dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
364
share rss forum feed


AnonMan

@comcast.net

I am tired...

I am so tired of this crap.

I think a law needs to be made that is flat and simple (yeah I know it will never happen).

The options for TV are as follow:

Either you make money off advertisement OR you charge a broadcasting fee.

You do NOT get to do both. We all know advertisement alone would pay for shows and in almost all cases does, cable fees are for the most pure profit.

If this model was followed more people would be able to have TV because only cost would be renting the boxes, paying a small fee to the cable co to manage the lines etc. but that would get more people TV thus more advertisement revenue...

Oh well, time for me to wake up.
The way I see it TV is less and less an entertainment factor. It's simply not cost effective in this economy. Why should these companies get record new profit year after year and keep raising prices while the value of our $ goes down and yearly pay raises no longer exists and if they do don't even cover inflation?

I wish more people would vote with wallets...



buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20
Limestone, ME

Where do I sign.

I Agree 100%
Ads or Cash not both.
Works Pretty good for Netflix and Redbox.

I'd go cash hands down. I might not get much, but I'll be happy living an ad free existence.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to AnonMan

said by AnonMan :

We all know advertisement alone would pay for shows and in almost all cases does

We do?
said by AnonMan :

If this model was followed more people would be able to have TV

How many people don't have access to content available on a TV; cable and/or OTA?
said by AnonMan :

Why should these companies get record new profit year after year and keep raising prices while the value of our $ goes down and yearly pay raises no longer exists and if they do don't even cover inflation?

You're conflating two very different issues; rising rates for pay TV and the Fed devaluing the dollars in your pocket. Inflation isn't a concern....yet. You think you're paid too little and spend too much now, just wait

jagged

join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL

given the ad rates for 30second spots for 8-10pm primetime yes. Then until recently the broadcast stations have to pay the networks cable/satellite retransmission fees to carry their programming



ClericVA

@mileone.net
reply to AnonMan

A blanket statement such as we all know means little, please provide the numbers for the total income and expenses from developement, production advertising and distribution of all television programming. Then throw in the research costs for the cable industry whether it is for the developement of past and future generations of cable boxes IE: Wireless Media Servers or the amount it has cost companies such as Verizon to develop FiOS and it will cost Google to roll out Google Fiber. Developing the hardware and software to ge us TV, Internet and phone through a beam of light was not cheap. Then let's fill the cable companies call centers (most of which are here in the US by the way) so that when your 70 year old mother, can not understand that she has no picture on her tv because the TV is on but the cable box is off, or because her TV is on the wrong input has someone to call 2 or 3 times a month instead of you. I am also pretty sure you have never tried to talk someone who is clueless how to program a remote control over the phone and naturally they don't have a cordless phone or a corded one in the same room as the tv. Then let's talk about the advertising that will pay for all of this. If all of these expenses were covered solely by that your Gator Aid would be $5 a bottle and Frosted flakes would be $10. Yes the cable companies make a lot of money but they are publicly traded and need to generate profits or people would not invest in them and there would be no new innovations. However if you can please provide the numbers to back your statement I will be more than happy to retract everything I just typed.



jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
reply to AnonMan

said by AnonMan :

You do NOT get to do both. We all know advertisement alone would pay for shows and in almost all cases does, cable fees are for the most pure profit.

Sooo.... TV production studios and actors and crew get to make plenty of profit, but cable/satellite companies don't get to make profit.

As long as you're deciding all these rules unilaterally, could you write out the details?


Brian_M

join:2004-06-19
Manchester, GA
Reviews:
·Charter
·Windstream
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

How many people don't have access to content available on a TV; cable and/or OTA?

Probably not many, but when you are one of those people (unwilling/unable to spend what cable wants, no access to OTA due to location), it's a pretty major thing. I'm in that boat... granted, each month that goes by means I'm less irritable about it, and less likely to go back. No skin off my back at this point, though I'll try out Aereo when/if it's available to me. Might just find that even at $7/month the value isn't there, and the funny thing is that it wouldn't be any fault of Aereo....

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
reply to buzz_4_20

A re-hearing en banc is unusual in a federal court. This is grasping at straws.

On page 7 of the petition (thanks for the direct link Karl), the reason for desperation is apparent. Dish and TWC are considering partnering with Aero or implementing Aero like services, which would allow them to bypass the need to negotiate rebroadcast rights.

If Aero is just an Internet based antenna cable and doesn't violate copyright, a lot of cable fees for local stations could be lost.

The argument by the plaintiffs seems to be that Aero is providing public performances without a license. That wouldn't seem to square with the technology, they have a separate antenna for each subscriber, and provide that subscriber only channels they could ordinarily receive over the air. This isn't public in any way most would understand it.

Another court, did issue an injunction against another service. How similar that service is to Aero isn't clear.

The case enjoined is here - »docs.justia.com/cases/federal/ap···8-27.pdf it was a simple streaming of live television without permission, but apparently without separate antennas and without verification of residence within the area of OTA reception.

I'm not a lawyer, but the petition for review en banc seems weaker than I'd have expected.
--
Congress could mess up a one piece jigsaw puzzle.


turnerbrewer

join:2011-11-22
reply to AnonMan

I have voted. My family ditched pay TV months ago and could not be happier. Pay Tv is was not worth $100 a month to us. We only watched 5 channels at the most.


Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to ClericVA

Hollywood and content owners and broadcaster like to use "creative accounting" to make it look like their productions are losing money(thus, they don't have to pay residuals to their actors), so any number you get will make it look like you are right, on the surface. Until you start digging and realize that CBS is more a conglomeration of thousands of smaller companies, and each up the chain charges the lower ones a "fee", with production sets and such being on the lowest of the chain, meaning that they get "fee"d out of any money they would have made on advertisements, thus, making it look like it lost money, while CBS continues to produce record profits(according to its stock price over the last 10 years).


dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to pandora

the whole public performance thing was already decided at district court level, so I don't suspect that will be raised again. Meanwhile, their current case is not over - so asking for an en-banc hearing before even working with the current judge? not likely to go over so well.



chip89
Premium
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH
reply to buzz_4_20

I agree with both of you guys ads or money I pay for Sirius radio so I don't have to listen to ads like radio that is on the ground. (And that it works where regular radio does't)



Probitas

@teksavvy.com
reply to jester121

Well, maybe they should not be getting the kind of pay they get, after all, they ain't pro sports stars, those guys earn their money. ;p


RCampbell

join:2013-04-17
Sparta, NJ

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to AnonMan

I don't think we need to go that far. Limited the studios ability to control the distribution of content would help a ton. In the retail world you don't see Microsoft dictating who sells the xbox and for how much.
--


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Brian_M

said by Brian_M:

but when you are one of those people (unwilling/unable to spend what cable wants, no access to OTA due to location), it's a pretty major thing.

I guess you could always go with a low cost Sat TV provider.


AnonCable

@wayport.net
reply to jagged

I believe that before retransmission fees, the operators aired the local broadcast signals without paying or being paid. There is an FCC must-carry rule for broadcasters above a certain power. It used to be that broadcasters (especially the non big 4 ones) would force themselves on the operator's line-up with this must-carry rule. Operators did not, as far as I know, receive payment to carry. Sometimes (more in the old days than now) CABLE networks would pay for carriage in early years a of a deal, especially when they were trying to get to critical mass of homes. But I think even that has become rare.