PDA

View Full Version : why should cable companies have to pay to broadcast free TV?




cindy25
10-16-2010, 07:57 PM
this makes no sense to me. I would think Fox and other free TV would want the cable companies to carry their stations, so their commercials would be seen by more people. cable channels such as HBO are different.


http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/cablevision-drops-fox-in-carriage-dispute/#more-76039

angelatc
10-16-2010, 10:32 PM
this makes no sense to me. I would think Fox and other free TV would want the cable companies to carry their stations, so their commercials would be seen by more people. cable channels such as HBO are different.


http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/cablevision-drops-fox-in-carriage-dispute/#more-76039

Yes, I think you're right. But if you were a TV station, and you had to pay to produce local shows, like news and weather, wouldn't you be a little ticked if the cable companies used your product to sell theirs, and didn't compensate you for it?

Dish Network is having a spat with Fox right now. They already dropped FX and a bunch of Fox Sports channels, and are scheduled to drop more on Nov 1.

cindy25
10-16-2010, 10:40 PM
I thought the whole purpose of free tv was to have as many viewers as possible, so you can sell as many commercials.

Cable is different-the owner of the cable channel should be able to charge as much as they can. if the cable companies were taking the free tv broadcast, and altering the commercials it would be different. if you eliminate the cable viewers they lose 60-80% of their audience, so their commercials should sell for that much less. one could make an argument that free tv should pay the cable companies to carry their programing. home shopping channels have to do that.

GunnyFreedom
10-16-2010, 11:24 PM
I thought the whole purpose of free tv was to have as many viewers as possible, so you can sell as many commercials.

Cable is different-the owner of the cable channel should be able to charge as much as they can. if the cable companies were taking the free tv broadcast, and altering the commercials it would be different. if you eliminate the cable viewers they lose 60-80% of their audience, so their commercials should sell for that much less. one could make an argument that free tv should pay the cable companies to carry their programing. home shopping channels have to do that.

People wouldn't buy cable if it didn't carry their local channels. Having the local channels is considered "added value" which boosts the sales of cable contracts. A local channel will laugh at cableco and say "yeah, try it without us and see what happens!" Chances are cableco will come back on it's knees or go out of business.

The wrench in the works is the government enforced monopoly given to most cableco's

ETA: and oh yeah, there ain't no such thing as "free tv" :D

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-17-2010, 02:54 AM
I thought the whole purpose of free tv was to have as many viewers as possible, so you can sell as many commercials.

Cable is different-the owner of the cable channel should be able to charge as much as they can. if the cable companies were taking the free tv broadcast, and altering the commercials it would be different. if you eliminate the cable viewers they lose 60-80% of their audience, so their commercials should sell for that much less. one could make an argument that free tv should pay the cable companies to carry their programing. home shopping channels have to do that.

I agree the whole revenue model is to sell commercials. TV stations obtain a government enforced frequency monopoly to stifle competition. It's ridiculous I can put an expensive antenna to pick up something on a government monopoly frequency but I can't run a cable from my antenna to my neighbors property and charge them for using my antenna and distribution cabling. Although I don't have any love for cable companies either who also have a government enforced monopoly to stifle competition with municipal contracts.

lynnf
10-17-2010, 05:19 AM
do you not give your money to one charity and not to another? do you purchase one brand of beer and not another?

the content of the airwave broadcasters is theirs to provide as they wish! if they choose to give it for "free" over the air waves and to charge the cable companies, so be it. it is theirs to do so.


the big stickler would be if, say they decided to charge red-heads one price, brunettes another price, and give it away to blonds. that would be a problem.

lynn