1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why pay for cable when you can get it for free?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Stitch, Aug 13, 2010.

  1. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Charter threatened to turn off the cable for residents of a HUD apartment complex in Kalamazoo, Mi., because too many people kept stealing cable. Charter will get $50k from the government to better secure the outside cable boxes.

    Not much of a surprise since I've seen complexes where coax is strung between the back windows of different apartments. I've even seen extension cords passed through because power was shut off.

  2. NoOneLikesUs

    NoOneLikesUs Active Member

    $50K in taypayer money to secure coax access? YGFKM.

    In any case, once again our government bends over backwards to protect corporate profits.
  3. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Seems to me the government was bending over backwards to protect people's right to cable TV?
  4. NoOneLikesUs

    NoOneLikesUs Active Member

    Which they should in this case because OTA is probably not strong enough to give a good signal in a place like that. BUT...the government should have said "You'll provide cable for these people and use your own damn money to secure it."
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    I know that's the direction the country is going, but there's no way the government should be able to force a private company to serve people in a non-essential field.
  6. Hank_Scorpio

    Hank_Scorpio Active Member

    Agree completely, Rick.
  7. Oscar Gamble

    Oscar Gamble New Member

    It's the norm for the cable business and has been for many years. Cable TV companies must negotiate a license with each community. In many communities they have exclusive cable rights. Sure you can sign up with DirecTV, DishTV or rely on over-the-air TV signals, but if your community has an exclusive cable agreement with say Comcast, you can't sign with AT&T U-verse or any other cable company.

    Most communities (including the one I live in and probably yours too) require the cable TV licensee to provide free service to the local government buildings. Public schools, park district facilities, village hall, police and fire buildings, etc. don't pay a dime for their access to cable and TV. Your local public access cable channels are also a requirement to the cable TV company as part of their licensing agreement. The license also requires the cable company to collect the local/state/federal taxes/franchise fees on your cable bill and forward them to those agencies.
  8. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    If the cable company negotiates it as part of the licensing process, that's not forcing them, that's just negotiating an agreement.
  9. NoOneLikesUs

    NoOneLikesUs Active Member

    In the case that a building or a section of community isn't served by OTA TV, don't cable companies (if they operate in that area) have to serve those people by law? Not for free, of course, but with a minimal fee?
  10. Shoeless Joe

    Shoeless Joe Active Member

    I can't see where a cable company has to provide anything for free. Cable TV is not a right.

    If you live in government house you should be spending your time out looking for work and not sitting around watching your new flat screen anyway.
  11. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    I'm betting a good number of SportsJournalists.com members qualify for HUD housing. I know I do and I make more than many of the job openings posted here.
  12. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Hey, that $50K created 25,000 jobs.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page