Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 64 of 64
  1. #61
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating TerminationFee

    Cyrus Afzali wrote:

    > Not very familiar with the cable regs passed in 1992 are you? Must
    > carry went out YEARS and YEARS ago. Now, cable systems have to
    > negotiate INDIVIDUALLY with EACH channel -- YES, that does include
    > broadcast -- for the right to carry their signal.
    >
    > For the love of all that's holy, please do some research.


    Yep, I had no NBC for ten months, because the local NBC affiliate was
    demanding that DISH carry some of their other channels in order to get
    the main station. DISH refused. They waived the local programming fee
    for ten months, they sent out antennas to anyone that wanted one, but
    they wouldn't succumb to the pressure from KRON. KRON was in the process
    of losing NBC to another station, and at midnight on January 1st (a few
    years ago), NBC was back on DISH in the SF Bay area.

    What followed was extremely amusing. The new station was channel 11 from
    San Jose, but for some reason they decide that they were "NBC3" and
    pushed to be channel 3 on cable and satellite. They spent a fortune on
    marketing themselves as "NBC3". Then it turned out that an NBC station
    in Sacramento, that was actually on channel 3, had already been
    marketing itself as NBC3, so the San Jose station had to go back to
    being NBC11, and get all the cable and satellite companies to move them
    to channel 11.

    When all this happened, the San Francisco, northern and eastern Alameda,
    Marin, and Contra Costa county residents lost OTA programming for NBC.
    Judging from the outcry, there were more OTA users than many people thought.



    See More: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee




  2. #62
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee

    Cyrus Afzali wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:54:20 -0700, "Tinman"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Cyrus Afzali wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:38:32 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> That's what they always claim. What they don't tell you is who owns
    >>>> many
    >>>> of the channels that are increasing in price.
    >>>
    >>> Not for nothing, but owners of the channels have to pay for the
    >>> content themselves. NBC doesn't own ER, for example, Warner Brothers
    >>> does. So even though they have their own studio, ER isn't free. And
    >>> the cost of those kinds of first-run shows has gone up a lot.

    >>
    >> Methinks you chose a bad example. AFAIK, every NBC broadcast
    >> affiliate

    >
    >> must provide OTA programming. For free; to anyone with a TV and
    >> antenna capable of receiving it.

    >
    > Methinks nobody relatively speaking gets their programming like that
    > anymore.


    Citations please. Particularly ones about digital and HDTV
    *broadcasting*.

    No matter what, it doesn't change the fact that every network affiliate
    broadcasts their signal for free.


    >
    >> If anything, cable helps out the local affiliate by providing (most
    >> of the time) a clearer picture, often to a larger (potential)
    >> audience (not always by choice--i.e., "must carry").
    >>

    > Not very familiar with the cable regs passed in 1992 are you?


    I think you got that one backwards dude.

    Of course I am familiar with it; as I was directly affected by its
    aftermath.

    The 1992 Cable Act *included* must carry. It was later fought--by guess
    whom? Ted Turner--and the courts ruled...


    > Must
    > carry went out YEARS and YEARS ago.


    If you are referring to something more recent than Turner Broadcasting
    vs. FCC, in which the 1992 Cable Act's must carry provision was upheld
    (in 1997), please enlighten me.


    > Now, cable systems have to
    > negotiate INDIVIDUALLY with EACH channel -- YES, that does include
    > broadcast -- for the right to carry their signal.
    >


    Are you disputing this?
    "A side effect of the must-carry rules is that broadcast networks cannot
    charge the cable-TV companies licence fees for the program content
    retransmitted on the cable network."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry


    > For the love of all that's holy, please do some research.
    >


    Why don't you? Start here:
    http://www.answers.com/topic/cable-television


    >> Of course content must be paid for. But how many times must it be
    >> paid? I'd be more than happy to buy ad-free content, or even 95%
    >> ad-free content if that 5% is required for mass-acceptance pricing.
    >> But 66% ad-free content, that I'm paying to receive, and my cable
    >> company is paying to receive, is getting old.

    >
    > The things that are really popular on any TV network, pay or not, are
    > original programming, not recycled reruns.


    For the love of all that's holy, what the heck does that matter to cable
    subscribers? My bill, and the number of ads, don't go down during summer
    reruns.


    --
    Mike





  3. #63
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee

    Cyrus Afzali wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:39:32 -0700, "Tinman"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Cyrus Afzali wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:54:20 -0700, "Tinman"

    >
    >>> Methinks nobody relatively speaking gets their programming like that
    >>> anymore.

    >>
    >> Citations please. Particularly ones about digital and HDTV
    >> *broadcasting*.

    >
    > Don't have any, don't want to do the research. This isn't a TV group,


    Then why'd you post in this thread in the first place?


    > it's a cellular group. But look at dishes and compare the number of
    > antennas you see on rural homes.


    Yea, I'll run right out and do that. Or not.

    You side-stepped the point anyway, which was that the stations do indeed
    provide OTA for no charge.


    >>
    >> No matter what, it doesn't change the fact that every network
    >> affiliate broadcasts their signal for free.
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> If anything, cable helps out the local affiliate by providing (most
    >>>> of the time) a clearer picture, often to a larger (potential)
    >>>> audience (not always by choice--i.e., "must carry").
    >>>>
    >>> Not very familiar with the cable regs passed in 1992 are you?

