• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Daystar to court: Give us KOCE

Re: It appears I'm not the only one who thinks this way ...

> Another person who thinks Daystar doesn't "win" based on bid
> size:
>
http://www.latimes.com/> news/opinion/letters/la-le-saturday16.5jul16,0,6151523.story
>
>
> (letter to the editor from this morning's Los Angeles Times)
>

The writer omits one key fact: the law cited in the ruling states that the largest cash bid must be accepted. Daystar had that.
 
> Were it not for must-carry, I don't know if Daystar would
> even exist. Without must-carry, TBN would only be in a few
> million cable homes. Both of these networks own TV stations
> for the sole purpose of getting their networks on local
> cable television systems.
>
> For example, prior to TBN purchasing WGTW-48 Philadelphia a
> year ago, the network probably was on very few
> Philadelphia-area cable-TV systems. With TBN's purchase of
> WGTW, they're now on all the area cable systems thanks to
> must-carry, and on the most "basic" level (read: most
> inexpensive tier, along with other local broadcast stations
> and public-access channels) of cable service at that.

But that's exactly my point: why is it that the only way TBN and Daystar get on a cable system is through must-carry? Are you telling me that there's a larger market for Oxygen or GSN? I doubt it. Yet they get on cable.

If their intent is just to get on cable, then it would logically follow that if cable companies had them on their systems, there would be no need to bid $25.1 million to buy an full-service educational license in the LA market.
 
> But that's exactly my point: why is it that the only way TBN
> and Daystar get on a cable system is through must-carry? Are
> you telling me that there's a larger market for Oxygen or
> GSN? I doubt it. Yet they get on cable.

Usually by paying, at least initially. It's not uncommon for a new cable network to pay systems anywhere from a few cents to a dollar a month per subscriber to get carriage at a desirable level. Often, those deals are tied to renewals (on favorable terms for the cable operator) of more desirable channels that are under common ownership. And even at that, the new channels often end up on higher tiers that are purchased by only a minority of subscribers.

That can easily begin costing just as much as buying a broadcaster would, and by taking the must-carry option, you get a much more favorable channel position, to boot. Wouldn't you rather be on channel 50 than on channel 363?

(Must-carry is also pretty much the only leverage a network like Daystar can muster to ensure satellite carriage. There's some dispute going on between Daystar and Sky Angel that's knocked Daystar's national feed off the Dish Network system. Dish has to carry Daystar's local stations, though.)<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2005 NOW AVAILABLE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
 
Re: It appears I'm not the only one who thinks this way ...

> The writer omits one key fact: the law cited in the ruling
> states that the largest cash bid must be accepted. Daystar
> had that.

Your attitude toward this discussion is becoming suspect in my eyes. Every person who posts anything other than "Daystar should get KOCE" gets a rebuttal from you.

In my (moderator's) eyes, you have started to look like a Daystar shill. Or, at the very least, one of their supporters.

This thread is now in danger of being closed. And if I have to do so, you will be the reason.


<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> There's some dispute going on between Daystar and Sky Angel
> that's knocked Daystar's national feed off the Dish Network
> system. Dish has to carry Daystar's local stations, though.)
>

There is, and it ain't pretty.
 
In a quandary

> Your attitude toward this discussion is becoming suspect in
> my eyes. Every person who posts anything other than
> "Daystar should get KOCE" gets a rebuttal from you.
>
> In my (moderator's) eyes, you have started to look like a
> Daystar shill. Or, at the very least, one of their
> supporters.
>
> This thread is now in danger of being closed. And if I have
> to do so, you will be the reason.
>

Do I post at the risk of invoking sanctions or do I leave a statement unanswered that questions my honesty? I have to do what I have to do, and I'm sure you'll do what you have to do. I mean no disrespect.

It's true that I have had an answer for everything. I'm passionate about my point of view; I don't apologize for that. Nor do I apologize for my opinion, even if it is in an overwhelming minority. IMO, passionate opinions logically presented make discussion boards worth reading. I learn a lot from them. Perhaps I'm the only one who feels that way, so at your request, I will restrain myself in the future. Understand that it's not personal; on the contrary, I've been careful to avoid even the hint of a personal attack, even when baited (not by you) and have always tried to base my posts on fact and logic. If you or any other poster on this thread have felt attacked by anything I wrote, then I apologize for that, as it was never my intent to do so.

I regret that my passion has raised suspicion with you and regret that you have chosen to imply that I am a Daystar shill or a network supporter after I have already said that I am not. Again, I state that I am neither. If, as a moderator, you believed that I was being excessive, a simple word would have been sufficient. If you felt a need to question my motives, I would rather that you had done so privately. My e-mail address is on file, and if you didn't have it, I would have gladly provided it to you upon request. I think you would find me reasonable. I should mention here that the only reason I have posted this response publicly is that I believe that I have been wrongfully accused publicly.

I've said my peace - do what you must. If you wish to discuss this further in private and don't have my e-mail address, please place a PING: dhett post on the board and I will send it to you.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom