-
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
khou might leave directv
- Thread starter chicano82
- Start date
formeraa said:
That's one reason why I dropped cable when I moved and won't subscribe to either satellite "service."
These pissing contests have got to stop. I really think that the FCC has to step in and tell all OTA stations that they have to allow the cable/satellite companies to carry them as a condition of keeping their broadcast license. Otherwise, become a cable-only station, with no public stake (our airwaves), then negotiate with these carriers as they will. I'[m not a fan of excessive federal regulations, but this is one area where I believe the feds are allowed to set the rules.
K
kenglish
Guest
Should the Feds set rules that make EVERYBODY give their products away for free? ;D
kenglish said:
No, just broadcast stations with a broadcast license, which by definition is giving away the product for free.
ESPN and CNN don't use publicly-owned broadcast frequencies, so they can charge whatever the market will bear. KHOU and the other OTA stations use frequencies that We The People own, administered by the FCC for better or worse. They pay for that privilege and invest their money owning and operating their stations. To recoup that investment and (hopefully) make a profit doing it, they are allowed to run advertising (or take donations, in the case of non-comms). They don't (or shouldn't) have the right to charge DirecTV or the other providers that are doing them a favor by extending their audience so that they can be seen interference-free throughout their own market.
At the same time, those providers shouldn't be allowed to charge or be charged for the use of a free-by-definition television signal. They can charge for the use of their equipment, rented or bought. They can charge for the use of their transponders/cable facilities, and they can charge for those channels that don't use broadcast airwaves.
But a broadcast license is exactly what it says it is. If OTA stations don't want to be viewable for free, they can scramble their signals and then charge for them, like ON-TV and the other pay-movie services did in the early '80s. Or they can turn their transmitters off, turn in their broadcast licenses, and be a cable, satellite and/or online service. Then they can charge for their broadcasts if they want to.
Actually ESPN and CNN do use our airwaves. The satellite signals that they use are licensed by the FCC those satellite frequencies belong to us! And there is an FCC license on the rack containing their uplink gear!
Belo is in the right with negotiating with Direct TV. Direct TV gets the KHOU/CBS feed (KHOU has to pay CBS its not free!!!) then inserts direct tv's own local or national ads, but they insert them over the local KHOU commercials so there is no incentive for KHOU to give it away if Direct TV wont run their ads! Why should Direct TV charge their subscribers? get free programming ? and KHOU has to foot the bill?? Infact Direct TV and Dish charge the local stations so that they can monitor if their direct tv or dish feeds are on the air in master control!!
I pay 88 bucks a month for Direct TV and I work in radio and TV they need to pay! I am getting raped by direct tv they might as well have to pay as well!
Belo is in the right with negotiating with Direct TV. Direct TV gets the KHOU/CBS feed (KHOU has to pay CBS its not free!!!) then inserts direct tv's own local or national ads, but they insert them over the local KHOU commercials so there is no incentive for KHOU to give it away if Direct TV wont run their ads! Why should Direct TV charge their subscribers? get free programming ? and KHOU has to foot the bill?? Infact Direct TV and Dish charge the local stations so that they can monitor if their direct tv or dish feeds are on the air in master control!!
I pay 88 bucks a month for Direct TV and I work in radio and TV they need to pay! I am getting raped by direct tv they might as well have to pay as well!
600kogo said:
But that uplink isn't available to the general public. That's not what I'm talking about.
I didn't know DirecTV was allowed to do that. That makes for a whole different argument. I would think that if they're carrrying KHOU's programming, they would also be carrying the station's ads. In fact, I would think the advertisers would insist on it.
If the stations' ads are not being run by the cable/satellite companies, then I can understand why they want money. I wasn't aware of this.
