 | | I'm going back to cablevision I'm going back, just in the nick of time. This leftist Liberal Socialist (according to fox news, though I'm just a democrat.) is tired of shitty customer service. A charge for everything from a new box to a dish adjustment after high winds, because the original installer didn't do it correctly. | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
2 edits | That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) Simple and easy solution that would turn some of the power back to the consumers and give the TV operators more leverage.
It would mean extortionists like Fox would have to more carefully consider their actions before wholesale blackouts, as there would a be a greater downside for them, whereas now the downside almost all lies with consumers and their current TV provider.
Brilliant move, nips the problem in the bud. I support it.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
 |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) Kerry's bill will result in the disputes going to binding arbitration most of the time. And that type of arbitration inevitably leads to splitting the difference. For example Cablevision would demand no increase at all. Fox would demand a large increase in fees. And the arbitrator would almost always pick something in between. You can see what the end result will be - Fox winning by default and the higher costs being passed on to the cable company's customers.
The bill would require broadcasters to keep their signals up during a negotiation impasse. The Federal Communications Commission would then evaluate if the negotiations were being made in good faith. If they were not done in good faith, the FCC could then order binding arbitration or give the cable company two days to determine whether to accept the broadcaster's offer. If the company does not accept the offer, the broadcaster can request arbitration or pull its signal What does Kerry care, his wife is worth $100's of millions. 
--
Take poll on how you will vote on Nov 2nd
| |
|
| |  GlenQuagmireGiggidy Giggidy Giggidy GooPremium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) Wait... I know that name. He ran for president, and LOST.
--
Yes, its stuck in a windows this time. | |
|
| | | | said by Linklist:Kerry's bill will result in the disputes going to binding arbitration most of the time. Binding arbitration is a joke. When you pay for a judge to decide your case, you have already bought the decision. | |
|
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) Agreed. We already have fair "binding arbitration", it's called a court of law. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by Linklist:Kerry's bill will result in the disputes going to binding arbitration most of the time. And that type of arbitration inevitably leads to splitting the difference. For example Cablevision would demand no increase at all. Fox would demand a large increase in fees. And the arbitrator would almost always pick something in between. It's only in mediation that something in between is picked. An arbitrator chooses one of two proposals (one from each side) and one side wins completely. The only splitting the difference in arbitration occurs in the proposals because the arbitrator is supposed to choose the more reasonable (doesn't always happen) of the two proposals. | |
|
|  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | said by KrK:whereas now the downside almost all lies with consumers and their current TV provider. Why should government give a shit what Fox produces or who they allow to show it? There are a lot of other program producers out there...it's not like News Corp. is the sole provider of television programming.
Let the market run its course. If they do this enough, and lose enough eyeballs in the process, it'll hurt their balance sheet...which is the only way to get a corporation's attention. And that is EXACTLY the way it should be. Then they won't be able to spend outrageous amounts for rights to things like the NFL...which will in turn keep them from demanding higher fees for carriage...which may finally end this madness. That would work with pirates like Disney and ESPN, too.
Unfortunately, the whiny couch potatoes here want the government to do what a free market is perfectly capable of. Just turn the damn TV off. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) said by 56403739:Unfortunately, the whiny couch potatoes here want the government to do what a free market is perfectly capable of. Content providers are granted a monopoly by government called copyright. Broadcast stations are granted a license by government. Cable TV can't operate without a franchise from local government to use public right of ways and is forced to carry broadcast stations that elect must-carry and has to pay to carry those that don't, etc. While you may have a point about whiny couch potatoes, where exactly is this free market? | |
|
| | | 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) said by Sammer:Cable TV [...]is forced to carry broadcast stations that elect must-carry and has to pay to carry those that don't, etc. Must-carry elected stations do not receive a fee from the cable company, while those who wish to be compensated are not required to be carried. The programming producers set what they think is a market price and the cable system decides whether they want to pay that much for it. It's called arriving at a valuation for a product, and is very much a free market. You are confusing the product with the package. | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | The Free market in many ways is nothing more then an ideal--- and a myth in reality. It's an abstract concept which actually fails utterly when attempted, much like Communism.
