3 ms·

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 b

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"
    - scarface74 7y ago
      What if someone wanted to run an ad against vaccinations? Or the post very ad that you quoted - should Disney be forced to advertise penis enlargement ads during a children’s show?
      - markdown 7y ago
        "that does not violate public guidelines" Set guidelines.
        scarface74 7y ago
        So can one of those guidelines be “we don’t advertise streaming services”? Who gets to set those guidelines? Do you want the government deciding everything that can and cannot be advertised?
        markdown 7y ago
        > Do you want the government deciding everything that can and cannot be advertised? Yes, that's the ideal way to do it in a democracy, isn't it? The will of the people should prevail.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  Not taking into account market power and anti competitive behavior is a mistake. This is about something other than speech -- the right for firms to compete with each other on a level playing field. When these types of actions are allowed, our economic system deteriorates. But regulatory capture is so strong in the US that Disney and many others will skate by.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  The public airwaves have slightly modified free speech constraints because they are a finite commodity. If a station chose to, for example, just broadcast white noise, the FCC can yank their license and give it to someone broadcasting content.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    And for the past two decades, the amount of viewing that has been done over the public airways has been declining precipitously. There are more ways to advertise than the networks.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  As presented, this isn’t a thorny issue. Forcing a company to run any ad based on nothing more than who pays the most money is not only a terrible idea, but effectively compelled speech. “Free speech” doesn’t include a guarantee that someone will publish it for you. It just means no one can stop you from publishing it. The public airwaves argument is the only argument that makes any sense at all, but it’s a weak one in my opinion; and that’s now how it currently works in practice.

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"
  - scarface74 7y ago
    What if someone wanted to run an ad against vaccinations? Or the post very ad that you quoted - should Disney be forced to advertise penis enlargement ads during a children’s show?
    - markdown 7y ago
      "that does not violate public guidelines" Set guidelines.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So can one of those guidelines be “we don’t advertise streaming services”? Who gets to set those guidelines? Do you want the government deciding everything that can and cannot be advertised?
        markdown 7y ago
        > Do you want the government deciding everything that can and cannot be advertised? Yes, that's the ideal way to do it in a democracy, isn't it? The will of the people should prevail.
CameronNemo 7y ago
Not taking into account market power and anti competitive behavior is a mistake. This is about something other than speech -- the right for firms to compete with each other on a level playing field. When these types of actions are allowed, our economic system deteriorates. But regulatory capture is so strong in the US that Disney and many others will skate by.
shadowgovt 7y ago
The public airwaves have slightly modified free speech constraints because they are a finite commodity. If a station chose to, for example, just broadcast white noise, the FCC can yank their license and give it to someone broadcasting content.
- scarface74 7y ago
  And for the past two decades, the amount of viewing that has been done over the public airways has been declining precipitously. There are more ways to advertise than the networks.
cgriswald 7y ago
As presented, this isn’t a thorny issue. Forcing a company to run any ad based on nothing more than who pays the most money is not only a terrible idea, but effectively compelled speech. “Free speech” doesn’t include a guarantee that someone will publish it for you. It just means no one can stop you from publishing it. The public airwaves argument is the only argument that makes any sense at all, but it’s a weak one in my opinion; and that’s now how it currently works in practice.