TV Providers Petition FCC for Help in Fee Dispute Suddenly government regulation is apparently ok... Tipped by caco 
Most major carriers spend a lot of time complaining about regulation in the telecom sector being akin to puppy murder -- unless of course that regulation can be applied to the other guy. With that in mind, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision have petitioned the FCC to step in and do something about the kind of retransmission fee disputes that resulted in Cablevision customers almost missing the Oscars (gasp) over the weekend. Time Warner Cable issued a statement saying they wanted the FCC to impose restrictions ensuring that consumers don't lose channels during these disputes: Time Warner said it would ask the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to "address skyrocketing consumer costs by establishing a new framework for resolving retransmission consent disputes and ensuring that consumers are not caught in the middle. "Specifically, we plan to ask the FCC to consider arbitration and forcing continuation of carriage during a dispute." Of course during Time Warner Cable's recent dispute with Fox over the network's desire for a new per-subscriber fee, Time Warner Cable seemed more than willing to "get tough" against broadcasters, even if that meant consumers losing access to channels. As we've been exploring, neither side in these disputes are faultless, and the end result of these disputes winds up being higher TV rates for consumers -- no matter which company "wins." Verizon, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable have some consumer advocate support in their effort to get the FCC to act. Consumer advocacy firm Public Knowledge issued a statement urging the FCC or Congress to "examine the current retransmission consent process and consider whether the system needs adjustments to ensure that viewers are not disenfranchised." Something tells us they're a little late.
|
 zed260Premium
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN
kudos:1 | good hope that cable companys win this fight they need to get some limits on the content providors | |
|  |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: good said by zed260:hope that cable companys win this fight they need to get some limits on the content providors I'll believe they are serious when they stop paying themselves high transmission fees to show the channels they already own, and charging the satellite companies fees for those channels. The whole lot of them are raging hypocrites. | |
|
| | solution GET RABBIT EARS! | |
| |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: solution I was watching twitter and searching for Cablevision in the hours before the Oscars and it amazed me the number of people who wouldn't/couldn't/didn't know they could get it for free OTA.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | | Re: solution said by funchords:I was watching twitter and searching for Cablevision in the hours before the Oscars and it amazed me the number of people who wouldn't/couldn't/didn't know they could get it for free OTA. But I live at the edge of my market, 175 miles from the main transmitter. I am served by low power 'translators', with no digital signal and no hi-def. What's my solution? | |
| | | |  ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Grafton, WV
1 edit | Re: solution said by viperlmw:said by funchords:I was watching twitter and searching for Cablevision in the hours before the Oscars and it amazed me the number of people who wouldn't/couldn't/didn't know they could get it for free OTA. But I live at the edge of my market, 175 miles from the main transmitter. I am served by low power 'translators', with no digital signal and no hi-def. What's my solution? Quite watching so much TV and get some exercise...  | |
|
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Most homes don't come with antennas on the chimney anymore. Anyways people with cable don't have DTV adaptors. Its not moving a cable like it was 10 or 20 years ago to go from antenna to cable. | |
|
| | | | |
|  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | That works if the channel in question is an OTA one (and you are within transmit range). In the recent CV vs. HGTV and Food Network dispute, the networks in question are cable only not OTA so there was no way to get them via an antenna. | |
| | | | | Re: solution then I repeat what someone else already said. get outside. you can actually go to these shows. There are cooking classes you can take, etc.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: solution BUTtttt I want a neural link into the back of my neck! Anything else isn't convenient. | |
|
| MordhemLove it, Hate it.
join:2003-07-10
Baltimore, MD | Not sure if you know or not but there is a movement in place that want to do away with (OTA) over-the-air tv aka they want to make it so your forced to get a service provider. So don't really rely on rabbit ears because soon if some people have their way, they could end up being a thing of the past 
--
"Thats Daddy Comcast to you Ma'bell." "I love TV but god dam don't burn my house down" "Comcast subscribers have been giving local new channels high ratings watching Verizon set peoples houses on fire" "Now Thats TV" | |
| | | | | Re: solution got a link for that? | |
| | | |
| | Sure, the FCC will help the cable companies.... .....in exchange for ala carte pricing. | |
| | | | | Re: Entertainment Industry a Monopoly How is the entertainment industry a monopoly? With the internet, today anyone can start up a media company and distribute content!