There is no such thing as a Free market. There are sliding scales. Every economy on earth could more appropriately be described as a socialist economy, unless you're dealing with an pure anarchy situation (and these never last for long either) because it's quickly replaced by a socialist economy but it's usually ruled by who has the most weaponry and is the most violent, until some type of Government is re-created.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) said by KrK:There is no such thing as a Free market. There are sliding scales. Every economy on earth could more appropriately be described as a socialist economy, unless you're dealing with an pure anarchy situation (and these never last for long either) because it's quickly replaced by a socialist economy but it's usually ruled by who has the most weaponry and is the most violent, until some type of Government is re-created. So, you advocate going directly to the centrally-controlled socialist model. OK then. | |
|
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) said by 56403739:So, you advocate going directly to the centrally-controlled socialist model. OK then. Really. Huh, I didn't see any such advocacy..... I guess however you advocate the straight to the gutter hyberbole attack when can't counter with something of substance model?
Apparently so.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) said by KrK:said by 56403739:So, you advocate going directly to the centrally-controlled socialist model. OK then. Really. Huh, I didn't see any such advocacy..... I guess however you advocate the straight to the gutter hyberbole attack when can't counter with something of substance model? Apparently so. "Every economy on earth could more appropriately be described as a socialist economy,"
You should read your own posts. | |
|
| | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) said by 56403739:"Every economy on earth could more appropriately be described as a socialist economy," You should read your own posts. Having a problem with fact? Can't handle truth? What's the problem, exactly? You have grip on a certain unique reality principle?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by 56403739:said by KrK:whereas now the downside almost all lies with consumers and their current TV provider. Why should government give a shit what Fox produces or who they allow to show it? Because the citizenry seems to care.
That is the point of a Representative Democracy, is it not?
Yes, I know it stopped "representing" Citizen interests a long time ago. Doesn't make it right, however.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) said by KrK:said by 56403739:said by KrK:whereas now the downside almost all lies with consumers and their current TV provider. Why should government give a shit what Fox produces or who they allow to show it? Because the citizenry seems to care. That is the point of a Representative Democracy, is it not? Yes, I know it stopped "representing" Citizen interests a long time ago. Doesn't make it right, however. A representative democracy's task is to provide for essential services which the individual cannot economically provide for themselves. American Idol on Cablevision is not one such essential service. | |
|
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
1 edit | Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill) said by 56403739:A representative democracy's task is to provide for essential services which the individual cannot economically provide for themselves. Interesting. I don't recall seeing that written into the definition of "Representative Democracy" anywhere. What I did see was that a Government of the people for the people by the will of the people.
That means if the people wanted to provide for essential services for citizens that they cannot economically provide for themselves then that's the will of the people.
OR it could also be that the people don't want their TV shut off because of companies in a pissing match, that could also be the will of the people. Either could be equally valid.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | Perfectly said "riblet". THANK YOU!!! Although, I would add that while it makes no sense for the government to try to create the parameters for these types of resolutions, they *should* instead focus on helping foster competition, infrastructure, and accessibility. Which would REALLY help the free market run it's course (in favor of consumers of course). | |
|
 DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:78 | uhh... is it supposed to be news corporation? is that a misprint Karl? just curious... kind of threw me off. | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: uhh... is it supposed to be news corporation? News Corp is the short name for News Corporation. The company involved in the negotiations is actually Fox Television Stations Inc which is a subsidiary of News Corporation. | |
|
 tomkbPremium
join:2000-11-15
Tampa, FL
kudos:5
1 edit | what? Why do lawmakers need to get involved in this in a supposed free country whose roots are capatalism? It sounds to me as if everything is unfolding as it should. These are corporations for pete sake.
There is something just plain wrong in this country. | |
|
|  HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: what? Wrong..
A:) I am paying for it let me watch it.
B:) Govt (Or we the people via govt) should step in
C:) Regulation not more DE regulation.
Long run if no one does anything we have no choice but pay more!
--
My opinion on religion and science? Science builds airplanes. Religion flies them into buildings. | |
|
| | | | Re: what? I love how cablevision is pushing for arbitration with their dealings with FOX, but not for their disputes with Dish and Fios over the channels they(cablevision) owns. Its funny how this company acts so differently when they are talking about their content provider and their program provider. | |
|
| | | HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: what? I am no fan of CV. I left them the year they did not carry YES.
All I am saying there should be REAL consumer protection. NOT the Corporate BS Lobbyists agenda.
