 | | Get Paid for OTA? I don't get how local broadcast networks can ask to be paid for what they give away for free over the air. With the majority of the viewers coming from cable and satellite, someone has to stand up to these jackasses and say "you're lucky to be carried, get lost".
This is amounting to local broadcasters getting free use of spectrum *and* a healthy corporate welfare check from the viewers who have the audacity to purchase cable or satellite service. | |
|
 |  br1252 join:2007-04-10 Norwalk, CT | Re: Get Paid for OTA? If Cablevision took the approach that they are doing a service for the OTA broadcasters and charged THEM that would make more sense! | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Get Paid for OTA? said by br1252:If Cablevision took the approach that they are doing a service for the OTA broadcasters and charged THEM that would make more sense! If that were the case, this current dispute would be a non issue. | |
|
 |  |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL kudos:2 2 edits | said by br1252:If Cablevision took the approach that they are doing a service for the OTA broadcasters and charged THEM that would make more sense! If Cablevision and the rest of the MVPDs actually produced the highest-rated, most in-demand programming themselves, maybe they could get away with that. Unfortunately for them, their entire business model hinges on retransmitting the work of others and skimming massive profits off the top at the same time (see Comcast earnings even in this depression).
Cablevision is completely within their rights to take the high road and deny Fox carriage if News Corp. continues to demand payment the Dolans deem outrageous. Of course, they will also be without a bunch of the top TV programs. The regulations governing this do not require a network or channel be carried if the channel demands payment for said carriage.
Basically, the Dolans don't have the stones to stand up to Rupert Murdoch and are whining about it instead. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Get Paid for OTA? oh yes they do. Because it's that time of year and every MSO and DBS and FTTx provider has or will see the samething happen. T already has had it happen and they currently don't have access to certain channels- Hallmark anyone- due to the issue with wanting more $$$.
VZ won't cave with the increase demand of $$$ nor will anyone else- except TWC. -- www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
|
 |  |  |  |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL kudos:2 | Re: Get Paid for OTA? Bullshit. You have no idea how this process works from the inside. | |
|
 |  | | Thank the 1992 Cable Act and introducing retranmission consent which subsequently went into effect in 1994.
Retransmission consent is an option granted to US television stations as part of the law that granted such stations the option to elect must-carry rights. Under retransmission consent, a full-power US television station may elect to negotiate with a cable system operator for carriage of its broadcast programming. A station may propose that the cable operator pay cash to carry the station or ask for any other form of consideration. The cable operator may refuse the broadcaster's proposal and not carry the station or offer a counter-proposal. Broadcast stations have similar rights with respect to DBS television providers like DirecTV and Dish Network.
Before that point it was must-carry where as you said they were lucky to have all the eyeballs they could for advertising dollars. Thank the same bought and paid for politicans who voted this through. Same ones trying to stick up for their constituents. Repeal this part of the cable act, get rid of retransmission consent and go back to must carry only. | |
|
 |  |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | Re: Get Paid for OTA? said by kickass69:Thank the 1992 Cable Act and introducing retranmission consent which subsequently went into effect in 1994. Retransmission consent is an option granted to US television stations as part of the law that granted such stations the option to elect must-carry rights. Under retransmission consent, a full-power US television station may elect to negotiate with a cable system operator for carriage of its broadcast programming. A station may propose that the cable operator pay cash to carry the station or ask for any other form of consideration. The cable operator may refuse the broadcaster's proposal and not carry the station or offer a counter-proposal. Broadcast stations have similar rights with respect to DBS television providers like DirecTV and Dish Network. Before that point it was must-carry where as you said they were lucky to have all the eyeballs they could for advertising dollars. Thank the same bought and paid for politicans who voted this through. Same ones trying to stick up for their constituents. Repeal this part of the cable act, get rid of retransmission consent and go back to must carry only. Bought and paid for by whom? If Cablevision doesn't retransmit FOX, Fox loses eyeballs and advertising dollars. They also get loads of bad press. From what I understand, If FOX wants to, they can elect to not get paid, but retain must-carry which would give them more eyeballs.
