|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
07-09-2012, 05:24 PM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,222
|
|
Want some advertising space? Sorry sold out till Nov.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...in?ft=1&f=1001
Since this limited public resource is being saturated it seems about time to take back the airwaves from these commercial entities and rethink this corporate welfare giveaway scheme. It's like the old free range cattlemen vs. the cattle barons is one analogy. Edumacate me if you would.
|
07-09-2012, 05:32 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,908
|
|
I don't understand how you feel that the networks are a public resource. The spectrum they need is public and has been bought and paid for. Moreover, most people don't get broadcast TV anyway, in favor of cable/disk/FIOS. The laws of supply and demand are in play here and that's OK with me. I ignore all commercials, including (or perhaps particularly) political ones. Besides, the more expensive it is to run political ads, the fewer they will run. That's a good thing IMHO.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
07-09-2012, 06:49 PM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,222
|
|
Now that you've mentioned it the network in my area (Time Warner) was promised to the public as an infrastructure improvement The deal allowed these companies exclusive useage for a period of time to recoup their investment in cabling, switching - etc. I hope that answers your question about where I get my outlandish ideas about who is in charge of the "networks." CableTV was being sold that way in Maryland too IIRC. It was seven or so years out here then it was leased out to the highest bidder. Bear with me Pat as the next paragraph outlines my understanding of these things work.
My view on the subject was focused on the broadcast spectrum being a public resource that was leased with conditions favorable to the citizens. Plenty of situations where a public resource that was getting overburdened needing a new set of rules imposed on the middlemen and the end user themselves. Water is a good example.
|
07-10-2012, 03:27 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,261
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode
Now that you've mentioned it the network in my area (Time Warner) was promised to the public as an infrastructure improvement The deal allowed these companies exclusive useage for a period of time to recoup their investment in cabling, switching - etc. I hope that answers your question about where I get my outlandish ideas about who is in charge of the "networks." CableTV was being sold that way in Maryland too IIRC. It was seven or so years out here then it was leased out to the highest bidder. Bear with me Pat as the next paragraph outlines my understanding of these things work.
My view on the subject was focused on the broadcast spectrum being a public resource that was leased with conditions favorable to the citizens. Plenty of situations where a public resource that was getting overburdened needing a new set of rules imposed on the middlemen and the end user themselves. Water is a good example.
|
I just see supply and demand in the article working the way it ought to work. If you do not like Time Warner you can have DISH, Directv, or better yet, books and music. You can't really want a government run cable service, or worse, government controlled communication networks?
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
|
07-10-2012, 09:07 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: San Diego via Vermilion Ohio and Points Between
Posts: 11,538
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Besides, the more expensive it is to run political ads, the fewer they will run. That's a good thing IMHO.
|
Well they are expensive because the demand for airspace is so high from both political parties in this election...they are not expensive because of network gouging. In other words the popularity of this year's election and the intensity of the supporters on each side is why the commercials are expensive. I think that overall is a good thing. Like Bhunter says if you do not like them just turn them off. Although I do not like what Citizen's United has done for the the campaign process I consider all commercials free speech, and one should be savvy enought to discern each candidates message and intent.
__________________
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
|
07-10-2012, 09:57 AM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Political TV ads? Isn't that why there is a mute button on the remote?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
07-10-2012, 10:09 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
You can't really want a government run cable service, or worse, government controlled communication networks?
|
I don't and I don't think boba was saying that he did. What I would like to see is these media companies paying for spectrum. As I see it, our airwaves are a part of the commons, just like our public lands. I think it's just as wrong for Congress to give it away for commercial exploitation as it would be for them to give away logging or mineral rights on public lands. (I know. they pretty much do that now.) I'm not there yet but I'm close to considering bandwidth in the same light as I do spectrum.
John
|
07-10-2012, 10:30 AM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,222
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
I don't and I don't think boba was saying that he did. What I would like to see is these media companies paying for spectrum. As I see it, our airwaves are a part of the commons, just like our public lands. I think it's just as wrong for Congress to give it away for commercial exploitation as it would be for them to give away logging or mineral rights on public lands. (I know. they pretty much do that now.) I'm not there yet but I'm close to considering bandwidth in the same light as I do spectrum.
John
|
Thanks John, That is where I am with it. Time to renegotiate the rates for using it up. I've become a big fan of the DVR. I record and fast forward through the commercials. Easy peasy. I don't give a fig what the content is, let the marketplace of ideas hash out who's full of shit and who's slightly less full of it.
I may just go with Dish because they have the Hopper and they have a little program that will delete adverts. Holy grail if you ask me cause if I see that little douchebag with a spear saying, "Pizza, pizza" again I'm going to pull an Elvis on my TV.
I've got to wonder what it's like in the swing states these days? Instead of 38 minutes of content per hour it's probably going to take a mini-series spread over three nights to show "60 minutes" soon.
|
07-10-2012, 10:39 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,908
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
I don't and I don't think boba was saying that he did. What I would like to see is these media companies paying for spectrum. As I see it, our airwaves are a part of the commons, just like our public lands. I think it's just as wrong for Congress to give it away for commercial exploitation as it would be for them to give away logging or mineral rights on public lands. (I know. they pretty much do that now.) I'm not there yet but I'm close to considering bandwidth in the same light as I do spectrum.
John
|
Doesn't the idea of spectrum become irrelevant with cable?
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
07-10-2012, 11:03 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Doesn't the idea of spectrum become irrelevant with cable?
|
It's becoming less relevant all the time. Spectrum is not required with cable, except to the extent that they rebroadcast the local channels - and I believe they pay a fee to do so. Otherwise they own the cable lines and network hubs and facilities for transmission of the signal, and pay for the content that they deliver.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 PM.
|