dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
24

voipguy
join:2006-05-31
Forest Hills, NY

voipguy

Member

Excellent Article

This article tells pretty much the entire story very well:
»features.blogs.fortune.c ··· n-aereo/

Basically that the old Supreme Court rulings favored free carriage of OTA TV by Cable until Congress passed laws protecting and aiding Broadcasters.

I totally agree with those that posted above stating that Free OTA TV should be free to all, regardless of how it is delivered, and if the broadcasters don't agree they should GIVE BACK THEIR LICENSES, that they did not purchase from the "people" in any way.

Someone with a different business model can make a go of it, or use the frequencies for wireless broadband or something else.

One other thing - cable ops do not insert commercials on OTA broadcast channel feeds, except in very rare cases where they have a cooperative agreement with the broadcaster to do so. (This could involve allowing the broadcaster to 'zone' their ads based on cable service areas.)
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

said by voipguy:

I totally agree with those that posted above stating that Free OTA TV should be free to all, regardless of how it is delivered, and if the broadcasters don't agree they should GIVE BACK THEIR LICENSES, that they did not purchase from the "people" in any way.

I would agree with that IF the cable companies stopped charging people for the broadcast channels. On my Intenet-only Time Warner connection, for instance, I should be allowed to receive the broadcast channels for free. They should not be allowed to encrypt them. They would never agree to this since the price of the 'broadcast basic' package would need to be deducted from everyone's bill.