They both have options. I don't see the problem with the law. -- "What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning." -United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Get Paid for OTA? Customers will go to another carrier: FiOS, DTV, Dish, U-Verse, Hulu, etc.
The sheeple that watch TV will find their way. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  | | U-Verse will have the same problem and is not available in NY, Hulu? yah that will work when Fox doesn't upload everything to it. FiOS will have the same issue and the network providers aren't giving into the content owners. So- people will have to deal with what they get until Fox can get their shit together and stop charging for shit people don't watch. American Idol is so far not worth what Fox wants. -- www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
|
 |  |  | | said by kickass69:Thank the 1992 Cable Act and introducing retranmission consent which subsequently went into effect in 1994. Thank the cable companies and ted turner for suing the old must carry rules out of existence. | |
|
 |  axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC | Hmm... because the networks own the rights, and they can make money from them.
What is not right is governments telling cable corps that "You must carry network TV", and then they have to pay for it. However, sometimes its a condition of a franchise agreement, which is OK because there is a contract.
Fox has some pretty good leverage over Hulu to get them to block CableVision. The worst thing I can see happening from this is a fake "network neutrality" bill coming out that says servers cannot block who they want to, and says nothing about what network operators cannot do. | |
|
 |  |  jmn1207Premium join:2000-07-19 Ashburn, VA kudos:1 | Re: Get Paid for OTA? said by axus:Fox has some pretty good leverage over Hulu to get them to block CableVision. They most definitely have leverage over Hulu. They will threaten to do the same to Hulu as they are currently doing to Cablevision when their negotiations come up, and Hulu will either have to submit or be forced to drop all Fox content. And just like what is happening with our cable TV providers, the customers will mostly blame Hulu for dropping their favorite programs, or complain about the increased cost of service when Hulu is forced to raise subscription prices in order to keep this content. | |
|
 |  |  |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL kudos:2 | Re: Get Paid for OTA? said by jmn1207:They will threaten to do the same to Hulu as they are currently doing to Cablevision You know News Corp. (Fox) is a part-owner of Hulu, right? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  jmn1207Premium join:2000-07-19 Ashburn, VA kudos:1 | Re: Get Paid for OTA? said by 56403739:said by jmn1207:They will threaten to do the same to Hulu as they are currently doing to Cablevision You know News Corp. (Fox) is a part-owner of Hulu, right? Thanks for the reminder. I knew a bunch of major media companies had started Hulu, but the news article was worded in a way that made it seem like Fox was not a part of this joint venture, as they "managed to get Hulu to block Cablevision customers". They probably did not even have to ask anyone to do this, as they likely already had complete control over this ability.
Also, how Hulu might be able to buckle to what is essentially themselves, is another statement that seemed to be a bit misleading. I believe it was important enough information that is should have been declared at the top of the story. Fox, which owns 31% of Hulu....
Thanks again. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL kudos:2 | Re: Get Paid for OTA? The confusion was caused by Karl not getting the facts straight, or intentionally making it look like News Corp. bullied poor Hulu into blocking Cablevision customers when in reality all it probably took was a phone call from the Fox mothership. You are absolved...  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  WhatNowPremium join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC | Re: Get Paid for OTA? This is what Rupert bought with his citizenship. Fox is the mouthpiece for the Republican party. Fox may over play their hand they will not have the top shows because they have no eyeballs. They should pay to have their free OTA content carried. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL kudos:2 | Re: Get Paid for OTA? said by WhatNow:Fox may over play their hand they will not have the top shows because they have no eyeballs. They should pay to have their free OTA content carried. Fox is completely within their rights to overplay whatever hand they are dealt. Ironically, television viewers are 100% in control of the game but most don't want to do what it takes to be the "house".
