home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!strnlght
- From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
- Newsgroups: misc.consumers
- Subject: Re: Cable Bill Rip-off
- Message-ID: <1992Oct9.173138.10568@netcom.com>
- Date: 9 Oct 92 17:31:38 GMT
- Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct9.173138.10568
- References: <1992Oct6.193710.195@sdg.dra.com> <1992Oct8.180337.6562@netcom.com> <1992Oct8.220139.199@sdg.dra.com>
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- Lines: 24
-
-
- I'm at a loss to understand Sean Donelan's latest response.
-
- First, he speaks of cable operators taping broadcasts and sending them
- around the country. That has not been an issue in this discussion;
- we're talking about carrying the unedited existing signal, ads and all,
- over the cable in real-time.
-
- Second, he speaks of "charging" for watching those programs. I think this
- an extremely weak reed to hand an argument on as long as the signal is
- carried on the basic cable service. One may argue that basic cable charges
- are equipment charges, not signal charges, and that the cable should no
- more have to pay for carrying this than the seller of a radio or TV should.
-
- Third he claims that if one acquires a broadcast license one has to
- pay for programs. Maybe so, but if those programs come with pre-packaged
- ads, doesn't one pay little, nothing, or perhaps receive money for
- carrying them? doesn't one have the right to insert one's own ads? In
- the cable case there are no inserted ads, nor is there any payment
- to the cable company for carrying the ads the broadcaster is including.
- Note that the broadcaster has already been paid for the cable audience
- in his ad rates, which are based on viewership.
-
- David
-