ffu wrote:

>> There is a broadcasting network that is trying to get the government to
>> force the satellite and cable companies to pay them for their signal.
>> IMO, that is just plain nuts. We have to subscribe to the basic networks
>> before we can get any other programing. Considering that the real
>> product in network TV is not the programming but the audience that they
>> attract in order to justify their advertising fees, the networks should
>> be paying the satellite and cable companies to carry their signal.
>
> That's crazyness, the local networks have had their signal highjacked for so
> many years without compensation. Meanwhile the fat cat cable and sattelite
> companies are getting rich off the programming. We've already had one TV
> station (CKX-TV) closed down because of this, leaving over 60,000 viewers
> without local news, meaning the only local news available to them is from a
> network station over 1400 miles away.

Those networks are sending their signals into the air so that anyone can
pick them up for free. Their costs are paid by advertising sales, and
the more people watching their shows the more money they can charge for
advertising spots. A bigger audience means more revenue. IMO, the cable
and satellite companies are doing the networks a favour by carrying
their signals.

The cable and satellite companies have to carry the network signals and
users have to pay for the basic package. AFAIAC, if the networks insist
on being paid to carry their signals, then the cable companies should
have the option of not carrying it. Given the high percentage of people
who subscribe to cable or satellite, not having their signals carried
would mean a huge drop in viewers, and a huge drop in advertising revenues.

There is a local station that is crying the blues over the possibility
of their parent company closing them down. While I do watch their news,
since it is the only station that carries local news, I never watch the
rest of their programming because it sucks. There is nothing of interest.