I've said it before...until viewers start saying "no" to programmers who think there is no limit on the amount they can charge, this will never end. If Fox loses enough viewers then maybe they'll have to change their tactics. Same for ESPN. The only reason they can outbid "free" television networks for programming like the NFL and BCS football bowls is because they can force cable and satellite subscribers to pay for it. There is zero incentive for them to keep costs down. Very much like the government... | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  jmn1207Premium join:2000-07-19 Ashburn, VA kudos:1 | Re: Get Paid for OTA? The current business model keeps the consumer control, with regards to supply and demand, completely out of the loop. The only consumer choice is the impractical idea of dropping cable completely.
Imagine if hamburger and sausage were the News Corp. channels and your grocery stores were the cable TV providers. In a normal market, the consumer can buy something else if the price of hamburger skyrockets, and the market adjusts itself accordingly. With the cable TV business model, we would be paying a monthly bill to Safeway or Food Lion grocery stores instead of buying each item separately.
As the cost to provide hamburger instantly doubles for these stores, our only real choice, if we don't want to pay higher monthly rates to cover the outrageous increase in hamburger, is to stop using grocery stores, butcher our own meat, and maintain a garden. Again, this is a bit impractical for many of us. If the grocery stores tell the hamburger butchers to get bent and stop providing this meat, the customer get pissed and go to another store, which inevitably will be forced into a similar dilemma when their current hamburger contract expires.
We, the consumers, have very little practical control over this type of market.
Now, I think I will have a cheeseburger for supper.  | |
|
 |  | | said by clickie:I don't get how local broadcast networks can ask to be paid for what they give away for free over the air. With the majority of the viewers coming from cable and satellite, someone has to stand up to these jackasses and say "you're lucky to be carried, get lost". This is amounting to local broadcasters getting free use of spectrum *and* a healthy corporate welfare check from the viewers who have the audacity to purchase cable or satellite service. FCC "must carry" rules have an "opt out" clause where if a broadcaster believes that their programming is worth it, they can opt out of the must carry rule and then they can charge cable/satellite providers to carry their programming.
O.O. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Get Paid for OTA? Too bad the consumer lacks such a right. I'd opt out on general principle. | |
|
 |  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Get Paid for OTA? The consumer has an excellent opt out option...s/he is usually unwilling to exercise it. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | said by clickie:Too bad the consumer lacks such a right. I'd opt out on general principle. It's called an HD antenna. Put one on your house, get an HD tuner and you get over the air HD, including Fox broadcast channels. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Get Paid for OTA? Seems all that marketing for 'digital' and 'HD' really brainwashed quite a few. Any OTA antenna will work period, even the older ones to receive SD on SD TVs and HD on HDTVs. | |
|
 |  | | said by clickie:I don't get how local broadcast networks can ask to be paid for what they give away for free over the air. Because they can and the FCC rules allow it.
With the majority of the viewers coming from cable and satellite, someone has to stand up to these jackasses and say "you're lucky to be carried, get lost". Yeah, you mean like now? Why are people complaining then?
This is amounting to local broadcasters getting free use of spectrum *and* a healthy corporate welfare check from the viewers who have the audacity to purchase cable or satellite service. No, it's called the cable companies having to be fair to the stations that attract most of your subscribers.
The spectrum isn't free either. The stations have to pay license fees and must carry certain types of programming such as E/I. It isn't exactly a free ride. | |
|
 |  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: Get Paid for OTA? And the Cable Companies network and physical plant isn't free either.... | |
|
 |  |
 |  Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
·RoadRunner Cable
| I get all My channels out here OTA, Problem is most are via a Satellite Translator(DISH) and yep Fox and one Fox owned station are on there, The County pays DISH $3,000.00 a month for those channels too and there's No microwave backup either. One or maybe Two will be going dark I'd think on the 1st, Going to cable isn't something I can do, Nor do I want to. | |
|
 fcislerPremium join:2004-06-14 Riverhead, NY | Cablevision
Cablevision has before next SUNDAY to either A) Give me some sort of refund for missing days or B) Get fox back or C) I call and cancel your stupid F*#(%)@king rip off of TV and Telco.
