Replies

Good look in the mirror for bad logic. With your logic why should cable companies pay to carry over the air content.. it’s free... and the cable company sells it to its subscribers. IMHO, your arguments are filled with fallacies.

You might want to look at the history of cable tv..(it started as a common antenna service in bad/ no reception areas..and the cable company payed no fee for the OTA broadcast they pulled in).

Then when cable companies started in a good OTA coverage area..the cable company were required (must carry) to include the OTA in the area on the cable..but then still no charge to the cable company by the OTA

Its only with "retransmission consent" in the 1992 CATV Consumer Protection and Competition Act, that and OTA broadcaster could charge a cable company and so therefor block it by charging more then the cable company was willing to pay..

But oddely if the OTA did not charge the cable company then the cable must carry the OTA....odd... and the cable companies and consumers have been fight that for years paying for "free" OTA broadcast

But this is still individual broadcaster..if your an OTA broadcaster in the area, cable must carry you unless the OTA wants to charge for it..

So and OTA can not put a cable company out of business..

It can only ask for a fee for a cable company to carry.. so if the cable if it does not carry because the ota wants a fee..>p>Then the Cable and OTA are in competition for your viewing and business...

One cannot go into court and put the other out of business. .

So what happen to day is the equal of an OTA broadcaster making cable tv illegal technology in the US ..

vs

you just have to put in a notch filter to filter out my broadcast if i request it

You also see the irony of posting on this copyright thread from a Business Insider story reposted on Free Republic?... See LA Time vs Free Republic...