The real monopolies are the cable companies, who engage in anticompetitive behavior and then whine about having to pay their fair share. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Entertainment Industry a Monopoly said by Mr Matt: Right, after paying the creators fees for distributing their copyrighted works, if they will allow you to. The copyright gives the creator a monopoly. Media companies must pay the creator whatever they want to charge to distribute their works. That's like saying Ford has a monopoly because it's the only one that sells F150 pickup trucks, or Apple has a monopoly because it's the only ones that sell macs.
News flash!!! There are are other channels to watch on TV. If one is gone, pick up the remote and change the channel.
And in today's world of iTunes, netflix, hulu and others there are many many ways to get your favorite shows.
Besides, broadcast networks are freely available over the air. Rabbit ears to the rescue. | |
| | | | | DrDrew
join:2009-01-28
Apple Valley, CA
kudos:5 | Re: Entertainment Industry a Monopoly said by fifty nine:News flash!!! There are are other channels to watch on TV. If one is gone, pick up the remote and change the channel. Haven't you noticed when these broadcasters suddenly want to be paid and threaten channel removal??? Right when there is a program only that broadcaster has rights to and when they expect a large percentage of people want to watch is about to air.... Acadamy Awards, Superbowl, etc...
It severely limits the options to change the "channel" if that's the program you want. | |
| | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Entertainment Industry a Monopoly said by DrDrew:said by fifty nine:News flash!!! There are are other channels to watch on TV. If one is gone, pick up the remote and change the channel. Haven't you noticed when these broadcasters suddenly want to be paid and threaten channel removal??? Right when there is a program only that broadcaster has rights to and when they expect a large percentage of people want to watch is about to air.... Acadamy Awards, Superbowl, etc... It severely limits the options to change the "channel" if that's the program you want. Yeah but the Government shouldn't be regulating "wants." If it's a "need" that's another matter entirely.
For example, I want flash on my iPod/iPhone without jailbreaking it. Apple has a monopoly on those devices. Should the Government regulate Apple and tell them they have to put flash on the iPhone? | |
| | | | | | 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | said by DrDrew:said by fifty nine:News flash!!! There are are other channels to watch on TV. If one is gone, pick up the remote and change the channel. Haven't you noticed when these broadcasters suddenly want to be paid and threaten channel removal??? Right when there is a program only that broadcaster has rights to and when they expect a large percentage of people want to watch is about to air.... Acadamy Awards, Superbowl, etc... These contract negotiations were ongoing long before the Oscars. As often happens, neither side will move toward resolution until it becomes extremely uncomfortable for one not to. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Entertainment Industry a Monopoly In ABC's case, they were negotiating for two years and giving Cablevision the signal for free while Cablevision just kept stalling. | |
|
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Find another narcissism awards show or get a few tallboys and all football games are the same. | |
| | | | | | | DrDrew
join:2009-01-28
Apple Valley, CA
kudos:5 | Re: Entertainment Industry a Monopoly said by patcat88:Find another narcissism awards show or get a few tallboys and all football games are the same. Doesn't bother me, I don't watch sports or awards shows on TV. Most of the sports channels I have blocked on my Moxi so they don't even show up in the channel list.
I'll setup the DVR for my wife or mother-in-law but most of my interests I get online. | |
|
|  RexterYeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9 | I'm really impressed, and encouraged by the responses here in this thread. It's good to know that most people understand that pay TV isn't a right. I don't care what kind of monopoly they have. The competition is the fact that I have the right not buy it.
--
With every new wave of optimism, or pessimism, we are ready to abandon history, and time tested principles, but we cling tenaciously and unquestioningly to our prejudices. (Benjamin Graham) | |
|
2 edits | A proposal Since the cable companies seem to think that because the signals are broadcast over the air, they're theirs free for the taking, and are now asking for the Government to beat down broadcasters, I have a proposal:
1. Make the locals only tier (broadcast basic) free or close to it. Regulate it so that the monthly fee, if any, is ONLY what it costs the cable company to deliver the signal to you, and not a penny more. This has to be audited and enforced by the FCC. Make this apply to DBS providers (DirecTV, DISH) as well. For new customers, a one time installation charge not exceeding installation costs will be allowed.
2. Revoke all waivers for encryption of locals, including the one granted to Cablevision. All locals must be in the clear. No exceptions.
3. Make all cable companies pass the signals for locals as-is. This means no bit starving that degrades quality whatsoever, not the current rule regarding "material degradation" that is subjective at best. Providers that use MPEG-4 will not be exempted from this fule.
After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If cable companies want to redistribute programming from local stations and not pay a penny for it, they shouldn't have to charge a penny for it either. Fair is fair.
Broadcasters can then stop complaining that they're being ripped off, and cable companies won't have to negotiate any carriage fees because there won't be any.