I'm tired of this....the consumer NEVER wins so I really don't care the outcome...i'll either continue to pay CV or i'll instead give my money to Dish/DirecTV. | |
|
 |  1 edit | Re: Cablevision And you are one example of the problem. And if OTA means that much to you put up an antenna. Your PQ would be better anyway. | |
|
 |  |  See 25 replies to this post |
|
 |  axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC | Maybe you could buy a DTV antenna? I get "good enough" reception with an indoor antenna, I feel like I'd have really great TV with an outdoor antenna. | |
|
 |  belawrenceThey'll never let you in join:2000-08-06 Santee, CA | said by fcisler:I'm tired of this....the consumer NEVER wins so I really don't care the outcome...i'll either continue to pay CV or i'll instead give my money to Dish/DirecTV. Fox is currently in a dispute w/DISH Network also - so far only regional sports networks are affected, but Fox is threatening to yank local programming via their O & O stations. I believe a dispute w/Directv is unlikely as NewsCorp still owns a small chunk of them. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Cablevision said by belawrence:said by fcisler:I'm tired of this....the consumer NEVER wins so I really don't care the outcome...i'll either continue to pay CV or i'll instead give my money to Dish/DirecTV. Fox is currently in a dispute w/DISH Network also - so far only regional sports networks are affected, but Fox is threatening to yank local programming via their O & O stations. I believe a dispute w/Directv is unlikely as NewsCorp still owns a small chunk of them. I have Dish and Fox has also blocked FX and Nat Geo. Which means no Sons of Anarchy for me unless I choose to torrent it or stream it from Amazon for 2 bucks. Interesting enough, new episodes on FX used to be released on Hulu between a day or week later. Since the blockage they are now being pushed back 30 days.
They are also threatening to block the OTA channels as well. | |
|
 |  | | Dish and other carriers had similar disputes with Fox prior to this. Changing your provider is a temporary solution. | |
|
 |  |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | Re: Cablevision choosing not to watch FOX anymore seems to be the only long-term solution.
But hey, there's a reason they decided to pull carriage during the football season. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·WildBlue
| said by fcisler:Cablevision has before next SUNDAY to either A) Give me some sort of refund for missing days or B) Get fox back or C) I call and cancel your stupid F*#(%)@king rip off of TV and Telco. I'm tired of this....the consumer NEVER wins so I really don't care the outcome...i'll either continue to pay CV or i'll instead give my money to Dish/DirecTV. Don't move to Dish they are fighting with Fox too! Fox is threatening to cut Dish off on November 1st. -- [IMG]»img218.imageshack.us/img218/2636···3dg6.gif Windows 7 Pro 64-Bit / Core i5 - 760 / GTS 250 / 4GB RAM | |
|
 |  |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | Re: Cablevision said by Sircolby45:said by fcisler:Cablevision has before next SUNDAY to either A) Give me some sort of refund for missing days or B) Get fox back or C) I call and cancel your stupid F*#(%)@king rip off of TV and Telco. I'm tired of this....the consumer NEVER wins so I really don't care the outcome...i'll either continue to pay CV or i'll instead give my money to Dish/DirecTV. Don't move to Dish they are fighting with Fox too! Fox is threatening to cut Dish off on November 1st. I'd be quite interested to see how this plays out, as I imagine it could backfire on FOX to have two area distributors blacked out at once. -- "What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning." -United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 |  | | said by fcisler:Cablevision has before next SUNDAY to either A) Give me some sort of refund for missing days or B) Get fox back or C) I call and cancel your stupid F*#(%)@king rip off of TV and Telco. I'm tired of this....the consumer NEVER wins so I really don't care the outcome...i'll either continue to pay CV or i'll instead give my money to Dish/DirecTV. You forgot:
D) Raise your rates to pay for Fox. | |
|
 |  | | Switching to Dish won't help they are currently fighting Fox for Fox Sports and Geographic channel.
