dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed

k9iua6

join:2004-05-23
Dubuque, IA
kudos:1
reply to jrodson69

Re: [Cable TV] 41 Days 'till Sinclair vs Mediacom Retrans Expire

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.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

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.