Customers won't have to rent equipment and their bills won't go up.
Everybody wins!  | |
| | | | Re: A proposal said by fifty nine:Since the cable companies seem to think that because the signals are broadcast over the air, they're theirs free for the taking, and are now asking for the Government to beat down broadcasters, I have a proposal: 1. Make the locals only tier (broadcast basic) free or close to it. Regulate it so that the monthly fee, if any, is ONLY what it costs the cable company to deliver the signal to you, and not a penny more. This has to be audited and enforced by the FCC. Make this apply to DBS providers (DirecTV, DISH) as well. For new customers, a one time installation charge not exceeding installation costs will be allowed. You can't make it free as you need to pay something for the line costs (pays for cable techs and costs of running cable) and basic and the price of HSI only vs HSI + basic is just about the same. May force it to be a max of $10-$15 need for lines even phone or HSI only and have come with (full OTA) in clear QAM + 2 free DTA for analog tv's.
DBS needs to cover the price of running the sat's. | |
| | | | | Re: A proposal said by Joe12345678:said by fifty nine:Since the cable companies seem to think that because the signals are broadcast over the air, they're theirs free for the taking, and are now asking for the Government to beat down broadcasters, I have a proposal: 1. Make the locals only tier (broadcast basic) free or close to it. Regulate it so that the monthly fee, if any, is ONLY what it costs the cable company to deliver the signal to you, and not a penny more. This has to be audited and enforced by the FCC. Make this apply to DBS providers (DirecTV, DISH) as well. For new customers, a one time installation charge not exceeding installation costs will be allowed. You can't make it free as you need to pay something for the line costs (pays for cable techs and costs of running cable) and basic and the price of HSI only vs HSI + basic is just about the same. May force it to be a max of $10-$15 need for lines even phone or HSI only and have come with (full OTA) in clear QAM + 2 free DTA for analog tv's. DBS needs to cover the price of running the sat's. Ah-ha!!!
Well, first of all, TV stations also have costs, which include salaries, transmission costs, utilities, rent, taxes, just to name a few. Ad revenue used to totally cover this but in today's declining ad market that's not longer the case.
But I did say that the FCC should regulate the basic cable fee and make it nothing more than the cable company's costs. I figure about $10 per month just for locals. That should more than cover their costs.
$20+ which we are seeing for broadcast basic cable now is too much and includes a profit margin, which the cable companies don't want to share with broadcasters. They are accusing the broadcasters of greed, so the fair thing to do would be to remove greed entirely from the equation.
Fair is fair, right? | |
| | | |
See 18 replies to this post | |
| | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Joe12345678:You can't make it free as you need to pay something for the line costs (pays for cable techs and costs of running cable) and basic and the price of HSI only vs HSI + basic is just about the same. May force it to be a max of $10-$15 need for lines even phone or HSI only and have come with (full OTA) in clear QAM + 2 free DTA for analog tv's. DBS needs to cover the price of running the sat's. Even if locals do charge, cable companies can make it free, they simply must make up the price elsewhere. For example, that locals are free makes it more likely that I will forgo the antenna and hook up to cable. Being hooked up to cable makes it more likely that I will subscribe to monthly service and/or order PPV. That's just good marketing, and it's worth something.
(I don't believe locals should charge, however.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | | The lines are already run and just sitting there. The sat is already there and needs to operate as well. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I've been saying this for a while... a long while.. years in fact, however, I take exception with some of your wish list.
said by fifty nine:Since the cable companies seem to think that because the signals are broadcast over the air, they're theirs free for the taking, ... umm... they are free for the taking.. always have been until congress changed the rules.. they are the PUBLIC airwaves... anyone, even business, can put up an antenna and open their doors and show the content that comes over the air.. why should cable be any different? All they're doing is passing the signal to the homes....
.... and are now asking for the Government to beat down broadcasters, You say "beat down"... I say "bring things back to where they were before the government created this mess...
I have a proposal:
1. Make the locals only tier (broadcast basic) free or close to it. Regulate it so that the monthly fee, if any, is ONLY what it costs the cable company to deliver the signal to you, and not a penny more. This has to be audited and enforced by the FCC. Make this apply to DBS providers (DirecTV, DISH) as well. For new customers, a one time installation charge not exceeding installation costs will be allowed. The only exception I have with this is you make it sound like something worse than it really is. This whole "not a penny more" is crap.. They have posted installation rates and they should be charging exactly what they charge anyone else. Customers need to be aware that they're going to pay full rate on install work, there will be no promotions, etc. period.. nada.. I also believe that the customer SHOULD be prepared to pay ALL service calls to the home for anything found beyond the outside of the house.. not the ground block,... THE OUTSIDE.. Under this scenario, which I support, the customer pays all normal fees associated with it.