This comes up with every carrier at least every 2-3 years. | |
|
 IllIlIlllIllEliteDataPremium join:2003-07-06 Hampton Bays, NY kudos:7 | im glad i just watch the pay movie channels. -- ☺ | |
|
 LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Anyone doubt that the content companies have the power
This is just 1 more example of how the content companies hold the real power in disputes with delivery providers. I don't know if the FCC has any power over the content providers, but their threats against cable companies are not going to solve anything.
Maybe the DOJ should start looking at anti-trust issues with Hollywood more than with telcos and cable companies. And the FCC should be examining NBC more than Comcast in their merger application. Who will really gain the whip hand in that merger? -- Take poll on how you will vote on Nov 2nd
| |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 | | NewsCorp Crossed A Line I think NewsCorp realized they crossed a line when they had Hulu block the Cablevision internet customers.
Since Hulu is their distributor in the case of internet access they had no right blocking anyone on the web for any reason. This includes Cablevision internet customers as the fight is not with them, it is with the Cablevision cable customers.
The fact Hulu would do this is shameful as they should of realized the exact same thing. However, being their life depends on companies like NewsCorp they start stuck and have little to no power in any of this. | |
|
 |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 | Re: NewsCorp Crossed A Line That is the reason why I think the NBC/Comcast deal is a bad idea. I could see the same thing happening.... | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: NewsCorp Crossed A Line said by ptrowski:That is the reason why I think the NBC/Comcast deal is a bad idea. I could see the same thing happening.... QFT | |
|
 |  fcislerPremium join:2004-06-14 Riverhead, NY | said by Skippy25:I think NewsCorp realized they crossed a line when they had Hulu block the Cablevision internet customers. Since Hulu is their distributor in the case of internet access they had no right blocking anyone on the web for any reason. This includes Cablevision internet customers as the fight is not with them, it is with the Cablevision cable customers. The fact Hulu would do this is shameful as they should of realized the exact same thing. However, being their life depends on companies like NewsCorp they start stuck and have little to no power in any of this. This is a very good point. In talking to my Boss he told me that he has DirecTV and OOL. Unfortunately neither of us are in FIOS land or can get DSL.
Why should HE get blocked when his TV provider isn't in any contract dispute? He has NEVER had iO (grandfathered DirecTV account, he gets a good deal) and just subscribed to Hulu plus. He's canceling today as a result of this. | |
|
 |  slckusrPremium join:2003-03-17 Maumee, OH kudos:1 | Oddly enough i agree with them blocking Cablevision people from HULU.
If the broadcaster currently has no agreement with the provider why should they have access to their services. | |
|
 |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | They just handed Net Neutrality advocates more ammunition as well. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Silly Everyone knows the fee will be passed down to the customers anyway, why doesn't Cablevision just pass on the fee and be done with it? -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 |  KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Silly said by pnh102:Everyone knows the fee will be passed down to the customers anyway, why doesn't Cablevision just pass on the fee and be done with it? because their PR department wants them to look like the Heros when they finally give in to Fox and get the channels back. at that point the Sheeple see their Fox working again and barely notice the few extra bucks on their next bill increase. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 |  Frankis chillingPremium join:2000-11-03 somewhere 3 edits | said by pnh102:Everyone knows the fee will be passed down to the customers anyway, why doesn't Cablevision just pass on the fee and be done with it? because cablevision cant afford to because they actually have to compete with fios and verizon has a better deal with fox. It's already trivial to switch between providers as it is and they are already fiercely competing
example
cablevision triple play package when you switch from fios = $70 a month for 2 years.
verizon fios triple play package when you switch from cablevision = $64.99 a month for 2 years. linked here
btw, neither one of those have contracts. -- At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  | |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 | Net Neutrality: We need you This is an excellent case for Net Neutrality. | |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 | | Can't fault Hulu Pretty certain NewsCorp said block the content or we'll pull Fox programming.
