Cable Broadcasting fees. I dont get it.

[CoolBreeze]

Last night during the Oscars (which I could give a crap about) the cable system in NYC went blank due to issues concerning negotiations with ABC television. It came back on about 20 minutes later. This same tactic has been used locally by Sinclair Broadcasting in the re transmission of WCHS TV and probably Fox 11 in the past.

Here's my question:

Let's say your signal covers 500,000 people. You base your ad price both on your coverage, and of course your ratings. A Cable company (or especially a satellite company) comes along and now your coverage is expanded to 1 million. Shouldn't your ads reflect that fact? Shouldn't your ad prices reflect the fact that now you cover twice as many people, and so you can charge a little more? Isn't that to YOUR benifit? Shouldn't you if ANYthing have to pay the Cable company a little kick-back? So why is it the other way around??

If I were the cable and satellite companies, I'd cut off any local station that demanded money and tell their customers (especially on the fringes) to haul an antenna to the top of their hill just like they did back in the old days... while providing all the Cable shows only. I mean... the Networks were built around commercial revenue and if there were no Cable companies, they would still survive.. no? Has that changed somehow? Yes, I know that the Cable TV shows are not "over the air" and in the past have been paid for. But now, they run more commercials than the Broadcasters, and they too should have to PAY, and not BE paid. In my opinion, the ONLY shows that I'd be willing to pay for are those that run commercial free, like the Independent Film Channel and Turner Classic Movies for instance. Hell.. I'd pay for damned near ANYTHING that was commercial free when it comes to TV.

Here's what I DO know: Any fee charged to the Cable company is not PAID by the Cable company. It's paid by ME as a customer. (which is why I'm on satellite at a much cheaper rate because I refuse to pay for local broadcasting and use an antenna for that purpose)

So... what am I missing here in the big picture?

[Big Media]

It is actually very simple, Cool. Cable companies are in cut-throat competition with satellite providers, free over-the-air terrestrial broadcasters, mobile video providers, the Internet, and several other entertainment sources that are now available to you.

If I have a choice between Suddenlink, DirecTV, Dish Network, just to name a few, the provider I am NOT choosing is the one who does not have FOX, ABC, CBS, and the like, in their channel line-up. Further, I am NOT choosing the provider who does not have FOX, ABC, CBS, and the like, available in HD. Television stations know this and believe they can charge whatever they wish for their programming. They know a major system is NOT going to let the channel drop because they would lose subscribers quicker than Halburn can pounce on a stray piece of fried chicken.

Having said all of that, I believe that any transmission that is made freely available to anyone with an antenna and a television set, should be freely available to any cable system who wishes to add that channel to their cable line-up.

[CoolBreeze]

I think that "one" of the reasons people are leaving Cable is because of the higher rates than typical satellite. And "one" of the reasons they're higher is because they have to often pay for over the air broadcasts, when in fact THAT'S ONLY HELPING THE BROADCASTER. Something's wrong with this. Of course, satellite charges also, but at least YOU can elect to have it or not.

As far as the alphabet channels... I now get 10 crystal clear channels on an antenna. Not saying everyone can, but damned if I wouldn't at least try. Funny thing is, probably one third of the people watching TV today wouldn't know what a TV antenna was if if fell on their heads... and have NO idea that they can pick up TV for free on them.