6 ms·

If this is over public airways (like ABC) then Disney should loose their rights to that public space. Netflix should be in court yesterday over this. And the pu

If this is over public airways (like ABC) then Disney should loose their rights to that public space. Netflix should be in court yesterday over this. And the public should be up in arms over this as they are using our PUBLIC airways. For steaming fine but not on PUBLIC spectrum.

crazygringo 7y ago
Wait... is it normal for TV channels to show ads for competitors? (Not owned by the same conglomerate?) Like... I've never seen an ad for Fox on CBS, or for ABC on NBC. Same as I don't think I've ever seen ads for the NYT inside of the WSJ. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter... but is a policy against Netflix ads on Disney properties really something new and newsworthy, or just par for the course for companies in the US which compete generally?
- myrandomcomment 7y ago
  So lets say you have a public airway to provide TV on and let's say you also own a cable company. Should you be allowed to show ads for that cable company and block ads for commercials at the same rate you charge some soda company for the same time slot for an ad from the satellite company that happens to compete with the cable company you own? Your method of broadcast is over a public owned spectrum. That is the issue. Even for cable, the rights for you to deliver that service is over public land.
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    Honestly, I don't see what public transmission has to do with it. Either "advertising" should be considered a "free speech" issue from the point of view of the broadcaster -- that they have the "free speech" to allow/disallow whatever ads they want -- whether because of vulgarity, quality, competition, political alignment, whatever they want, including charging different ads different rates if they so choose. Or we consider advertising space a "free speech" issue from the point of view of advertisers, that any and all advertising on TV, cable, newspapers, magazines, etc. should be equally available to the highest bidder. Thus a newspaper should not be able to discriminate against an advertiser because of vulgarity, competition, quality, brand alignment, etc. It's actually a really thorny issue because there are really good arguments on both sides.
    - chillwaves 7y ago
      There are regulations that exist for public broadcasts that do not apply to cable.
      - crazygringo 7y ago
        Yes they are here: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#BUSINESS https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#BUSI... But they explicitly state broadcasters can mostly choose as they like: > Except for the requirements concerning political advertisements, the limits on the number of commercials that can be aired during children’s programming and the prohibition of advertisements over noncommercial educational stations, the Commission does not regulate a licensee’s business practices, such as its advertising rates or its profits. Rates charged for broadcast time are matters for private negotiation between sponsors and stations. Except for certain classes of political advertisements, STATION LICENSEES HAVE FULL DISCRETION TO ACCEPT OR REJECT ANY ADVERTISING. (all-caps added for emphasis)
    - myrandomcomment 7y ago
      In general I agree. However let us say I own a website that I put ads on. It is my site, I pay for it. Should I have to allow ads for things I disagree with? I am not saying I know the answer here. It would be simpler to say "if you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines". Does this apply to penis pills during kids cartoons? It is not an simpler answer.
      - markdown 7y ago
        > It would be simpler to say "if you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines". Does this apply to penis pills during kids cartoons? It is not an simpler answer. Seems to me it IS a simple answer: "If you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines"
        7y ago
dvdhnt 7y ago
> For steaming fine but not on PUBLIC spectrum. I have to call BS on this. I'm paying for the service and the bandwidth. It often goes over public land or utilities, or at least not over pipes owned by Disney, so if the ad is loaded client side, then Disney is SOL and shouldn't have a say in it. That said, ads suck, blah blah and I personally don't care.
- myrandomcomment 7y ago
  I agree. I have not had TV service for 10+ years. Amazon and Netflix and VPN (from USA) so we can watch BBC. Dear BBC if you read this - allow non-UK to pay the TV license even at 4x the cost. You will sell it.
  - xfour 7y ago
    Shhh... don’t force us back to piracy iPlayer is nice.
    - K0SM0S 7y ago
      Oh trust me they know, but their rockstar Red Hat infrastructure can take it! (and I believe there are legal complications in the UK for them to sell that otherwise public TV access abroad)
scarface74 7y ago
The article even said that it is not abnormal for networks to not allow rival networks to advertise on their channel if they specify a time. ABC pays for the right to rent the airways and do with it as they please within certain parameters. When you rent an apartment don’t you have the expectation of being allowed to do what you want within your apartment within certain constraints? It wouldn’t really hurt Disney that much if they couldn’t reach the relatively few people who watch TV over an antennae.

