the commercial availability to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor."
It's there in black and white and is unlikely to change. Today's FCC is all about more competition, not less. There is no way they're going to give the cable companies total control. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
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.. Deploying DTAs were only granted by waiver. They are not part of the regulations. They were an exception, not the rule:
»www.multichannel.com/article/328···dors.php
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. I doubt it. The FCC is all about more competition.
Also, mind you, cable is always based on ONE television set, not every set in the house. That is also false. Most households had VCRs which required the ability to receive two programs at the same time. This is why the NTIA offered two DTV coupons for the DTV transition and not just one.
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. Section 629 requires that signals should also be receivable on non-cable company equipment, which is essentially subscriber owned equipment. See above.
And yes the FCC requires all locals to be in the clear, but Cablevision was granted a waiver. | |
|
