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.:confused:

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.

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?

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.

Political TV ads? Isn't that why there is a mute button on the remote?

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.:p

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.;)

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.

Well, yes and no. Satellite TV uses spectrum. Also, spectrum has been given a new lease on life with over-the-air HDTV and HD radio, especially radio. As I said before, however, I'm beginning to wonder whether bandwidth ought to be viewed in the same way as spectrum. That would cover cable but it would also cover the internet and I'm not sure how that would shake out.

John

[QUOTE=bobabode;111706]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.

QUOTE]

So my memory is faulty is what you are saying?

Spectrum is an integral part of cable TV service. Cable is transmitted from the programmers, like HBO or your local TV station, to the cable companies via microwave transmission. It's only after that point that copper or fiber optic enters the picture.

John

Yup. I thought we were talking about the spectrum serving customers, but yes, there's the "other end" as well.

I thought spectrum was already purchased via periodic auctions? Fortunately, technology has allowed this limited resource to move more data/information with decreasing bandwidth.

Broadcast licenses are granted free but with periodic revue. If anyone feels the broadcaster did not provide good service to the public they can lodge a complaint at revue time with the FCC.