Comments on: Must-carry Won’t-Happen: Newbie FCC Member Says “No” to Martin

By: Robert Hay

Robert Hay — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:14:02 +0000

Some people have no concept of “what the people want”. I for one want my cable company to provide local digital channels in the clear. About 80% of what I watch is on a local channel, but I still want the variety offered by cable networks. It’s unfair to me the consumer to pay for cable and still be forced to maintain over the air antenna reception to get the local digital and HD broadcasts. None of this has anything to do with cable companies not having enough bandwidth to carry all local stations (analog and digital). They have tons of space filled with garbage that very few people want. What is this about? It’s about maximizing the cable company profits. They need all that space so they can soak the public for more and more premium packages.

By: Robert Hay

Robert Hay — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:14:02 +0000

By: Roy E. Huwa

Roy E. Huwa — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:52:27 +0000

As a former Chief Engineer of a TV station recently taken over by an owner corporation that fought to remove its stations from cable until the cable carriers agreed to pay a fee for retransmittal rights, and the ugly battle that ensued (my reason for leaving the industry), I have no doubts in my mind that giving the broadcasters an inch in gaining a leverage over the cable carriers in in the dis-interest of the viewers. They have the licensed use of the airways, leave the transmission rights of the cable companies alone and unobstructed by greater and more restrictive regulations against free market enterprise. People pay for what they want, don’t force cable companies to deliver what the payee does not want.

By: Roy E. Huwa

Roy E. Huwa — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:52:27 +0000

By: James Gattuso

James Gattuso — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:17:09 +0000

Braden — my understanding is that they are pushing for public interest requirements to be placed on broadcasters in return for must-carry. (After all, two mandates are better than one…)

By: James Gattuso

James Gattuso — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:17:09 +0000

Braden — my understanding is that they are pushing for public interest requirements to be placed on broadcasters in return for must-carry. (After all, two mandates are better than one…)

By: bradencox

bradencox — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:43:04 +0000

Would this include must carry of public broadcasting channels too or this a separate issue? I’m trying to figure out why Copps and Adelstein are not onboard here.

By: Braden

Braden — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:43:04 +0000

Would this include must carry of public broadcasting channels too or this a separate issue? I’m trying to figure out why Copps and Adelstein are not onboard here.

By: James Gattuso

James Gattuso — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:35:41 +0000

Yes, I believe so — there’s a difference between must-carry for one channel, which the Court said was justifiable to protect diversity of programming, and must-carry for multiple new channels of programming from the same broadcasters. In any case, given the changes in the television industry since the Turner cases, the rationale for any must-carry rules could be revisited.

By: Randy Picker

Randy Picker — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:19:28 +0000

Do you think that the multi-cast must-carry rules pose different First Amendment issues than the prior must-carry rules blessed by the Supreme Court in Turner II?

By: James Gattuso

James Gattuso — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:35:41 +0000

By: Randy Picker

Randy Picker — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:19:28 +0000

Do you think that the multi-cast must-carry rules pose different First Amendment issues than the prior must-carry rules blessed by the Supreme Court in Turner II?