Not You
@nycbug.org
| Re: Silliness. Problem with cable is they already have an environment where they pay for video content and then mark it up and pass it on to their subscribers. They certainly don't want the tables flipped where the most popular content destinations start charging the ISPs for access. It's not a terribly large jump for a Google to start demanding a royalty for ad-free content (for example).
This is more of a defensive 'offense' than anything. Doesn't make it any less silly though... | |
|
 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Silliness. That's a pretty long stretch to say sites like Google will start charging ISP's. The whole business model for Google is to provide free content paid for by advertising. Much like broadcast television, which has been around for over 50 years and not once have they resorted to charging anybody access even when they see cable companies showing the same content for a fee. | |
|
 | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: Silliness. Cable companies pay the local network stations for the rights to carry their content. | |
|
| | clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| Re: Silliness. You are wrong. Local stations are carried free under must-carry rules. No money trades hands for the OTA signal. If the local station wants to broadcast another channel (like a subchannel of the HD signal), then that's a separate negotiation that may require payment to the cable operator. | |
|
| | | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: Silliness. Your right. I was confusing local stations with ones from other cities that want to be carried in other areas. Channel 10 in columbus, is carried by TW in areas that they can not be gotten via an antenna. | |
|
| | | 
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
1 edit | said by clickie  :You are wrong. Local stations are carried free under must-carry rules. Local stations can elect must-carry or can demand payment from cable companies (aka retransmission consent.) In general, most major network affiliates take the latter option but some take the former; PBS stations and religious stations are always must-carry. See »www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | |
|
| |
Not You
@216.237.x.x
| said by Nuts :Cable companies pay the local network stations for the rights to carry their content. Uh, no. They are required to carry local stations, and the TV station can't charge for that. | |
|
| | | 
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | Re: Silliness. they are required to carry the channels, and yes the channels can charge the cable provider | |
|
| | | |
bob2-00
@swbell.net
| Re: Silliness. In 2005 Abilene TX went through the whole "we are a local station and we want money from COX cable" disaster. Our NBC station wanted money from the cable company and until they got it their station was not on cable. They finally after months of propaganda from both sides are back on the cable system.
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···Features | |
|
|
Not You
@88.198.x.x
| You missed the key part of that comment: "Ad free". Google is a restless beast. At some point they'll get into charging for "premium content" just like they've done with Google Earth.
Back to the issue at hand...I'm quite sure that broadcast TV stations never ever imagined they'd be forced to pay to be on cable, but that happened to a certain extent with paid channel placement. It is a very short walk from that to charging high-profile websites for "premium placement" via unencumbered network QoS through an ISPs (or backbone's) data paths. If they don't want to be on the Internet equivalent of channel 73 instead of 7, they'll have to pay.
Don't kid yourself. The cable companies are drooling into their morel encrusted Kobe beef fillets at the prospect. | |
|
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Silliness. I thought you were saying the cable companies are trying to be proactive and start charging before content providers like Google do. I am in complete agreement that the incumbent data carriers (cable and telco) want to double dip the revenue pot, and that they shouldn't be given a chance to.
In regards to Google I have no issues with them charging for premium content as long as they continue to keep the current free services free. Heck, Google has been expanding their free services for quite some time now so if they continue to add free content I would even be more satisfied even if they charged for the top shelf stuff. | |
|
|
|
|
