dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
857
share rss forum feed
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

2 recommendations

The most SILLY part of this blog..

"In the end, all these disputes really accomplish are higher bills and a craving by the public for Internet video disruption of the traditional TV sector."

WHY in the world would anyone crave internet video BECAUSE of this?

Are you serious?

... what would make ANYONE believe that getting rid of a cable company because of these retrans and going to internet video would magically solve all the problems? .. the VERY same video content, in question, would either be delivered through ANOTHER middle man who would have to negotiate, for one.. or even worse, you go direct to the very provider that isn't going to play with another giant (TWC, Comcast, Verizon, et all) and simply STICK if to the consumer, direct!

There is something to be said about power in numbers. If you take a giant, such as SINclair, and put them against a giant like Comcast, those two have more power to fight each other and more to lose. You put SINclair up against the single consumer and it's "take it or leave it" and they'll raise the prices as they feel, when they feel.

Besides, last I checked, the very signals in question (local programming) is already free to the end user. Get an antenna.

The ONLY real bargaining power in these cases is that the consumer is too stupid to simply add an antenna for the locals and be done with their retrans agreement charges/profits to begin with.

Even if the end user went to rabbit ears to get the programming, no matter what the consumer wants, they have to pay the locals just because they have cable.

The SERIOUS flaw in this whole picture is that cable companies are still forced to sell Tier1 programming as mandatory to the consumer JUST to have cable. CONGRESS needs to change this rule and change it now! Locals, if they want to be paid for their signal, should be taken out of Tier1 and put on an OPTIONAL local broadcast tier on an ALA CART BASIS. Yes, ala cart! The way I see it, they are no different than HBO or Showtime.. except that they get paid JUST because you have ANY level of cable service, and I see that's just wrong.

Want to put an end to these go-nowhere negotiations and disruption to the public? .. end retrans payments and put the locals on must carry. But NOT A DIME to them for their signal which can be gotten for free. It's time to end the corporate subsidizing in this case.
WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

I totally agree either made Teir 1 free or charge like HBO and the customer has to opt in like HBO.
The only hope is enough individual content providers start to do like some music artists sell it direct. Instead of Mad Men being on a cable channel the Producer sells it by subscription on the internet or a Premium Channel like Showtime.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
said by fiberguy:

WHY in the world would anyone crave internet video BECAUSE of this?

Ummmm let me see here.

Could it THE BILL?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

said by KrK:

said by fiberguy:

WHY in the world would anyone crave internet video BECAUSE of this?

Ummmm let me see here.

Could it THE BILL?

It costs MORE in the bandwidth required to deliver video than it costs cable or satellite companies. Therefore if everyone eliminates a $40 TV bill and streams all that content over the internet, they should expect their internet bill to go up at $40.

All internet video will do is push ISP's to metered billing, caps, or both. Consumers are shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating the more efficient delivery methods and replacing it with the internet. It may be saving money now, but the days are numbered for "all you can eat" bandwidth.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 recommendation

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

What KrK fails to realize or understand is that it all comes from the same source.. and to think that the content providers are going to make it any cheaper is ignorance to the facts.

So I'm still kinda trying to understand why he would say "Could it THE BILL?" when all it means is that people would go to the internet to pay MORE for less, only get it direct from the source who'd be willing to sell you piece rate at a higher price than you're paying the cable or satellite companies already.

Yea.. makes sense.

I DO get the overall amount of the check every month for the entire bill, but still, people running direct to the internet for content is the same is being half dead and running TOWARDS the light, and not away from it.

The content providers don't care if you get it from cable or direct.. if you go online and buy from smaller middle-men, you're going to pay a higher price as well.

In the end, the content provider wins anyway..

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

I don't fail to realize anything. The Internet allows users to watch only what they choose... and therefore, pay less if they choose to.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

said by KrK:

I don't fail to realize anything. The Internet allows users to watch only what they choose... and therefore, pay less if they choose to.

Yes, but the internet doesn't "care" which channel you are watching. The bandwidth still costs the same. It will cost as much (or more) in bandwidth fees to stream one channel as it does to have 100 channels multicast to you over cable. If you have 2 TV's, it will now cost you twice as much (even if both are streaming the same channel).

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Only because of the lack of competition, and the resulting profit "opportunities."
jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

said by KrK:

Only because of the lack of competition, and the resulting profit "opportunities."

Since you didn't quote what I said that you were responding to, I'm assuming it is the part about internet video pushing rates higher or caps lower...