2. Revoke all waivers for encryption of locals, including the one granted to Cablevision. All locals must be in the clear. No exceptions. I disagree. TOTALLY disagree. The waivers, in some cases, were done for network security reasons which I support. What I do believe is that a DTA should be included in the local tier's rate. HOW the signal is delivered is irrelevant in my opinion as satellite, as you posed, requires a box too.
3. Make all cable companies pass the signals for locals as-is. This means no bit starving that degrades quality whatsoever, not the current rule regarding "material degradation" that is subjective at best. Providers that use MPEG-4 will not be exempted from this fule. Nice pipe dream.. so you're saying "not a penny more" ..."keep them in the clear".. and now you're trying to be a lobbyist here and demand the cable companies give up more network and "not make a penny more"... no... can't agree with you here. You're trying to strong arm and extort your wishes out of an issue that is already corrupt by the government. The local networks are a free resource for all people in this country, and I believe that includes the cable companies. Delivering the signal is a benefit to the locals just as much as it is to the cable companies. Cable should simply re-transmit the signal as they always have. Getting into the nuts and bolts of what they do... well, if you want pure, raw, un-modified signals, get your antenna out.
After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If cable companies want to redistribute programming from local stations and not pay a penny for it, they shouldn't have to charge a penny for it either. Fair is fair.
Broadcasters can then stop complaining that they're being ripped off, and cable companies won't have to negotiate any carriage fees because there won't be any. And this is a point I agree 100%.. and the only point I agree with in whole. This is the way it used to be for the longest time..
Customers won't have to rent equipment and their bills won't go up. We're talking about signals here, not equipment - don't tie the two together. As it stands, they have to be in the clear anyway. By the way, you DO realize that locals not only charge for their base signals, but they also negotiate on the "ability to carry the HD signal IN ADDITION" correct?
It went from not having to pay, to many of them FORCING cable / sat to pay, to then making it about what TYPE of signal needed to be paid for as well. ABC is ABC.. FOX is FOX.. however, too many of the local broadcasters hurt themselves, in my opinion, when they were crying IN PUBLIC about their HD signals stating "we had to pay all this money to upgrade to HD and we want to be paid for it".. which is why I've said all along that the cable tv subscriber has been paying for the digital upgrades all along. | |
| | | | | Re: A proposal said by fiberguy:... umm... they are free for the taking.. always have been until congress changed the rules.. they are the PUBLIC airwaves... anyone, even business, can put up an antenna and open their doors and show the content that comes over the air.. why should cable be any different? All they're doing is passing the signal to the homes.... So by your analogy I can record songs from the radio and sell CDs? Is that even legal?
Remember also that years ago cable stations were picked up in the clear over satellite, so this whole "free signals" thing doesn't matter. But anyway the FCC sets the rules, not you.
The only exception I have with this is you make it sound like something worse than it really is. This whole "not a penny more" is crap.. They have posted installation rates and they should be charging exactly what they charge anyone else. Customers need to be aware that they're going to pay full rate on install work, there will be no promotions, etc. period.. nada.. I also believe that the customer SHOULD be prepared to pay ALL service calls to the home for anything found beyond the outside of the house.. not the ground block,... THE OUTSIDE.. Under this scenario, which I support, the customer pays all normal fees associated with it. They should pay the COST and nothing more, because beyond that they are profiting while taking programming distributed over the air for free.
I disagree. TOTALLY disagree. The waivers, in some cases, were done for network security reasons which I support. What I do believe is that a DTA should be included in the local tier's rate. HOW the signal is delivered is irrelevant in my opinion as satellite, as you posed, requires a box too. A DTA is not enough. The telecom act requires that a customer be allowed to use his own reception equipment. This satisfies the requirement.
quote:
Nice pipe dream.. so you're saying "not a penny more" ..."keep them in the clear".. and now you're trying to be a lobbyist here and demand the cable companies give up more network and "not make a penny more"... no... can't agree with you here. You're trying to strong arm and extort your wishes out of an issue that is already corrupt by the government. The local networks are a free resource for all people in this country, and I believe that includes the cable companies. Delivering the signal is a benefit to the locals just as much as it is to the cable companies. Cable should simply re-transmit the signal as they always have. Getting into the nuts and bolts of what they do... well, if you want pure, raw, un-modified signals, get your antenna out.