    >>
    >> I think you got that one backwards dude.
    >>
    >> Of course I am familiar with it; as I was directly affected by its
    >> aftermath.
    >>
    >> The 1992 Cable Act *included* must carry. It was later fought--by
    >> guess whom? Ted Turner--and the courts ruled...

    >
    > No, no, no, no. You're just flat out wrong.


    I think yer flat out nuts.

    Quote:
    "Congress addressed the must-carry issue in the Cable Television
    Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (47 U.S.C.A. 325 et
    seq.). The 1992 Cable Act, passed over President George Bush's veto,
    required cable systems to carry most local broadcast channels and
    prohibited cable operators from charging local broadcasters to carry
    their signal."
    http://www.answers.com/topic/cable-television

    WTF is so hard to understand?


    >>
    >>
    >>> Must
    >>> carry went out YEARS and YEARS ago.

    >>
    >> If you are referring to something more recent than Turner
    >> Broadcasting vs. FCC, in which the 1992 Cable Act's must carry
    >> provision was upheld (in 1997), please enlighten me.

    >
    > You're getting confused between the right to carry a signal and
    > programming costs.


    I'm not confused and I never brought up programming costs. *You* took
    issue with my must carry comment, which I've since backed up.

    Read yer own words, dude. For example: "Must carry went out YEARS and
    YEARS ago."

    You've done nothing but backpedal since then, and provided nothing to
    backup your claim (shouted claim).


    > Must carry wouldn't have affected Turner
    > Broadcasting -- a former employer of mine -- because they're not a
    > broadcaster anymore.


    You still havn't refuted this:
    "In the United States, must-carry is a regulation by the FCC requiring
    that cable TV systems must carry all locally-licensed television
    stations. These rules were upheld in a 5-4 decision by the United States
    Supreme Court in 1997 in the case Turner Broadcasting vs. FCC."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

    But keep digging...


    > Since WTBS went from UHF to a satellite-delivered
    > superstation years ago, they are all cable networks.


    WTF does that have to do with must carry today?


    >>
    >>
    >>> Now, cable systems have to
    >>> negotiate INDIVIDUALLY with EACH channel -- YES, that does include
    >>> broadcast -- for the right to carry their signal.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Are you disputing this?
    >> "A side effect of the must-carry rules is that broadcast networks
    >> cannot charge the cable-TV companies licence fees for the program
    >> content retransmitted on the cable network."
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

    >
    > I'm saying you're confused as hell. The issue isn't charging for
    > programming content here.


    LOL. Yet that's exactly how you started out: "Not for nothing, but
    owners of the channels have to pay for the content themselves. NBC
    doesn't own ER, for example, Warner Brothers does..."


    > The issue is how cable companies get the
    > right to carry a channel's signal. They couldn't be more different.


    I'd say you are acting just like John Navas. Instead of simply coming
    right out and admitting you were wrong, you are weaseling. If you aren't
    wrong, you have a strange way of (non) proving it. No citations,
    nothing.

    Actually, I've never seen even Navas go to this length.


    >>
    >>
    >>> For the love of all that's holy, please do some research.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Why don't you? Start here:
    >> http://www.answers.com/topic/cable-television

    >
    > Nope. You're just flat out wrong and can't even make a valid argument,
    > as witnessed above. It's quite pathetic.


    Dude, if you can't refute it, just say so. Holding your breath, jumping
    up-and-down, and screaming, "He's wrong!" just ain't gonna cut it. And
    my gawd, using yer own unsubstantiated comments is the epitome of
    pathetic ("as witnessed above" ROFLMAO!). You really are taking notes
    from Navas, aren't you?

    If so, I fully expect you to twist things around even more (than you
    already have).


    >>>
    >>> The things that are really popular on any TV network, pay or not,
    >>> are original programming, not recycled reruns.

    >>
    >> For the love of all that's holy, what the heck does that matter to
    >> cable subscribers? My bill, and the number of ads, don't go down
    >> during summer reruns.

    >
    > It matters a lot, because original programming is what is making the
    > costs that programmers are charging cable operators to go up so much.


    When you get off whatever yer on, do feel free to come back and discuss
    this rationally. Or not.


    --
    Mike | If a million monkeys typed on a million
    | keyboards for a million years, eventually all
    | the works of Shakespeare would be produced.
    | Thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.





  4. #64
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating TerminationFee

    Cyrus Afzali wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:39:32 -0700, "Tinman"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Cyrus Afzali wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:54:20 -0700, "Tinman"

    >
    >>> Methinks nobody relatively speaking gets their programming like that
    >>> anymore.

    >> Citations please. Particularly ones about digital and HDTV
    >> *broadcasting*.

    >
    > Don't have any, don't want to do the research. This isn't a TV group,
    > it's a cellular group. But look at dishes and compare the number of
    > antennas you see on rural homes.


    When the NBC affiliate in the San Francisco Bay Area moved from a
    station in San Francisco, to a station in San Jose, there was a huge
    outcry from residents in the areas that could no longer get NBC OTA.
    Since I had always been in the South Bay, where you had to have cable or
    satellite to get the major networks, I was surprised at the number of
    households that they said had no cable or satellite.

    "NBC later bought KNTV and moved from Channel 4 to 11, but was hit with
    a barrage of bad publicity when nearly 100,000 households in San
    Francisco and the North Bay couldn't receive the station's broadcast
    signal -- just as NBC was about to air the 2002 Winter Olympics."

    From
    "http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/04/BUGVQ3FH3K1.DTL&type=business"



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345