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 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. | |
|