If you want free signals get your antenna out. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: A proposal For one, I didn't give an analogy.. but I will be glad to, now.
For anyone that believes that local broadcasters should pay for signals becuase they have "rights" to them, should NEVER say that "becuase your Wifi comes over on my property and it's unsecured, I'll have the right to use them as I see fit"... there you go. However, yes, the signals are free to the public... Look, I already told you that there should be no profit on them, if you can't see that, you're too busy finding the reply button than you are reading. But I still don't see that they need "permission".. I think the whole "must carry" and "permission to carry" is Bull Crap given to the broadcasters back in the 90's. That rule was largely to protect the smaller broadcasters from being shut out by cable operators.. however, in all their glory, the government f*cked that one up too.. again, another example of the government at their best!
By the way, don't go there and ATTEMPT to try and even bring in CDs and Radio into this "for sale" becuase I NO where even eluded to it.. what I DID elude and even said was that businesses are already allowed to display signals from TV OTA in their establishment as it is.. they simply pay a royalty, but that's business.. we're talking about the home end user "for use in the private home"
As for satellites... those are a different story... the fact they transmitted in the clear gave home users the ability.. however, that's not necessarily the "public airwave" the same as it comes to local broadcasts.. Satellite networks scrambled their signals - problem solved. However, the government doesn't allow local broadcasters to scramble their signals, for a reason... think about it.. I'm not stupid, NOR did I claim ANYWHERE that I was setting the rules.
Also, when you say "they should pay the COST and nothing more"... What cost? to the cable operator? According to the local government, the "COST" has been defined by the charge allowed by Tier 1 basic... so it seems they're already doing that.. and as I said before, I already agree with this.. how many times do I have to say this in this thread, and any other topic I've posted on regards to this.
As for the DTA... "The telecom act requires..." .. I think you need to come into date now.. there are systems out there that are already removing ALL analogs from their networks... ALL analogs INCLUDING locals.. seems that the laws/enforcements are already changing or laxing up a bit.. The way around this is they are supplying equipment to all households and no charge.. seems that what you're saying is no longer valid.. and, I guarantee you that the next round of regulation will also remove this in its entirety. Also, mind you, cable is always based on ONE television set, not every set in the house. So far, the systems that HAVE removed all analogs, locals included, have negotiated that and provided more than one DTA. So apparently a DTA is enough. Further, and I'm just going based on your EXACT words "The telecom act requires that a customer be allowed to use his own reception equipment." You're incorrect.. it states they must be transmitted in the clear, at this time. "his own reception equipment" as you state it, means that transmission in the clear isn't required.. the way YOU say it, it would also mean that they could purchase their own addressable equipment as well which would satisfy "his own reception equipment"... as you stated.
As you fail to see, the signal is the same signal be it OTA or over the cable or satellite lines.. but somehow, you think that the signal "to all homes" changes on how its delivered - and it's not. Broadcasters FIRST have a responsibility to the public good.. albeit, things like Football and American Idol seem to be in the spotlight, however, their requirements are what are most important to the FCC.. not the programming THEY chose to transmit.
Signals don't become a "premium" just becuase they come over cable or satellite.. besides, your last statement is contradictory to your entire post. | |
| | | | | | | Re: A proposal said by fiberguy:However, yes, the signals are free to the public... Look, I already told you that there should be no profit on them, if you can't see that, you're too busy finding the reply button than you are reading. But I still don't see that they need "permission".. I think the whole "must carry" and "permission to carry" is Bull Crap given to the broadcasters back in the 90's. That rule was largely to protect the smaller broadcasters from being shut out by cable operators.. however, in all their glory, the government f*cked that one up too.. again, another example of the government at their best! Here's a bit of a history lesson for you.
Must carry has existed since 1972. It was designed so that local stations didn't lose market share to imported signals from distant stations. Because before today's 500 channel universe, cable TV consisted primarily of over the air signals and a few satellite signals. All cable operators were required to carry all stations within a 60 mile radius.
But must carry was challenged in court (by Ted Turner, no less) and the courts ruled that must carry violated the first amendment, so the rules were dropped, and cable operators were required to only carry public TV stations, and give viewers an A/B switch.
That didn't work out too well for smaller independent stations, who lost out to stronger superstations delivered over satellite.
Then the current incarnation of must carry took shape, where broadcasters were given the option to negotiate the terms of their carriage or force must carry. It didn't violate the first amendment and it gave protection to smaller independents.
That's why it would be pretty difficult to go back to the old must carry legislation.
