Goldenarticles articles

The budding poser of bendable pay-tv - satellite-tv


In last week's column, I argued the virtues (or considerably the lack thereof) of extending affability set of laws to cable and satellite TV. This week, I'll point out just how much of a predicament this would essentially be and how awkward it would be to implement, apart from of the merits.

Regulating cable and satellite TV would not be as clear-cut as it might seem on the surface. Remember, we are conversation about the alteration of inappropriateness which, contrasting obscenity, is secluded by the First Amendment. The complexities of such an undertaking are quite formidable, to say the least. There are numerous key issues that would have to be dealt with and overcome. Like they say, the devil is in the details.

For one thing, Assembly would need to clarify the scope of what is to be regulated. Would it be cable and satellite TV only or all forms of pay-TV?

If Assembly sets out to make conform all forms of pay-TV, the term - "pay-TV" - would have to be with permission defined. Anyway satellite and cable, would it also consist of the new IPTV know-how in which TV channels, programs, and movies are delivered to TV set-top boxes from the internet? Would internet video viewed on a laptop also be included? Or would the lot originating from the internet be inevitably exempt?

Would wireless pay TV air force also be included?

Would videos, whether on loan or purchased, also be definite as a form of pay-TV? One could make a case for them being incorporated since videos, both VHS and DVD, are finally played on a TV.

What about video delivered by cell phone? Couldn't that also be careful a form of pay-TV?

Now, if Assembly decides that the new policy will only apply to cable and satellite TV, there are still problems. Would all channels on every cable and satellite TV coordination be keeping up or would the rules just apply to the so-called "basic" channels. Would the term, "all channels", bring in pay-per-view and video-on-demand (VOD) programs and movies? If so, how would the safe-harbor hours be enforced with VOD, since the subscriber determines when the programs and movies play?

If only the basics are to be included, some clarity would be have to be devised to ascertain the change amid a basic and a premium channel. Would any concentrate that could be purchased as part of a embalm of channels be definite as a basic channel? If so, then most channels we presently think of as premiums would be integrated for the reason that they can be packaged as one with alike channels. For example, HBO is every now and then packaged with channels like Cinemax, Showtime, Starz, or even other multiplexes of HBO.

Or would basics be imperfect those channels accessible in the first tier or two? Since this packaging varies from one cable and satellite classification to the next, how would everybody know which channels are the real basics? Would premiums be narrow to channels that could be subscribed to by yourself at an further price? If that's the case, would a movie theater complex canal like HBO Signature will treated like a basic, since it cannot be subscribed to individually? Also, the channels that one can subscribe to by yourself vary somewhat from one cable and satellite approach to the next, so how would a person know which channels are the real premiums? When equipment like that be at odds from one cable and satellite arrangement to another, would the rules be based on how the bulk of the systems operate? Or would some other approach be used to resolve this matter?

Perhaps the attendance or dearth of commercials could be used to break the basics from the premiums. Under that system, all channels that are advertiser-supported would be painstaking basics and those that are not would be painstaking premiums. However, there are ability evils with this attitude as well. Assembly would have to come up with a characterization for advertiser-supported. Would it be based on the sum of promotion a conduct carries? If so, how much marketing would it have to carry to be with permission careful advertiser-supported? Or maybe it would be based on the quantity of revenue a conduct derives from advertising. If so, what would that threshold be?

Even the term, "advertising", would have to be officially defined. Would effect post found in movies and TV shows be incorporated in the promotion equation? What about promos run for shows on correlated channels? Would those count as ads?

Even when all of that is sorted out, this method still grass us with the conundrum free by channels like Turner Classic Movies, Fox Movie Channel, and the All-embracing Film Channel, which don't carry commercials but are built-in in many basic packages.

Now, high and mighty that all of the issues surrounding the scope of the new policy could be worked out, the penalty issues would then have to be resolved. Who would pay the fines? Concentrate owners? Cable and satellite operators? Performers? All of them?

If internet audio and video are incorporated in the scope of the regulations, would internet advantage providers and/or IPTV operators also have to pay?

If cable and satellite operators have to pay, couldn't large fines potentially limit some less important cable companies' capacity to increase and apply new know-how like high-definition channels?

Then there's the issue of authority revocation. Cable and satellite channels don't have licenses like advertise channels. How could a addicted offender's abandon be revoked if it doesn't have authority to begin with? Or would it just be put out of business? But wouldn't that limit the avenue choices obtainable to cable and satellite customers?

Could cable and satellite operators be put out of business? Wouldn't that leave colonize in some areas with no cable franchise? Wouldn't it squash battle for cable assistance in areas that presently have it? Would the FCC in reality shut down Directv and/or Dish Association and render thousands of garden dishes worthless?

As you can see, there is a mountain of dense questions that would have to be answered beforehand the civility adjustment of pay-TV could befall a reality. Obviously, there would be lots of i's to dot and t's to cross. As this legislation is being considered, lawyers all the way through the Funds area are before now hammering their chops!

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, self-employed writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a following contributor for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www. commenterry. com - on which he posts commentaries on a number of subjects such as politics, technology, religion, fitness and well-being, not public finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a inimitable point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.


Viva DISH Vegas: Southern Nevada To Get Its 5G First  Radio & Television Business Report

Pemra bans TLP coverage  Big News Network

Cord cutting has grown since 2015  Pew Research Center

Developed by:
home | site map © 2021