The usual crap from Bert.
It is amazing that the suit was allowed to proceed. The First Amendment has
NOTHING to do with this case; but it is a novel argument.
Problem is that MVPD systems are not a telecom service, nor are the owners of
the MVPD obligated to carry every channel that seeks carriage. Carriage is
based on negotiations between the MVPD and the programmer, as Bert is well
aware. The MVPDs have often charged new program services to get into the
extended basic bundle - Fox News paid hundreds of millions to get the service
on cable in the ‘90s. And as we see frequently, MVPDs can pull existing
channels in their bundles if the negations break down.
It will be interesting to see what happens if this goes to trial.
And please stop the assault on the FCC Bert.
We are getting very tired of your rants.
Regards
Craig
On Nov 22, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Manfredi (US), Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Monty Solomon posted:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/charter-cant-use-1st-amendment-to-refuse-black-owned-tv-channels-court-rules/
As debatable as such questions might be as applied to MVPDs, it's truly
preposterous that they can even be considered, with respect to telecom
services. Unconscionable. The telecom company thinks it has a right to block
my conversations with Aunt Gertrude? Really? Because this ex-cable TV company
doesn't like her opinions about rice pilaf?
"The ruling against Comcast relied heavily upon the reasoning in the Charter
decision. 'For the reasons discussed at length in our opinion in Charter
Communications, we also conclude that the First Amendment does not bar
Plaintiffs' § 1981 claim [against Comcast],' judges wrote."
So, an MVPD thinks its supposed "rights to free speech" (or more precisely,
its rights to block free speech) trump the content owner's "right to free
speech." Only this monopolistic MVPD has the right to free speech. Well,
okay, it's just an entertainment service and a gatekeeper, so ultimately,
caveat emptor. It's like picking up some supermarket rag, at the checkout
counter, after all. Who, in his right mind, would expect neutrality of
reporting? But broadband? Only in the fevered mind of our corrupt FCC.
"The First Amendment is a tool for promoting free expression," Bergmayer
wrote. "Too often, though, courts have turned it into a tool for
deregulation, arguing that the purported free speech interests of
billion-dollar companies outweigh the rights of citizens to be informed, to
communicate, and to participate in the public sphere. Even now, broadband
providers are arguing that they have a First Amendment right to block
websites or interfere with users' rights to use lawful online services."
Wake the hell up, you formula-spouting extremist yahoos, and corrupt FCC
Commissioners. "The Internet," which is nothing comparable to *a* web site,
or a cable TV service, is instead a telecom service. As much as telephone
service is a telecom service. How ignorant can it be, for the agency
entrusted with US telecoms, not to understand this?
I can't fathom how this farcical FCC Chairman has been allowed to spout
nonsense for such a long time.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