By the way, don't go there and ATTEMPT to try and even bring in CDs and Radio into this "for sale" becuase I NO where even eluded to it.. what I DID elude and even said was that businesses are already allowed to display signals from TV OTA in their establishment as it is.. they simply pay a royalty, but that's business.. we're talking about the home end user "for use in the private home" Cable operators are reselling a product created by someone else. Why can't the creator of that content charge them a fee? It's the same exact thing as recording off the radio and selling CDs.
As for the DTA... "The telecom act requires..." .. I think you need to come into date now.. The telecom act section 629:
"...assure the commercial availability to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor."
It's there in black and white and is unlikely to change. Today's FCC is all about more competition, not less. There is no way they're going to give the cable companies total control. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
there are systems out there that are already removing ALL analogs from their networks... ALL analogs INCLUDING locals.. seems that the laws/enforcements are already changing or laxing up a bit.. The way around this is they are supplying equipment to all households and no charge.. Deploying DTAs were only granted by waiver. They are not part of the regulations. They were an exception, not the rule:
»www.multichannel.com/article/328···dors.php
seems that what you're saying is no longer valid.. and, I guarantee you that the next round of regulation will also remove this in its entirety. I doubt it. The FCC is all about more competition.
Also, mind you, cable is always based on ONE television set, not every set in the house. That is also false. Most households had VCRs which required the ability to receive two programs at the same time. This is why the NTIA offered two DTV coupons for the DTV transition and not just one.
Further, and I'm just going based on your EXACT words "The telecom act requires that a customer be allowed to use his own reception equipment." You're incorrect.. it states they must be transmitted in the clear, at this time. "his own reception equipment" as you state it, means that transmission in the clear isn't required.. the way YOU say it, it would also mean that they could purchase their own addressable equipment as well which would satisfy "his own reception equipment"... as you stated. Section 629 requires that signals should also be receivable on non-cable company equipment, which is essentially subscriber owned equipment. See above.
And yes the FCC requires all locals to be in the clear, but Cablevision was granted a waiver. | |
|
| DrDrew
join:2009-01-28
Apple Valley, CA
kudos:5 | Which version of the channel do cable providers pass on?
Analog
Digital simulcast
HD
Normally basic cable only includes analog. To produce the analog version cable providers are decoding the signal and remodulating it.
In your agreement can Cable providers now drop the analog signal? or the digital simulcast? and just provide the HD signal as if it were OTA?
What about the sub-channels often included in the OTA signal? Do they have to be included in the Broadcast Basic signal? in analog? and/or digital simulcast? | |
| | | | | Re: A proposal said by DrDrew:Which version of the channel do cable providers pass on? Analog Digital simulcast HD Normally basic cable only includes analog. To produce the analog version cable providers are decoding the signal and remodulating it. In your agreement can Cable providers now drop the analog signal? or the digital simulcast? and just provide the HD signal as if it were OTA? What about the sub-channels often included in the OTA signal? Do they have to be included in the Broadcast Basic signal? in analog? and/or digital simulcast? I would not modify the current rule which requires cable operators to bear the cost of downconverting the signal. | |
|
| RexterYeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9 | Dumb Pipes What if TV providers like Comcast, DishNetwork, Direct TV, ect. simply served as a dumb pipe provider. Each channel space could be auctioned to the highest bidder. People would actually buy the channels ala carte directly from the Networks, but through the provider. This would be a radical change, but much more in line with how technology works these days, and this would put an end to such conflicts.
--
With every new wave of optimism, or pessimism, we are ready to abandon history, and time tested principles, but we cling tenaciously and unquestioningly to our prejudices. (Benjamin Graham) | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | A La Carte! Trust me, the content providers would be much more likely to price content fairly if they actually had to compete for customers! | |
| |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: A La Carte! They will make sure they do anything to have that not happen | |
| | |
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Ala Carte? Gee, maybe the "regulation" that is needed is to force Ala Carte on the providers. I have no interest in WABC, HGTV or Food Channel so give me the right to opt out of paying for them and saving some money. That would be regulation I could go for.
Not gonna happen...
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Ala Carte? You're making a good point for an argument I've always had..
The government deems locals to be "necessary" which is why you have to have them included in the first tier. However, not everyone wants to get their locals through cable AND BE CHARGED FOR THEM for what they can already have for free. Yet, government has made no effort to remove the locals from any forced tiers... believe it or not, some people buy basic tier1 cable JUST for the educational community (PEG) channels... not locals.
Until the change their view on "the importance of locals" in tier 1 programming and the rules, they're not going to touch satellite based networks.
