how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
| reply to Old_CableGuy
Re: [Cable TV] 41 Days 'till Sinclair vs Mediacom Retrans Expire said by Old_CableGuy :Remove sports from Mediacom, save everyone like 80% of the cost of their cable bill, and tell the right-wing loons at Sinclair to get bent.
Us 98% can't afford to keep giving the Mitt Romney's of the world the the XXL sized mansion. When the rich live off the labor and work of the bottom classes (lets face it, most CEOs have never worked a real day in their lives) they might have to live in the XL mansion instead. In case they haven't noticed, a recession is going on.
Now this is utterly absurd. As others have pointed out, ObamaCare most definitely has (and will continue to) contribute to cost increases. Not just for Cable TV, but for every product and service. The cost of doing business is passed on to the consumer, the company doesn't just eat it. Why can't "left wing loons" ever get that point? There's no unicorn tears or pixie dust to absorb increased cost. It is passed directly and immediately on to the end user. Which (in most cases) is NOT the guy with an "XXL Mansion" but the regular old Joe, just trying to make ends meet. Wait until 2014, you ain't seen nothing with regard to cost increases yet.
I am not a fan of Sinclair, I could care less their politics, I don't feel any over the air broadcast station should be allowed to charge a provider for carrying their station. It's a service to the OTA provider. So my feeling is, go ahead and drop them. If they want to be carried, THEY should be paying Mediacom (and other carriers) not the other way around. | | |
|
k9iua6
join:2004-05-23
Dubuque, IA | said by jrodson69: If they want to be carried, THEY should be paying Mediacom (and other carriers) not the other way around.
Yes, the FCC got the regulation backwards all those years ago, and we've been literally paying for it since.
To make that work, however, the cable (and satellite) companies will have to stop inserting their own commercials in place of OTA commercials on these particular channels. That is where the beef is - the OTA stations are trying to make up for the missed ad revenue from these insertions. | |
| said by k9iua6:said by jrodson69: If they want to be carried, THEY should be paying Mediacom (and other carriers) not the other way around.
Yes, the FCC got the regulation backwards all those years ago, and we've been literally paying for it since. To make that work, however, the cable (and satellite) companies will have to stop inserting their own commercials in place of OTA commercials on these particular channels. That is where the beef is - the OTA stations are trying to make up for the missed ad revenue from these insertions. Altering a broadcast is against federal law. Cable companies would not be able to alter broadcasts if OTA stations didn't give them permission. Although I have never heard any stations mention a loss of revenue from this practice and I am not sure it is a common practice. | |
|
