5 ms·

So, basically, the entire broadcast television industry is built on a wishy-washy technicality in a court ruling, that's just begging to be hacked?

dsr_ 14y ago
No, the cable industry is built on the technicality. Broadcasters have the right to negotiate with cable companies for carriage. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-carriage-broadcast-stations http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-carriage-broadcast-stations They either have the right to demand that they be carried (in which case it is for free) or to demand that they be compensated (in which case the cable company does not have to carry them). Every three years they get to re-decide. Without either the must-carry notification or the negotiated contract, cable companies can't carry them.
- sjs382 14y ago
  Where can I learn more about the first scenario that you mention? (demanding that cable companies carry your broadcast) What are the limits on this? Can an individual set up a low powered broadcast station and force the cable company to carry it?
  - VLM 14y ago
    You would have to be a rather rich individual in an unusual locale to license a new TV station in an area developed enough to have a cable company, but undeveloped enough to convince the FCC to issue the license without interference with existing stations. This is not a "new tech startup" model, at least not now. The goldrush was over about a quarter century ago.
  - dsr_ 14y ago
    See the comment below about rarity for individuals, but note that basically every town or city has the power to write a similar compulsion to force a cable company to carry a community access station as a price for operation. If all you want is to get some airtime for a non-commercial message, you can probably go to a community access channel for free.
rayiner 14y ago
It's not really a technicality. The business model is such: 1) The broadcast networks distribute content freely over the airwaves. 2) The broadcast networks also sell that content to cable networks who then retransmit it. Forget the law. Is it reasonable for the cable networks to just capture the over-the-air stream and retransmit? I think you can argue both sides. On one hand, there is a public benefit to free over the air TV, but that specific benefit is not served when a for-profit cable provider retransmits that content to paying cable customers. On the other hand, how do you distinguish in a principled way the spectrum between an individual receiving the content with his antenna and what Time Warner Cable might do, with services like Aereo in the middle? I know we're all about advertising these days, but it's not an unreasonable business model to produce content, then sell that content to distributors who in turn distribute it to paying customers. It might, however, be unreasonable to be able to expect to do this while also cashing in on advertising revenue by freely broadcasting that same content over the air.
- larrys 14y ago
  "On the other hand, how do you distinguish in a principled way the spectrum between an individual receiving the content with his antenna and what Time Warner Cable might do, with services like Aereo in the middle?" Isn't this a bit like asking why I can read something from a particular website online for free but someone can't take that free content and have me read it in it's entirety on another website? (Or am I misunderstanding the point you are making?) One point though regardless that matters is that is that if I have a service that I charge money for and I use your product to provide value to my customers (even for free) shouldn't you be compensated for that even if those customers could have gotten the same content another way?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > Isn't this a bit like asking why I can read something from a particular website online for free but someone can't take that free content and have me read it in it's entirety on another website? (Or am I misunderstanding the point you are making?) It's a lot like that, except with the angle of: what does that mean for a company like Aereo, which ostensibly just offers you a "really big antenna" to watch the broadcasters' content? The problem seems to be that you (some people) want to give some leeway to companies like Aereo to do space shifting of broadcast content, without having to say "okay cable providers, you don't have to pay for anything you can capture on the air."

dsr_ 14y ago

No, the cable industry is built on the technicality. Broadcasters have the right to negotiate with cable companies for carriage. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-carriage-broadcast-stations http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-carriage-broadcast-stations They either have the right to demand that they be carried (in which case it is for free) or to demand that they be compensated (in which case the cable company does not have to carry them). Every three years they get to re-decide. Without either the must-carry notification or the negotiated contract, cable companies can't carry them.

sjs382 14y ago
Where can I learn more about the first scenario that you mention? (demanding that cable companies carry your broadcast) What are the limits on this? Can an individual set up a low powered broadcast station and force the cable company to carry it?
- VLM 14y ago
  You would have to be a rather rich individual in an unusual locale to license a new TV station in an area developed enough to have a cable company, but undeveloped enough to convince the FCC to issue the license without interference with existing stations. This is not a "new tech startup" model, at least not now. The goldrush was over about a quarter century ago.
- dsr_ 14y ago
  See the comment below about rarity for individuals, but note that basically every town or city has the power to write a similar compulsion to force a cable company to carry a community access station as a price for operation. If all you want is to get some airtime for a non-commercial message, you can probably go to a community access channel for free.

rayiner 14y ago

It's not really a technicality. The business model is such: 1) The broadcast networks distribute content freely over the airwaves. 2) The broadcast networks also sell that content to cable networks who then retransmit it. Forget the law. Is it reasonable for the cable networks to just capture the over-the-air stream and retransmit? I think you can argue both sides. On one hand, there is a public benefit to free over the air TV, but that specific benefit is not served when a for-profit cable provider retransmits that content to paying cable customers. On the other hand, how do you distinguish in a principled way the spectrum between an individual receiving the content with his antenna and what Time Warner Cable might do, with services like Aereo in the middle? I know we're all about advertising these days, but it's not an unreasonable business model to produce content, then sell that content to distributors who in turn distribute it to paying customers. It might, however, be unreasonable to be able to expect to do this while also cashing in on advertising revenue by freely broadcasting that same content over the air.

larrys 14y ago
"On the other hand, how do you distinguish in a principled way the spectrum between an individual receiving the content with his antenna and what Time Warner Cable might do, with services like Aereo in the middle?" Isn't this a bit like asking why I can read something from a particular website online for free but someone can't take that free content and have me read it in it's entirety on another website? (Or am I misunderstanding the point you are making?) One point though regardless that matters is that is that if I have a service that I charge money for and I use your product to provide value to my customers (even for free) shouldn't you be compensated for that even if those customers could have gotten the same content another way?
- rayiner 14y ago
  > Isn't this a bit like asking why I can read something from a particular website online for free but someone can't take that free content and have me read it in it's entirety on another website? (Or am I misunderstanding the point you are making?) It's a lot like that, except with the angle of: what does that mean for a company like Aereo, which ostensibly just offers you a "really big antenna" to watch the broadcasters' content? The problem seems to be that you (some people) want to give some leeway to companies like Aereo to do space shifting of broadcast content, without having to say "okay cable providers, you don't have to pay for anything you can capture on the air."