Lee
--
My opinion on religion and science? Science builds airplanes. Religion flies them into buildings. | |
|
| | |  kpc
@optonline.net | The proposed bill does not seem - from the description, to have that problem. It is a solution proposed for resolving these disputes for any conflict, not just when News Corps is the provider. | |
|
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by HarleyYac:Wrong.. A:) I am paying for it let me watch it. B:) Govt (Or we the people via govt) should step in C:) Regulation not more DE regulation. Long run if no one does anything we have no choice but pay more! No, you have the choice not to pay.
If Dish/CV plays hardball to the end, and Rupert takes his marbles and goes home, with luck, we'll see him be the first to offer his channels ala carte via Roku/Wii/PS3, direct to the consumer - and when the other networks figure out how much margin he's making, they'll follow suit. | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: what? Exactly. We need to get rid of the middleman. I don't care if it's IPTV or DBS or ATSC or whatever. Cable and dish systems are carriers and both now have very intelligent systems which could allow the consumer to directly pay Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, Disney and the rest for their programming.
How hard would it be to make watching TV like calling a 900 number from your phone? The phone company provides the pipe and bills you for the call but that's it.
I know this turns the cable/dish/phone company into a big, fat, dumb pipe but... | |
|
| | | HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2 | Ala carte I agree!!! | |
|
slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 | If anything Were goign to see some regulation pop up related to these disputes. So it might be a good thing. | |
|
| | IPTV This is the time for new networks to come in strike new deals and focus on another business model for iptv | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Uh...
Somehow I doubt that John Kerry, who by the way likes to dodge taxes, is making any provisions for just compensation in his bill.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·MSN
| Re: Uh... said by pnh102:The content created by companies like News Corporation is private property. The government has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to repurpose that property without providing just compensation to the owners of said property. Somehow I doubt that John Kerry, who by the way likes to dodge taxes, is making any provisions for just compensation in his bill. WRONG!
Once it's released into the public domain (as in broadcast over the air) it should become available for public usage. Following your logic, no one would be able to time shift or record any broadcasted content. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Uh... said by qworster:Once it's released into the public domain ... It isn't. The content is still owned by its owners. The government has no right to take property from anyone without providing just compensation.
said by qworster:Following your logic, no one would be able to time shift or record any broadcasted content. That falls under the right of Fair Use. The dispute between News Corp. and Cablevision is not related to that.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | said by qworster:WRONG! Once it's released into the public domain (as in broadcast over the air) it should become available for public usage. You have an incorrect notion of what "public domain" means. Following your logic, you could record OTA programming and then sell the recordings, which is prohibited. Transmitting programming owned by others over a cable system, without first paying the producers and copyright holders for the rights to do that, is the same thing. | |
|
| kpc
@optonline.net | Kerry did not dodge taxes. In fact he and his wife PAID taxes they could have easily avoided - for political reasons.
From the Boston Globe accounts, Kerry is not the majority owner of the yacht - that it owned by a company set up by his wife, in PA, where she has her primary residence. Their intention is to rent out the boat when they are not using it. The boat was designed by a RI company and will be maintained and rented out from RI.
The Boston Herald made it an issue that the boat was registered in RI which does not have a sales tax on yachts. From day one, Kerry said he would pay it - and did.
In his near 3 decades in public life, he was never accused at any other point of avoiding taxes. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | The Government isn't re-purposing it. This proposal is merely regulations on how to negotiate properly, rather then acting like rabid azz clowns.
Once again, first comes the abuse, then the Regulation.
If industry doesn't like Regulation they need to stop being azz clowns. Period. It's their own fault.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | broadcast basic the thing I dont get is Cablevisions most basic package is broadcast basic, its supposed to have all the local channels. They having been charging between $10-18 for the past 7+ years for this level of service. So my question is if they were getting all the locals for free this package was pure profit. It wasnt until earlier this year when the broadcast channels I believe ABC being the first started demanding money. Why should Cablevision be able to profit off someonelses material?