crazygringo 7y ago

Wait... is it normal for TV channels to show ads for competitors? (Not owned by the same conglomerate?) Like... I've never seen an ad for Fox on CBS, or for ABC on NBC. Same as I don't think I've ever seen ads for the NYT inside of the WSJ. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter... but is a policy against Netflix ads on Disney properties really something new and newsworthy, or just par for the course for companies in the US which compete generally?

myrandomcomment 7y ago
So lets say you have a public airway to provide TV on and let's say you also own a cable company. Should you be allowed to show ads for that cable company and block ads for commercials at the same rate you charge some soda company for the same time slot for an ad from the satellite company that happens to compete with the cable company you own? Your method of broadcast is over a public owned spectrum. That is the issue. Even for cable, the rights for you to deliver that service is over public land.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  Honestly, I don't see what public transmission has to do with it. Either "advertising" should be considered a "free speech" issue from the point of view of the broadcaster -- that they have the "free speech" to allow/disallow whatever ads they want -- whether because of vulgarity, quality, competition, political alignment, whatever they want, including charging different ads different rates if they so choose. Or we consider advertising space a "free speech" issue from the point of view of advertisers, that any and all advertising on TV, cable, newspapers, magazines, etc. should be equally available to the highest bidder. Thus a newspaper should not be able to discriminate against an advertiser because of vulgarity, competition, quality, brand alignment, etc. It's actually a really thorny issue because there are really good arguments on both sides.
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    There are regulations that exist for public broadcasts that do not apply to cable.
    - crazygringo 7y ago
      Yes they are here: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#BUSINESS https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#BUSI... But they explicitly state broadcasters can mostly choose as they like: > Except for the requirements concerning political advertisements, the limits on the number of commercials that can be aired during children’s programming and the prohibition of advertisements over noncommercial educational stations, the Commission does not regulate a licensee’s business practices, such as its advertising rates or its profits. Rates charged for broadcast time are matters for private negotiation between sponsors and stations. Except for certain classes of political advertisements, STATION LICENSEES HAVE FULL DISCRETION TO ACCEPT OR REJECT ANY ADVERTISING. (all-caps added for emphasis)
  - myrandomcomment 7y ago
    In general I agree. However let us say I own a website that I put ads on. It is my site, I pay for it. Should I have to allow ads for things I disagree with? I am not saying I know the answer here. It would be simpler to say "if you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines". Does this apply to penis pills during kids cartoons? It is not an simpler answer.
    - markdown 7y ago
      > It would be simpler to say "if you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines". Does this apply to penis pills during kids cartoons? It is not an simpler answer. Seems to me it IS a simple answer: "If you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines"
      - 7y ago

dvdhnt 7y ago

> For steaming fine but not on PUBLIC spectrum. I have to call BS on this. I'm paying for the service and the bandwidth. It often goes over public land or utilities, or at least not over pipes owned by Disney, so if the ad is loaded client side, then Disney is SOL and shouldn't have a say in it. That said, ads suck, blah blah and I personally don't care.

myrandomcomment 7y ago
I agree. I have not had TV service for 10+ years. Amazon and Netflix and VPN (from USA) so we can watch BBC. Dear BBC if you read this - allow non-UK to pay the TV license even at 4x the cost. You will sell it.
- xfour 7y ago
  Shhh... don’t force us back to piracy iPlayer is nice.
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    Oh trust me they know, but their rockstar Red Hat infrastructure can take it! (and I believe there are legal complications in the UK for them to sell that otherwise public TV access abroad)

scarface74 7y ago

The article even said that it is not abnormal for networks to not allow rival networks to advertise on their channel if they specify a time. ABC pays for the right to rent the airways and do with it as they please within certain parameters. When you rent an apartment don’t you have the expectation of being allowed to do what you want within your apartment within certain constraints? It wouldn’t really hurt Disney that much if they couldn’t reach the relatively few people who watch TV over an antennae.