If that is the case, no, you are wrong. It does simply cost more to deliver independent streams of video than it does using a broadcast method like satellite or cable. It isn't "only because of lack of competition" and other totally money hungry purposes. Yes, those do sometimes play a roll, but that isn't the main reason that replacing your TV delivery with the internet will cause your ISP to raise rates.

If a TV provider offers 100 channels, it can simply push those 100 channels out through the wire and every house can receive them. Other than the cost of the physical wire or receivers (and obvious things like support), it costs virtually the same to deliver those channels to 100 households as it does for 1000 homes.

Now internet streaming on the other hand would cost over 10 times as much to push 1000 streams vs 100. As I said, it is a horribly inefficient deliver method compared to the technologies that are built for it. You can think of it like a city bus vs individual cars. If you put a 100 cars on the road, you'll have a lot more traffic problems than if those 100 people all hop onto one bus.
jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2
said by fiberguy:

Besides, last I checked, the very signals in question (local programming) is already free to the end user. Get an antenna.

I totally agree with everything you said, but I do want to point out that it is virtually impossible in many areas to get reception with an OTA antenna.

In the area I live, you are lucky to pick up more than a few channels with a large rooftop antenna on a tripod with 10' mast and an amplifier, and the installation costs are $500 or more in many cases. After the DTV transition, about 1/2 of the residents had to switch to cable or satellite because the reception was too bad with an antenna.

So sometimes people have no OTA choice even for local stations. But yes, as you said it should be an OPTIONAL addon for those who don't want to pay for them.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

heh.. in Siren WI, it also seems virtually impossible for them to get the storm Sirens working too! lol. Sorry man, I couldn't resist.

But you're right.. in some areas you're right. And honestly, this is one of those moments where I personally feel that cable SHOULD be able to carry those networks and I believe that it should NOT be a charge to the consumer for it OR to the cable operator. I also feel that the locals should have to cover more areas than they currently do. In the cities where the signal IS available, it should be a charge, but on an ala cart basis and as an option.

I kinda get tired of the locals having their cake and eating it too these days.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

There's no excuse if you live less than 60 miles from the transmitters. I live 48 miles from NYC and my ota setup gets everything. Tell your hoa to shove it and put up a real antenna and enjoy your free tv.
jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

said by fifty nine:

There's no excuse if you live less than 60 miles from the transmitters. I live 48 miles from NYC and my ota setup gets everything. Tell your hoa to shove it and put up a real antenna and enjoy your free tv.

Um, like I mentioned, the cost of putting up a "real" antenna, along with the amps, tripod, etc sometimes can cost $500 or more, and even then the channel selection can be quite limited, so that is one excuse.

Another is that no, not everyone can get the channels 60 miles away. Just because YOU can get the channels 48 miles from NYC doesn't mean that everyone else lives in the same terrain as you. Someone with more hills in the way or thicker trees might be a lot more limited than you are.
jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2
said by fiberguy:

heh.. in Siren WI, it also seems virtually impossible for them to get the storm Sirens working too! lol. Sorry man, I couldn't resist.

Yeah, that was a pretty nasty tornado. You'd think with all of those trees gone that we'd be able to get better reception!

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

1 edit
Stations negotiate cable and local stations as a package, so a la carte locals would not be possible anyway. The whole fox/cablevision dispute was about the whole package of fox cable channels and the local O&O, not just one or the other.

Like I said, if the cable companies don't like the price, they can make their own content. Then you would end up with quality channels owned by cable companies such as G4 *snicker*

Don't be fooled. Time Warner is probably going to raise rates anyway. They just have a convenient excuse now by blaming station owners.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

You're replying to a post which speaks of the way things SHOULD be with the way things are. Not quite sure the logic there.

Seriously.. the rules are seriously outdated, they are bought and paid for, and are meant only to benefit business, not the consumer. This I will agree with.

What I won't agree with are statements like "so a la carte locals would not be possible anyway".. and "cable can make their own content"..

Here are some basic beliefs I have:

1) Delivery carriers should not be in the business of content creation or ownership. (For the same reasons why deposit and investment banks never should be allowed to be owned by the same hand - conflict of interest.

2) Local re-trans agreements should come with certain restrictions such as if they opt for a retrans/pay agreement, then they lose their mandated Tier 1 status and become an ala cart channel the same as HBO and Showtime. (Unlike discovery networks who sell the same packages of the same exact programming nation wide, locals stations are granted a license to operate in a single city AND also fought to protect their local broadcast status. They have to play on different rules that they asked for)

Personally, I see locals as THE most predatory of all content providers.

3) Rates go up and down all the time for various reasons. People tend to believe that it's always one thing that causes rates to rise when it fact it can be a number of things. One only has to run a business to understand that.