From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Cable Bill Rip-off
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:12:51 CDT
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO

In article <1992Oct7.175334.6468@walter.bellcore.com>, venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
> The "promotional" samples of magazines are quite small in number compared to 
> the total circulation and is designed to *increase* the paid circulation. 
> If someone were to give away copies of TIME free, it would decrease the *paid* 
> circulation of TIME. That is the bottom-line, not whether something is 
> copyrighted. If someone else distributing free copies of TIME would bring more 
> money to Time-Warner, they would allow it. 

Several of the "free" magazines I get have essentially NO paid circulation.
But they still retain their copyright.  They can, and do go after people who
infringes on their copyright.  See what NetworkWorld's reaction is if you start
handing out copies of one of their reviews of a product at a booth at a trade
show without paying them even if they originally didn't charge you for the
magazine.  They won't be happy campers, even you claim that you are "helping"
them by giving them more exposure.


> Broadcast stations have *no* paid subscribers. Cable systems carrying their 
> signals acts to *increase* their only source of revenue - advertising. For 
> any broadcast station, if the circumstances are such that their existence 
> on cable is going to make more money for the cable company than for the 
> station, they have the option to charge the cable station. The cable station 
> then has the option of refusing to carry them if the subscription rates don't
> justify it. Seems fair to me.

The cable bill just passed now allows that.  Previously a broadcast station
couldn't prevent a cable system from retransmitting their signal.

Unlike broadcast stations who are network affiliates and fund network
programming, cable companies could take the broadcast signals to unserved
areas without paying the networks.  Of course, this tends to eliminate any
incentive for someone to start a network broadcast station (paying network
fees) to serve the same area.
 
Advertising is not a broadcast stations only source of revenue (PBS stations
have it even worse since they don't even get that).  Several stations produce
their own programs, and sell them to other stations. Every local station
dreams that they will syndicate the next Oprah.  Just because a station
broadcasts a program doesn't mean you can take it and sell copies of
it.  That tends to kill the syndication market.

Finally broadcast stations collect advertising fees from companies to reach a
certain audience.  A local advertiser doesn't care if people 2,000 miles
away see his commercial for pizza delivery, and doesn't want to pay to
reach them either.  That's why he advertised on a local station rather
than on the network.  Local stations aren't going to get a lot of additional
advertising revenue just because cable carries their signal further away.
But the cable retransmission is going to raise the fees the station has
to pay for programming because the syndicated program producers have
fewer (bigger) markets to sell to.

Understand the difference now?
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: misc.consumers