Bill to end carriage disputes

So what incentive does the buyer have to negotiate fairly if the seller can not withhold his product?

If the price has been going up too fast in the past, why did the buyers not refuse to pay? Because their customers gripe about temporary loss of local TV.

While a local TV station might be a valuable product (when sold) it is not highly profitable, especially on small markets which most of them are.

I'm in the camp that believes the FCC made a mistake when it buckled to the NAB and allowed stations to charge distributors for their FTA product.

It should have been must carry across the board and the distributor (cable or satellite) pays for all the acquisition and distribution costs and passes that on to us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yelraek and osu1991
Since the bill hasn't been initiated yet, there probably isn't a number yet.
 
Thanks. Hopefully once there is a bill number someone can post it here so we can contact our congresspersons with our support.
 
Anyone have the bill number? It's good to include the bill number when writing or calling your congressperson.
I'd say it's good to read the bill before writing or calling your congressperson. What if the bill says "MVPDs must accept whatever price broadcasters offer"? If they do that, there's no dispute, and therefore no take downs.

No, I'm not saying that should happen, just don't jump on a bandwagon without at least a decent idea of the details.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)