Comments on: Congressmen Ask FCC To Make Sure Viewers Can Watch Alabama Football Game

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:32:46 +0000

Can people be removed from office based on stupidity? Last I checked the AL job market and economy wasn’t looking to healthy. But hay, at least they have the citizens BEST interests in mind.

By: JW

JW — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:17:01 +0000

Cassandra, more than likely the congressman all went to BAMA. RTR!!!!

By: SW

SW — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:10:01 +0000

First, Congress stay out of this private contract negotiation; you’re too busy messing things up and interfering with our lives, anyway. This has no Constitutional issue-I would venture to step out and say that the government has not right to interfere with anything over the air, but that’s me.

Second, if Mediacom and WEAR don’t get it together, how many ways can one watch or listen to the game? 1) satellite, 2) outside antenna, 3) radio, 4) online? I’ve seen the WEAR commercial and they are taking every opportunity to put Mediacom behind the 8-ball on this.

What difference does it make to those in the north end of the county, most don’t have cable anyway after Ivan. Either it’s antenna or satellite, anyway.

Do we really need the government to interfere here? Are we so helpless that we need their help over a football game? I am as big a fan as anyone, but this government day-to-day interference foolishness has got to stop.

By: Bryan Bethea

Bryan Bethea — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:50:03 +0000

Sinclair pays affiliation fees to ABC, that is true. What is also true is that broadcasters like Sinclair are using public airwaves which they did not pay for (at all, ever) to make a profit while holding cable and satellite providers hostage.

The FCC mandates that certain channels are “must carry” channels. WEAR would fall into that category. Sinclair is using the “must carry” status of WEAR to extort additional revenue from Mediacom and other service providers, which really means they are extorting the money from consumers. I have no doubt that Mediacom will pass along increases in fees paid to Sinclair directly to their customers.

Broadcast regulations need to be overhauled desperately. First of all, television stations who broadcast over the public airwaves should no longer be able to do so for free unless they are truly non-profit in nature (public television and religious broadcasters). Wireless phone providers had to pay billions of dollars for their spectrum allocations so why should television and radio broadcasters be any different? Secondly, the “must carry” provisions should be removed for all stations. In this day and age it is not necessary to force cable and satellite providers to carry a station’s signal. Consumers have a myriad of choices for obtaining local news and information (this site is a perfect example of one of those choices!) Fees collected from broadcasters for the use of public spectrum would be used to enhance the Universal Service Fund, which in turn could be used to extend the reach of broadband further into rural areas.

The future of broadcasting is online and is not the legacy “network” scenario of 20+ years ago. Sinclair would be wise to realize this before they go the way of the dinosaurs.

By the way, my opinions expressed on this site are mine alone and not necessarily those of my employer.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:57:16 +0000

A-MEN………..to Casandra Cufr.., her statement says it all…………………………

By: Walt

Walt — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:57:07 +0000

If someone wants to watch the game, they will find a way to watch it. My antenna and converter box work fine, with no monthly bill. Sinclair pays ABC for the right to broadcast their programing. If the price set by Sinclair is agreeable to ABC, then its their right to charge it. It is no business of Congress, they definitely have bigger issues to deal with.

By: Angi

Angi — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:04:57 +0000

I know there are going to be alot of upset people, if they don’t get to watch the big BAMA game… Thank goodness I don’t have mediacom!!!

By: Bryan Bethea

Bryan Bethea — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:55:14 +0000

Sinclair Broadcasting is playing a very dangerous game. They do not own any content, they simply control access to ABC programming in the Pensacola-Mobile area. Sinclair needs to wake up and realize that if people can’t see ABC programs on television there are definitely other alternatives like watching online. I am employed in the cable industry and it makes me sick to see greedy companies like Sinclair hold people’s television viewing hostage so they can make a quick buck. Typically rebroadcast negotiations between cable companies (or satellite) and the station owners go quickly and smoothly. For some reason Sinclair is going rogue and demanding exorbitant fees (and they have been doing it for years). As the article stated, this has happened before with Sinclair.

My suggestion to Mediacom is to drop WEAR altogether. If people want to see WEAR they can switch to the over-the-air broadcast. When that happens Sinclair gets ZERO in retransmission fees.

By: stephen

stephen — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:24:15 +0000

this may be the only positive that comes out of congress so let them try.

By: Casandra Cufr

Casandra Cufr — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:01:27 +0000

Since when is watching college football on T.V. a constitutional right??? Don’t Alabama’s congressmen have more important work to do?