|
nothing from nothing equals nothingmore bs rules from our great government that will not do anything in the long run | |
|
|
Taget
Member
2011-Mar-4 8:11 am
The answer is pretty easy on the broadcast network level.Relax rules on re-transmission of nearby affiliates (and/or restrict contract language that forbids it). If the stations in Boston for example don't want to be re-transmitted.. fine. Let the cable companies negotiate with the nearby Providence affiliate and get a better deal from them. | |
|
| |
Re: The answer is pretty easy on the broadcast network level.That won't do anything. All the networks have to do is agree among themselves that they will NOT allow retransmission of neighboring stations in the event of a contract dispute. | |
|
| | |
Re: The answer is pretty easy on the broadcast network level.said by fifty nine:That won't do anything. All the networks have to do is agree among themselves that they will NOT allow retransmission of neighboring stations in the event of a contract dispute. But the dispute is not with the network, it is with the individual station owner (sometimes the network owns the station too). In general, the network might want to get their commercials out wherever they can get them shown. If the local station wants to be a butt about it, they can suffer the consequences of the lost coverage. If the consumer still get's to see the network's shows, via another station, that's good for the consumer, bad for the station that's being a butt. More incentive for the station to stop being a butt. | |
|
| | | Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2011-Mar-4 6:07 pm
Re: The answer is pretty easy on the broadcast network level.said by videonex:But the dispute is not with the network, it is with the individual station owner (sometimes the network owns the station too). Where you say "sometimes the network owns the station too" you just pointed out that the networks (they are station groups who receive retransmission consent too) do have a dog in this fight. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: The answer is pretty easy on the broadcast network level.said by Sammer:Where you say "sometimes the network owns the station too" you just pointed out that the networks (they are station groups who receive retransmission consent too) do have a dog in this fight. Yes, but too often the networks are referred to generically when they are not directly involved. The real issue is with station ownership regardless of network involvement in the ownership. Even a network owned station's ratings and in turn revenues are affected if retrans is denied. In those cases the network's ratings and revenues are affected too. They lose twice. I am a very firm believer that the cable and satellite companies are really in the driver's seat and if they stand firm, the stations and networks will give in because they will lose much more than the cable/satellite folks will in the long run. | |
|
|
More Big Government Interference!All the disputes were resolved, right? That's how the free market is supposed to work. | |
|
| |
MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-4 1:38 pm
Re: More Big Government Interference!all but DirecTV (fox still runs their scrolling banner at random times on Fox Cleveland) | |
|
|
Its the Fees!How about getting rid of fees paid by cable subscribers to the stations that give the same signal away over the air! | |
|
| |
Re: Its the Fees!Bingo...
Every cable bill contains these fees today and they will increase with the next round of retrans negotiations. Adding pressure will be local affiliate contracts with broadcasters expiring. Now that local affiliates have established the practice of extracting fees from rebroadcasters (cable, Dish, Telco tv, etc), the networks want to get a piece of that action.
Now that the "big boys" are paying for retrans of "free" over the air signal, this has become a much larger issue. When this first surfaced, small MSOs were most affected.
It is going to be bloody. Consumers will be caught in the middle as these disputes escalate. What some advocates have asked for is arbitration in the event of a dispute, with the rebroadcaster allowed continued access to the signal during the arbitration process.
The one thing that seems certain, the fees are going up and they will be passed along to us as consumers. | |
|
| | |
Re: Its the Fees!the only thing that will change is the fact that the local stations won't be able to get $$$ anymore. And if they do; they'll get to be moved away from the basic limited package and moved to where the cable company wants them just like any other channel. They shouldn't get the right to say we want you to pay for our "award winning news and content" and then say you must carry us on channel #2. that's BS. | |
|
joako Premium Member join:2000-09-07 /dev/null |
joako
Premium Member
2011-Mar-4 4:54 pm
This can't be more simpleThe rules are BS. If you broadcast something over the air unencrypted for free.... that's it you gave it away. Anyone should be able to rebroadcast it in real time for no additional cost. The only reason this BS is happening is because the networks bribed our lawmakers to approve these "rules." | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2011-Mar-6 6:03 pm
Re: This can't be more simplesaid by joako:The rules are BS. If you broadcast something over the air unencrypted for free.... that's it you gave it away. Anyone should be able to rebroadcast it in real time for no additional cost. The only reason this BS is happening is because the networks bribed our lawmakers to approve these "rules." That's dumb the stations do not own most of the content they are broadcasting. So they do not even have permission to give you the right to rebroadcast something even if they wanted too. | |
|
| | |
MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-6 8:08 pm
Re: This can't be more simplestations do own most of their content. Especially all of their "award winning news" that every station seems to have no matter how many stations are in that market.
OTA should be given to the MSOs and alike for free since its free OTA. That or they should be PAYING the MSO and others to carry that channel the same as shopping networks do. After all the actual network (MSO, IPTV, etc) is making sure that the public is getting the channels. They could create their own news networks just like TWC did with NY1.
and this is only about the networks getting paid and now the locals want paid too but also want to be carried on a low network or carried for a fee and to be required to be on the cablenetwork. Double standards. | |
|
| | | NickD Premium Member join:2000-11-17 Princeton Junction, NJ |
NickD
Premium Member
2011-Mar-6 11:08 pm
Re: This can't be more simpleWhen Fox was off the air for Cablevision customers, they should have been allowed to temporarily put the Connecticut Fox affiliate on the channel lineup in the NYC metro and the Baltimore Fox affiliate in the Philly metro. That way the customers won't be shut out, and the neighboring affiliates would have a larger audience and are close enough to cover the news in NYC and Philly.
But if it were unrestricted, a Fox affiliate in Podunk, Kansas could offer their signal for free to the NYC market and Cablevision would jump on it, denying the local Fox affiliate of ad revenue. | |
|
| | | | joako Premium Member join:2000-09-07 /dev/null |
joako
Premium Member
2011-Mar-7 12:22 am
Re: This can't be more simplesaid by NickD:When Fox was off the air for Cablevision customers, they should have been allowed to temporarily put the Connecticut Fox affiliate on the channel lineup in the NYC metro and the Baltimore Fox affiliate in the Philly metro. That way the customers won't be shut out, and the neighboring affiliates would have a larger audience and are close enough to cover the news in NYC and Philly.
But if it were unrestricted, a Fox affiliate in Podunk, Kansas could offer their signal for free to the NYC market and Cablevision would jump on it, denying the local Fox affiliate of ad revenue. OMG Competition! Get out of here you evil communist. | |
|
|
|