Btw just so everyone has an idea Cablevision is not allowed to sell tv services for less then they pay for the services. So if we take this and know that they have a digital family package that includes everything in broadcast basic+family+iO digital which is normally like $70+ and know they offer it as a winback for people switching from another provider for as low as $25 as part of their triple play package you can see how much they are making off these packages. Also the gold which they charge $99 for can be had for like $65 as a winback. Cablevision could eat this increase and still be making money hand over fist and not have to worry about people leaving for other providers. | |
|
|  celeritypcFor Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. SparklePremium
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ | Re: broadcast basic said by hbk4099:the thing I dont get is Cablevisions most basic package is broadcast basic, its supposed to have all the local channels. They having been charging between $10-18 for the past 7+ years for this level of service. So my question is if they were getting all the locals for free this package was pure profit. It wasnt until earlier this year when the broadcast channels I believe ABC being the first started demanding money. Why should Cablevision be able to profit off someonelses material? Btw just so everyone has an idea Cablevision is not allowed to sell tv services for less then they pay for the services. So if we take this and know that they have a digital family package that includes everything in broadcast basic+family+iO digital which is normally like $70+ and know they offer it as a winback for people switching from another provider for as low as $25 as part of their triple play package you can see how much they are making off these packages. Also the gold which they charge $99 for can be had for like $65 as a winback. Cablevision could eat this increase and still be making money hand over fist and not have to worry about people leaving for other providers. And all that would make sense if it didn't cost a cable provider anything to give you those broadcast signals. In reality, there are plant/facilities to build and maintain, personnel to pay, vehicles to fuel and insurance to pay. Programming costs are about 65% of the cost of what you get, the rest is the amount of what it takes to provide you with service. The difference of that total cost and what you pay is profit, something every company is in business for. | |
|
| | The history of must carry The history of must carry.
The cable companies all got the signals for free within a fifty mile radius. The catch is that they had to carry all of them.
Cable companies didn't like this. They sued. They won. First amendment and all of that jazz.
FCC revises the rules several times to comply with the court order. Finally it was settled that stations could either force must carry and charge no money or agree to carriage for a fee and they weren't forced to carry them.
Now we have come full circle with the cable companies not liking the rules that THEY helped create. | |
|
| | Gotta side with Cablevision on this... The Dolans are far from angels but News Corp is absolute scum. Neither of them are really looking out for the consumer. In the end it all amounts to greed. But if I'm gonna side with one, it'll have to be Cablevision. News Corp going as far as blocking IP addresses of Cablevision subscribers from viewing content on fox.com and blocking content from Hulu??? That's where they crossed the line. | |
|
| |
| |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: Gotta side with Cablevision on this... said by Bobcat79:Just like Cablevision blocks non-CV subscribers from accessing Newsday. They are NOT blocking non-CV connection subscribers from access. They are just charging an access fee (which is waved if you have a Newsday Print Edition subscription or are using CV Connectivity). If I want to access the WSJ site, there is the same deal - Buy a WSJ Print Subscription or a WSJ Web Subscription. All you need to do is click on the button in the lower right or the link at the top. It will lead to a subscription page. The NYT site works the same way - you need a subscription to the NYT Site (although this gives you limited access unless you but a Recycled-Electrons Site or Dead-Trees subscription). | |
|
| | | | | Re: Gotta side with Cablevision on this... But the WSJ treats everyone equally. They don't block you based on your ISP, like Newsday/CV does.
--
Critics are asking if Megyn Kelly blows goats. | |
|
| | | | said by Bobcat79:Just like Cablevision blocks non-CV subscribers from accessing Newsday. Like I said, the Dolans are from angels. We know this. Like anybody cares about Newsday anyway lmao. Just like the teams they own, that too sucks. Fios users aren't missing much by not having an HD feed of MSG lol. Trust me | |
|
| | | Don't forget fuse on dish, msg hd on fios too. | |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Such a travesty No wonder Congress is getting involved -- imagine the poor citizens missing out on a couple channels of idiotic campaign commercials in this most wondrous of seasons... and all the money those poor politicians are wasting on ads. | |
|
 jaaPremium
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2
·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| I don't get it Broadcast channels make their money from advertising, not subscribers.
Move viewers = more money from advertisers.
So why don't they PAY the cable companies to carry their channels so they reach more viewers??
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. | |
|
| | | Re: I don't get it It's a mess,
But I think the feds should stay out of it. If they become involved. every cable/dish company , when up for retransmission consent with a broadcaster, could wind up going to arbitration. Originally, I had supported a move to arbitration. But now, I don't think the feds should be the arbitrators.
However, there should be some provision that would allow the stations to stay on the air during renegotiations. The only thing both sides are getting by pulling signals is pissed off customers, lost ad revenue, and negative PR that hurts their businesses by playing the "blame game."
Jack | |
|
|
|
