Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

SHVIA Mccain Bill PASSED!!!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
122 replies to this topic

#121 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,086 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 January 2005 - 05:14 AM

No one is saying that freedom of choice is a bad thing. However, in a capitalist society, shouldn't the networks, which are so near and dear to many people, be allowed to distribute their programming as they see fit? Shouldn't the networks have the same freedom of choice?

The networks ARE distributing their programming as THEY see fit! They are signing market exclusive contracts with affiliates across America. No act of congress requires their contracts to be market exclusive. That was THEIR free choice.

Would you like the government to step in and control the media?

They already do. The first amendment still applies, but the government is there allowing some to broadcast while denying others. Nobody broadcasts in the US without the permission of the government unless they are broadcasting illegally. (Fortunately the government has granted plenty of permission, within certain rules.)

I do not believe stations should be paid for secondary transmission by satellite of their signals within their own assigned coverage areas. Specifically because it is illegal for satellite companies to charge for more than the reception of the broadcaster's signal (if special means are required). Level the playing field.

JL

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#122 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 19 January 2005 - 10:43 AM

The networks ARE distributing their programming as THEY see fit! They are signing market exclusive contracts with affiliates across America. No act of congress requires their contracts to be market exclusive. That was THEIR free choice.

Yep. As well is should be. The business relationship has evolved for fifty-plus years.

Originally Posted by Greg Bimson
Would you like the government to step in and control the media?

Originally Posted by justalurker
They already do. The first amendment still applies, but the government is there allowing some to broadcast while denying others. Nobody broadcasts in the US without the permission of the government unless they are broadcasting illegally. (Fortunately the government has granted plenty of permission, within certain rules.

No, this isn't "control", as in controlling the distribution and the content. The government does control the entities which get licensed, in the form of regulation, but that is about all.

I do not believe stations should be paid for secondary transmission by satellite of their signals within their own assigned coverage areas. Specifically because it is illegal for satellite companies to charge for more than the reception of the broadcaster's signal (if special means are required). Level the playing field.

Please explain. My point is that if the local stations are now responsible for helping to double the amount of DBS subscribers, then the local channels should be compensated for helping to draw subscribers to DBS. I am not sure what "to charge for more than the reception of the broadcaster's signal" means.

#123 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,086 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 January 2005 - 08:13 PM

Stations are prohibited by law from paying a satellite carrier for carriage.
The exception is that stations can pay to get a clean signal to the uplink, if needed.

JL




Protected By... spam firewall...And...