ACT IMMEDIATELY or LOSE YOUR FREE T.V. !!!

[Lodestar]

Just one more way privatization is working for you (sarcasm):
--------------------------------------------------------------

Pay-TV companies, such as cable and satellite, are seeking new rules in Congress that could jeopardize the free, local TV service that nearly 60 million Americans rely on each day to stay safe and informed.

For those who already subscribe to a pay-TV service, the local broadcast channels that they watch the most could become even more expensive to access if the pay-TV lobby gets their way on Capitol Hill.

Contact your senators today and tell them to stand up to the pay-TV giants. Don’t mess with free, local TV!

http://www.keepmytv.org/

[CBGLuthier]

1. Got any facts or reasons why we should take N.A.B's side in this?

And how does this involve privatization?


As near as I can glean this is about pay tv having to pay retransmision fees to offer local channels. I always thought the local channels should not get anything for this service. After all it is a convenience for the user, not having to use a switch and an antenna to get OTA and also a boon for the broadcaster as it increases their subscriber base.

But the broadcasters have viewed it as another revenue stream and they have pulled their signals a few times and always act like it is pay tv's fault for not wanting to pay their jacked up rates.

Either way I don't care as I don't use paytv but linking to one hyperbole filled industry run website that contains no real facts is less than useful.

[Lodestar]

3. The dangers

The dangers of losing free t.v.


Losing free television is a real possibility.

There's talk in Washington D.C. about reducing airwaves, and the issue will be front and center in early August.

“What I'm concerned about is local television could be diminished. You may not have as many options locally, or they may not be able to be offered in HD. I also have another concern that if free tv is completely taken away, then everyone's going to have to get their local television through a pay service,” said Carol Kellum, President & C.E.O. of KTVO.

For instance, if KTVO were to have its airwaves reduced, we might not be able to broadcast our CBS signal, or offer programs in high definition.

If airwaves were completely taken away, you might only be able to get local channels like KTVO through satellite or cable services, something many viewers can't afford.

In the worst case scenario, some local tv stations could be lost completely, which is a possibility.

MORE http://www.heartlandconnection.com/news/story.aspx?id=645186#.U9ZQPvldU1M

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Are We Losing Free T.V.? (Explains the revenue issues)


,,,A small chunk of the ad revenue is being recouped online, where the networks sell episodes for a few dollars each or run ads alongside shows on sites such as Hulu. Media economist Jack Myers projects online video advertising will grow into a $2 billion business by 2012, from just $350 million to $400 million this year.

But that is not significant enough to make up for the lost ad revenue on the airwaves. Advertisers spent $34 billion on broadcast commercials in 2008, down by $2.4 billion from two years earlier, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising.

So rather than wait for the Internet to become a bigger source of income, the networks and local stations are mimicking what cable channels do: They’re charging pay-TV companies a monthly fee per subscriber to carry their programming.

Since 1994, the Federal Communications Commission has let networks and their affiliates seek payments for including their programming in the pay-TV lineup. Not everyone demanded payments at first. Instead they relied on the broader audience that cable and satellite gave them to increase what they could charge advertisers.

The big networks also were content to let their broadcast stations essentially be subsidized by higher fees for the cable channels that fell under the same corporate umbrella. A pay-TV company negotiating with the Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, is likely paying more for the ABC Family channel than it otherwise would, with the extra assumed to help Disney cover its costs for the ABC network broadcasts.

But over time - such contracts generally run about three years - more networks began demanding payments for the stations they own. And affiliates already receiving the fees have bargained for more money.


http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/business/cbj-are-we-losing-free-tv/article_3c75ce51-5a3a-5b74-a429-b63fd43ea155.html?mode=jqm

[CBGLuthier]

4. Internet TV is killing Broadcast. yes this is true

That first article is 3 years old and has nothing to do with what this is about. This is all about retransmission fees. Not about reducing the available airwaves.


Broadcasters keep jacking up the retransmission fees and then acting like it is PAYTV's fault when they pull their signal. Those increased fees will be passed one hundred percent on to those who have PAYTV.

Broadcast TV is as doomed as radio.

BTW, PAYTV is doomed too.

[RKP5637]

2. Done! Thanks! n/t

[The Straight Story]

5. Why, what are they doing to Pirate Bay?!?!

[Armstead]

6. It's basically one form of greed vs. another form of greed

Cable TV's sole purpose was originally to enable people in marginal reception areas to receive regional television stations clearly. It was a symbiotic relationship between broadcasers and cable companies, and the public benefited.

Then came the superstations and cable-only networks, and the cable companies found a new source of revenue, and attaction for subscribers. It also brought fights between cable companies and local broadcasters, for whom cable was becoming competition. They decided to milk it by charging for carriage for what once was the basic purpose of cable television.

A pox on all their houses. Rather than investing in quality to make their services more attractive, diverse and a better value for consumers, they're just flinging the same crap and looking for new ways to squeeze each other, advertisers and consumers.

[Proud Public Servant]

7. Support some huge corporations over others!

You get that so-called "free tv" is already privatized, right?

I'm also tickled to death that you think broadcast television keeps anyone informed, let alone safe. "Narcotized and frightened" would be a far better description.

[Lodestar]

9. Actually I barely watch t.v. (except PBS which I like).

Yes, you're right. It is all privatized. I guess what I was trying to say was that as long as it is free (using the 'paid by advertisers model') at least it is accessible to all.

I wouldn't pay for t.v. (cable or satellite). I never watch it on the internet either....just the occasional movie.
So I'm not a big t.v. advocate per se....just appreciate that it is free and there on those occassions that I choose
to watch it. I do think a democracy requires not only free and easily accessible information but also programming free from
propaganda. That's not gonna happen in our 'profits first' society. I don't know what the future holds for communications but it does seem the noose is tightening all the time on 'free' and trustworthy info. The internet is probably the last frontier and I'm sure they will continue efforts to control that too. What are we to do?

[Cresent City Kid]

8. I need broadcast TV

I cannot afford satellite, there is no cable in my area or internet speed fast enough to watch cat videos, much less the news. Maybe this will create jobs, if there's a tornado I can pick up a few bucks as a town crier.