Government also believes that the locals are that important that they must be on tier 1, they must be in the clear, etc etc, etc... so why does the government allow local networks to charge cable for simply re-transmitting them as well? They ARE a public right... and the cable company IS part of the public just like any other business or home user. | |
|
| | Really? Cable companies have been charging us for hundreds of channels we never watched, never wanted and refuse ala-carte services. Ask any cable subscriber and you will probably see that almost ALL OF THEM want the ability to lower their outrageous cable bill by allowing them to CHOOSE which channels they actually want to pay for!
It amazes me the gall they have not to want to pay for these content providers fees when they are forcing us to pay for all these channels we really do not want!
Retransmission is nonsense. Almost ALL of cable channels are retransmitted! Cable companies are mostly just plumbers, not content providers or creators. Except in the few cases of local news like Channel 12, NY1 or FiOS1 ALL channels are actually retransmitted. The only difference is the major networks are broadcasters.
It is about time the FCC and Congress steps in and forces ala-carte services! Personally I am tired of paying all this money for channels I NEVER watch. Who is with me on this? | |
| | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Really? said by PaulTT :
Cable companies have been charging us for hundreds of channels we never watched, never wanted and refuse ala-carte services.
Not to mention the number of these "channels" that carry info-mercial programming. They're only interesting channels for a portion of the broadcast day.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | | Re: Really? Good point, we are paying to watch commercials without programming! | |
|
 Facts
@publicknowledge.org | The current system is already regulation Look, if a cable system can't reach an agreement with one station, it's legally barred from negotiating with stations in other markets, to carry their signals, even if the "distant" station is willing and able to be carried on the cable system.
There was a lot of BS from Republicans about the government needing to not step into the situation--a situation totally created by government. Until 1992, cable systems could just carry signals without permission, as it was never considered a copyright or unfair competition problem to increase a station's viewership. Then, in 1992, Congress decided to fight big bad cable by creating a "market" where broadcasters, those darlings of localism and community involvement, have all the say. In fact, broadcasters can *require* that they be carried by cable systems, and under these "must carry" rules they don't have to pay cable a dime. Thus, the proliferation of infomercial and home shopping channels. | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
cptmilesPremium
join:2004-04-22
Swayzee, IN | Reverse a la Carte Here is a radical idea. Put the onerous of collecting from the customer on the programmer. Think about it. Instead of the CATV company paying the programmers the right to distribute the programmers collect directly from the subscriber and the programmer reports and pays their share to the cable company.
I have a ulterior motive for suggesting this as it would be a segue for content providers to pay the Internet providers in the future to allow subs to view their content over the Internet. | |
| | | Honesty in Journalism
Cable Companies Petition FCC for Help in Fee Dispute
With that in mind, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision have petitioned the FCC
Is Verizon a Cable company now???? | |
| | | | Re: Honesty in Journalism You tell me: do they offer TV service that's delivered to the consumer via coaxial? Technically, they're more cable TV provider than IPTV provider... | |
| | | | | Re: Honesty in Journalism Time Warner Cable and Cablevision provide telephone service....
Should the Article title be:
Telecom Companies Petition FCC for Help in Fee Dispute
?? | |
| | | | | | | | |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
1 edit |  How about "Communications service provider"?
»www.answers.com/topic/communicat···provider
A communications service provider or CSP is a service provider that transports information electronically. The term encompasses public and private companies in the telecom (landline and wireless), Internet, cable, satellite, and managed services businesses.
The market in which a communication service provider specializes is often a function of the industry served. These industries can be divided into three categories: telecommunications, entertainment and media, and Internet/Web services. Some communication service providers have branched into multiple areas. Others provide communication services across all major categories.
The term CSP came into vogue in the late 1990s. Prior to this time, communications businesses were highly specialized, with little overlap between traditional telecom, cellular, cable, and Internet companies. In the 1990s, deregulation (in the US, the Telecom Act of 1996) and technology convergence began to cause massive upheaval in the industry. As companies began to offer broader portfolios of communications services, traditional categories were inadequate to describe service providers. The term "communications service provider" is now widely accepted as a broad category encompassing all of these businesses. | |
|
| | | said by ipv456 :
Is Verizon a Cable company now????
The answer is pretty much YES.