But I decided two years ago when I moved that I was no longer going to pay close to $100 a month for 200 channels - the locals that I can watch for free and all but another 6 or 7 (the sports channels and CNN) that I never watch. I can read CNN's website and look at whatever news videos that I want to. I can also watch ESPN & FSN games at my local sports bar, pay at most the same amount per month, and get the games plus beer instead of just the games. ;D
600kogo said:
However, the Clarke Belt is out of the legal jurisdiction of the United States and the FCC. International agreements drive things here. The International Space Station is not charged transit fees when it flies over the various countries of the world. ;D
The satellite operators do not insert any of their own advertising over the local stations. There are no avails for such things, and no system to automate the process. You are confusing things with non-broadcast services such as ESPN, CNN, TNT etc that have local avails for cable/satellite operators.
There's a symbiotic relationship at work. Yes, the cable/satellite companies get programming from broadcast stations. However the cable/satellite companies also expand and improve the coverage area of those stations, in many cases to viewers who would have poor or nonexistent reception OTA. One hand washes the other.
Troy Goodwin said:
WWL is indeed owned by Belo.
600kogo said:
Your statement needs qualification.
The general public used to be able to buy a sat receiver and become authorized to received sat services with a big dish but that is largely gone now. There are very few sat services that are encrypted using the decrypters available to the general public. To receive these signals these days you would need a commercial digital receiver (and most likely a license) to operate legally. Commercial receivers go for thousands of dollars compared to half-a-thousand for a general public receiver.
And.....there are half-a-dozen encryption schemes up there now so you would not be able to decrypt all of them with just one receiver.
600kogo said:
Where have you been? The cable channels left the direct-to-home satellite market years ago. Their satellite signals are now encrypted private communications and only authorized TV providers and affiliates can receive and decode them. No home subscriptions are permitted. Maybe a few hackers are pirating the signals, but there is no legal way to receive them except through an authorized satellite or cable provider.
The point is that the RF is in the air for CNN and ESPN and can be accessible if you are really so cheap that you refuse to pay a provider for it!!
And I have seen local spot insertion over the top of local programming on my direct tv subscription. Plus I pay a premium price to get my local stations. If it were free to me to get it then yes Belo should give it free too, but the point is that Direct TV is charging the subscribers for local stations so let the locals make money as well! Why should direct tv make all of the money from charging for KHOU and others products?? Let Belo make money off of the product that they put out. CBS makes money with commercials and charging for affiliations to KHOU, Direct TV makes money by charging for local stations, so why not let the local Belo station make money off of this scheme?? Its called capitalism not socialism.
And I have seen local spot insertion over the top of local programming on my direct tv subscription. Plus I pay a premium price to get my local stations. If it were free to me to get it then yes Belo should give it free too, but the point is that Direct TV is charging the subscribers for local stations so let the locals make money as well! Why should direct tv make all of the money from charging for KHOU and others products?? Let Belo make money off of the product that they put out. CBS makes money with commercials and charging for affiliations to KHOU, Direct TV makes money by charging for local stations, so why not let the local Belo station make money off of this scheme?? Its called capitalism not socialism.
K
kenglish
Guest
If a local, free, weekly newspaper publishes a story, is it then available for any paid-circulation daily paper to copy and sell?
That's the difference between receiving a free OTA signal at your home, and re-packaging and re-selling a channel as part of a commercial Cable or satellite operation.
Remember when the satellite companies cried to the FCC about not being able to compete with cable, because they didn't have local stations available? Locals are part of the "product" that they sell.
That's the difference between receiving a free OTA signal at your home, and re-packaging and re-selling a channel as part of a commercial Cable or satellite operation.
Remember when the satellite companies cried to the FCC about not being able to compete with cable, because they didn't have local stations available? Locals are part of the "product" that they sell.
kenglish, I don't think your analogy is exactly correct. In relation to local OTA stations, cable and satellite are "Distributors", not content creators. So, if they were claiming they created the content, it would be an issue. But they are simply charging to deliver the content.
To use your analogy, you can get the free newspaper yourself, or you can pay me to go get it for you and deliver it to you!
To use your analogy, you can get the free newspaper yourself, or you can pay me to go get it for you and deliver it to you!
- Status