That would be an extremely harsh blow to Hulu. | |
|
 |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: Can't fault Hulu Agreed. And it should be illegal. | |
|
 mobOn the next level..Premium join:2000-10-07 Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
| Just a little odd That these contracts all seem to expire right around the time of major entertainment events....then a big "drama" ensues, both sides decide to bend the customer over even harder and the only thing that really happens is that it then costs more for the same shit than it did the day before.
Personally I think all sports programming costs should be shouldered by the viewers of those channels, much like HBO and Showtime. Forced bundling of channels is the same a tax that consumers have no vote on other than to completely stop using cable services all together. It's been proven that ala carte services are possible, yet cable companies refuse to innovate for fear of short term losses :\ Also I think many sports team owners refuse to go along with this idea since they get so much money from ESPN now. -- If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure - J. Danforth Quayle Ich habe kein Mitleid - Me An intolerant liberal is the same as an intolerant conservative...think about that for a minute, noob. | |
|
 |  See 8 replies to this post |
|
 guppy_fishPremium join:2003-12-09 Lakeland, FL kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Gaming the system Any network that uses public airwaves for free should not be allowed to then charge any broadcaster to retransmission
I have no problem with FOX or and other content providers making money, unlike say ESPN, they get a free ride with the inherited valuable bandwidth from legacy broadcasting
If a content provider wants to charge, fine, then make them pay fair market for the public airwaves they consume, you can't have it both ways | |
|
 |  | | Re: Gaming the system said by guppy_fish:Any network that uses public airwaves for free should not be allowed to then charge any broadcaster to retransmission I have no problem with FOX or and other content providers making money, unlike say ESPN, they get a free ride with the inherited valuable bandwidth from legacy broadcasting If a content provider wants to charge, fine, then make them pay fair market for the public airwaves they consume, you can't have it both ways I concur with you 100% What even makes things worse in this particular case is that News Corp. was granted a waiver by the FCC that allows it to own and operate 2 TV stations in the NY Metro market (as well as 2 newspapers) so instead of one station being yanked we have two OTA stations gone MIA from our cable line up.
As for myself I simply hooked up my old antenna and am able to watch the football and baseball games but I feel for others whom cable is their only alternative to receiving OTA transmissions. I think the FCC at the least should force News Corp to the table with binding arbitration and at the worst rescind their TV licenses for abusing their use of the public airwaves with this extortionist BS. | |
|
 |  | | said by guppy_fish:Any network that uses public airwaves for free should not be allowed to then charge any broadcaster to retransmission That used to be the case before the cable companies sued. They brought this upon themselves. | |
|
 Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| $1 limit no OTA broadcaster is going to get more than $1 per subscriber per channel because thatis all that can be absorbed by current rates without an increase.
btw, if you're one of the "cut off" you can torrent the most popular content **FREE OF COMMERCIALS, BTW**. also, if your addicted to fox 5 or my9 news broadcasts.. get a life.. all the propaganda machines of the networks STINK ON ICE! As time goes by, I'm not seeing much of a difference between any of the networks. They ALL seem owned by the biggest commercial advertisers.. not the CEO, not the shareholders and certainly not the news anchors or any part of the propaganda "news" segments. Have you EVER seen a consumer advocacy really work it's magic AGAINST any of the big advertisers on it's networks? Huh? Nope. Doesn't happen.
Viewers in a broadcast network's region who can't pick up the signal by OTA should have a fcc field engineer come out and verify if it's true... if so, they get a free subscription to streaming broadcasts of the network, uninterrupted or blacked out as some online streaming does when it's "wide open" to the public. Problem solved, and millions of dollars don't have to change hands between broadcasters and cable companies. | |
|
 |  | | Re: $1 limit said by tmc8080:no OTA broadcaster is going to get more than $1 per subscriber per channel because thatis all that can be absorbed by current rates without an increase. Great idea. Now can the Government limit your salary too? | |
|
 |  |  1 edit | Re: $1 limit Apparently they CAN do that too. And they do... It's called taxes! 8-)
...and if you were one of those CEOs a while back who got big bonuses. Yes, the gov't CAN limit salaries... 8-) | |
|
 MurdocPremium join:2009-02-08 Manitowoc, WI | I don't want local channels on my SAT Maybe put that trash on a seperate tier? | |
|
 |  | | Re: I don't want local channels on my SAT Until recently it was and you had to pay $5/mth to have it.
Even better, they had a OTA connection that you would use to tie the 2 together for the Guide and this would be supplied through the same cable with a diplexer.
Do they even give that choice any longer or is that $5 already built in along with the OTA channels?
I personally would take the OTA for the better picture quality. Both SAT and Cable compress the hell out of their stuff. | |
|
 |  |  MurdocPremium join:2009-02-08 Manitowoc, WI | Re: I don't want local channels on my SAT I think it maybe built in as far as I know. I really can't stand local channels. Especially the advertisements. Like that irritating hupy and abrahams one that has william shatner in it. | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear join:1999-09-01 New Jersey kudos:1 | Cable should go more exclusive For example, cablevision and comcast should just have there own channels to carry these events even use economies of scale to push companies like Fox , into more irrelevant. Cables need to get together and make it to more there advantage. | |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 RickNYPremium join:2000-11-02 Manorville, NY 1 edit | Internet provider doesnt necessarily mean TV provider In this instance, just because someone was accessing the content on Hulu from Optimum Online, that does not necessarily mean the customer was a Cablevision TV subscriber. You can subscribe to Optimum Online only and continue to have DirecTV or DISH network, or even be an OTA customer. Hulu was blocking the content to Cablevision Internet subscribers as a whole, which really crossed the line.
From what I understand, the Hulu block was subsequently removed. | |
|
 | | Cablevision and FOX dispute Cablevision should stick it to FOX, unfortunately at the behest of their customers. The amount they save in retrans fees will just offset the cost of lost subscribers who bail on them, but I don't really think they will lose too many customers over this. | |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT 1 edit | That's freakin' dirty.. ..especially when Cablevision completely takes over Bresnan here. That'd really screw me (and my wife) over. That's really jacked up.
Looks like I'll be rerouting my network through a VPN. A**holes.
EDIT: Either that or I'll be building my Multi-TB Media Server early and torrenting like hell. | |
|
 |  zpm join:2009-03-23 Columbus, GA | Re: That's freakin' dirty.. it be nice if every operator would drop fox news.
that would teach newscorp. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: That's freakin' dirty.. said by zpm:it be nice if every operator would drop fox news. that would teach newscorp. It is unlikely that a cable operator would just drop one of their most watched channels (most watched in daytime second only to nickelodeon). That would essentially be suicide. | |
|
 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
·MSN
| Isn't it now obvious why we need net neutrality? A greedy corporation can block whatever they want on the Internet to a select group of people on a specific ISP. This is BAD!
What really upsets me is that this by and large this content isn't 'private'-it's available over the air for free-so why should Fox get ANY money for it?
All Fox is doing is screwing their viewers, who largely regard THEM as the 'bad guy' in this-and rightly so! | |
|
 |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | Re: Isn't it now obvious why we need net neutrality? said by qworster:A greedy corporation can block whatever they want on the Internet to a select group of people on a specific ISP. This is BAD! What really upsets me is that this by and large this content isn't 'private'-it's available over the air for free-so why should Fox get ANY money for it? All Fox is doing is screwing their viewers, who largely regard THEM as the 'bad guy' in this-and rightly so! I don't think you understand what net neutrality is.