FiOS has more in common with cable than it does with traditional telco service, especially since they use RF overlay for the TV portion. | |
|
| | wow Considering everybody always bashes cablecompanies and cablecompanies this and cablecompanies that i am glad to see that Verizon wantsa the same thing and has also petitioned the fcc. | |
|  NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ
·Comcast
| Other options Get an antenna: it isn't like the old days, since TV is digital, the picture comes in full HD with no static. A lot of people did this, leading to antenna and converter box shortages within Cablevision territory. Stores were not stocked up with extra antennas and boxes like they were last June. If it were NBC pulling its signal for the super bowl, I bet the stores would have also run out of aluminum foil and coat hangers
Switch providers: Fios, U-Verse, satellite cover all of Cablevision territory. No one's holding a gun to your head forcing you to subscribe to Cablevision
Watch it online illegally: Sure, it's illegal. But it's justified because you are paying for a service you can't receive. It's like downloading music you bought on CDs but you lost all the CDs in a house fire. | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | Re: Other options said by NickD:Get an antenna: it isn't like the old days, since TV is digital, the picture comes in full HD with no static. A lot of people did this, leading to antenna and converter box shortages within Cablevision territory. Stores were not stocked up with extra antennas and boxes like they were last June. If it were NBC pulling its signal for the super bowl, I bet the stores would have also run out of aluminum foil and coat hangers OTA television is under attack and none other than FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski wants to take spectrum away from free TV. There's a very good article in the Wall Street Journal today, "The FCC's Misguided Spectrum Quest" mentioned in »Wednesday Morning Links here. | |
|
HowardP6
join:2001-03-31
Port Jefferson, NY | TV Provider Petition FCC for Help in Fee Dispute I live in a area that is only serviced by Cablevision, Verizon FIOS TV is not available, even thoough it was promised years ago. So I am held hostage by Cablevison and their greed. Cablevision keeps raising their charges and taking away channels. Cablevision, Verizon and others should pay for their content from ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS or eventually is will go away. Cablevison falsely advertises tha HD TV is free, but it is not you have to pay for a decoder box, remote and the channel guide. They should all show the total cost including fees, taxes and franchise fees. If I could get over the air TV, I would not use any of them. | |
| | | Required Cable Plan All cable operators should be required to offer plans identical to the ones they currently offer except without the free over the air channels and the price difference must reflect the actual cost of acquiring the over the air channels. | |
|
3 edits | No sympathy for cablecos. They brought this on themselves. Don't you just love how the cable companies are pointing the fingers at broadcasters and saying that the rules are unfair to them?
But if you put the whole thing in historical perspective, you will see that the cable industry are themselves responsible for the current must carry rules.
Must carry has existed since 1972. Under the old rule, every station within X mile radius (60 miles, later 50 miles) had to be carried by the cable operator. No fees were charged by the broadcasters at all. The cable operators however found that some signals were being duplicated by "superstations" they carried that were delivered by satellite.
The cable companies didn't like that so they got together with Ted Turner and filed suit against the FCC. The courts found that the must carry rule violated the first amendment.
So the must carry rule was struck down and the FCC relaxed the rule and applied it only to public stations (PBS pretty much) and every cable operator had to give the customer an A/B switch to pick up stations from an antenna that weren't carried on cable.
But that didn't work. Smaller independent stations found that they were frequently not carried by cable operators who carried satellite delivered "superstations" as well.
In between that there were a few incarnations of the rule where the cable operators were allowed to drop redundant local stations within the 50 mile radius.
In 1992 the must carry rule was then made optional and stations were allowed the choice of must carry or retransmission consent.
So 20 years after must carry first came to be, the net result of this is that the cable companies didn't like the old rule where they were getting programming for free but had to carry all stations, so they sued to have it struck down. They succeeded in having the rules changed, but when it's time to live up to their side of the bargain, now they are bellyaching that the rules that THEY were directly responsible for are not working in their favor!
So, Ladies and Gentlemen, that is why we are where we are today. And that is why cable operators need to negotiate on their own without the Government giving them any more concessions. After all, the old rules worked very well in their favor, yet they simply weren't satisfied at all, so they sued to have it struck down. I think some of them won't be happy until they can only carry the big four and not pay anything for it. Does that seem fair to you? | |
| | 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: No sympathy for cablecos. They brought this on themselves. Its going to get interesting once Comcast sees how much they can wring out of their competition for the NBCU programming. Notice how absent they are from this complaint. With the world's biggest MVPD on the other side of the fence it's going to be really difficult for the others to argue that retrans is unfair. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
·
·
·
Entertainment Industry a Monopoly
Consumers need price regulation of entertainment prices at every level, to control the entertainment trust. After all the entertainment industry has been given essentially unlimited copyright rights for their products. It is time for consumers to get a break. Whether cable or DBS, all carry mostly the same programming. Otherwise entertainment prices will continue to rise because there is no competition.
