On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:57:53 -0500, Dave Smith >
wrote:

>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 signals are digitalized, a pair of rabbit ears won't pickup the signal,
it's more complicated than that.. The cable companys are self serving, they do
nothing for anyone else.

>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.

Yes they have to carry some in the basic, if they didn't their revenue would
drop substantually because of the lost advertising revenue. You see it's a two
way street, and the cable companys are taking advantage.



>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.

More local programming lost, you'll get a news feed from the parent thousands
of miles away. What do they care if a hundred locals loose their jobs, what do
they know about the local soccer game or the the fire at the hardware store,
nothing!