The content CREATOR (as in FOX) has every right to block access to specific ISPs. That's actually gone on for decades. ESPN does this for ESPN3.
Net Neutrality would only stop ISPs (ie Cablevision) from blocking FOX content. That's not what's happening. FOX is blocking their own content. And since they own their content, they get to decide how it's distributed. Simple copyright... -- "What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning." -United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 |  |  jhboricuaExMod 2000-01 join:2000-06-06 Minneapolis, MN | Re: Isn't it now obvious why we need net neutrality? said by tiger72:The content CREATOR (as in FOX) has every right to block access to specific ISPs. That's actually gone on for decades. ESPN does this for ESPN3. I doubt its been going on for decades on the Internet and I couldn't find any reference to support your claim. The ESPN3 selective block of ISP is certainly not a good example, its been going for what? 2, 3 years tops?
said by tiger72:Net Neutrality would only stop ISPs (ie Cablevision) from blocking FOX content. That's not what's happening. FOX is blocking their own content. And since they own their content, they get to decide how it's distributed. Simple copyright... The way I see it, if Net Neutrality were to be applied, if Fox wants to block their content on Hulu they would have to remove it from everyone and not just be able to tell Hulu to block one ISP since Hulu would not be able to comply, right? -- "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein Jose A. Hernandez * System Engineer * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * | |
|
 |  | | I don't see it that way. Content owners can, and will in this case, simply cut off access so 'net neutrality' won't be much help.
Time to get rid of the idiotic FCC growth limit on cable providers so we can aggregate to one or two dominant cable players who'll then have enough chips to bring to the table with the content owners. | |
|
 cacoPremium join:2005-03-10 Whittier, AK | Not Seeing The Forrest From The Trees I would be more concerned with what HULU did instead of what is going on with Fox vs Cablvision. Hulu caved in a dispute that has nothing to do with them. I know a lot of folks here love their HULU but if this is the future then you better hope your ISP isn't owned by a provider that also provides you with video services. The future is more and more of these type of disputes not less. -- Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  |
 |  jmn1207Premium join:2000-07-19 Ashburn, VA kudos:1 | said by caco:I would be more concerned with what HULU did instead of what is going on with Fox vs Cablvision. Hulu caved in a dispute that has nothing to do with them. I know a lot of folks here love their HULU but if this is the future then you better hope your ISP isn't owned by a provider that also provides you with video services. The future is more and more of these type of disputes not less. The story is a bit misleading, as HULU is FOX, at least 31% of it. This dispute with Cablevision has everything to do with HULU, as the majority of the owners all share similar interests with regards to the current negotiations. | |
|
 NiarlanExcelsiorPremium join:2002-11-09 Manville, NJ | Hit Fox where it hurts a bit more... Start with the affilates from NY...tell them that due to Fox pulling this kind of stunt they you will no longer watch Fox News or programing. The locals are more powerful then the network when things like this happen....just ask Jay Leno 
Nia | |
|
 |  | | Re: Hit Fox where it hurts a bit more... The NY stations aren't affiliates, they're O&O. | |
|
 |  | | said by Niarlan:Start with the affilates from NY...tell them that due to Fox pulling this kind of stunt they you will no longer watch Fox News or programing. The locals are more powerful then the network when things like this happen....just ask Jay Leno  Nia Wow, I don't think I could write something less informed if I tried. | |
|
 VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | The amount that Fox wants is absurd They want an increase? Ok, fine....double? Huh?
Cablevision fighting with Fox though is a MAJOR reason that I went to DirecTV as I had had enough fighting with Cox in my last city which fought with numerous corporations as well | |
|
 |  tito79 join:2010-03-14 Brewster, NY | Re: The amount that Fox wants is absurd Ota is free why not plug in that antenna and enjoy the play offs | |
|
 |  |  |
 |
|