KeepMyTV.org

[jbrelish]

I think the ad is misleading. They are trying to frighten people into taking their side of the issue.

Common practice in government and business these days.

 

[sam_gordon]

True, but how many choose must carry over holding hostage negotiating for carriage and fees? You are correct when you say don't end must carry, the system would be better if it was only must carry. Carrier should have the choice, carry all from a market or none. (As it is now) (If the only Carrier available in an area then they must carry them) But there are no fees, the provider can pass along costs to carry them to the consumer. (Again much like now) But only the actual cost. No one makes any real money on it.

I agree with you in theory. However, who would regulate to make sure only the "actual costs" are passed along? Like any business, you're going to have capitol expenditures (equipment, installation) and operating expenditures (electric, fiber/satellite leases, rent, etc). Both of those categories will vary based on where in the country you are (labor will cost more in NY or LA than it does Omaha). So does that mean a customer in Omaha pays less than the customer in NY? What happens after the capitol expenditures are paid off? Do customers in that market see a decrease in their bills?

Rare that I would ever say that, I get on people for expecting things to be free but this is a different business. Those locals are meant to be free. Both the Networks and the Carrier gain by them being on the Satellite or Cable system. And since the Networks already have a monopoly in a given Market it's even more insulting that fees are now going up and up that we must pay.

Regarding the bolded, you can say the same thing about ANY cable channel. If cable and satellite all went away tomorrow, how many people would be able to watch OTA? Under the same hypothesis, how many people would be able to watch USA, ESPN, MTV, History, Disney, etc, etc, etc). The answer to latter is 0.