Traders Convicted For Figuring Out Auto Trading Algorithm; How Is That Illegal?

Democrats Are From Cablevision & Republicans Are From Fox In Retransmission Fee Dispute?

from the republicrats dept

Wed, Oct 20th 2010 4:34am — Mike Masnick

One of the nice things about most tech issues is that they're not split down typical political party lines. In practice, tragically, that sometimes means that both of the major political parties side with rent-seeking interests, rather than the public good, but in other cases, it does mean that you can get actually cross-party discussion on the issues, rather than the talking points. However, it seems that whenever any particular issue gets "big enough," it suddenly has to break down on party lines. We saw it happen with net neutrality, but now it appears to be happening on the whole silly retransmission fight between cable companies and TV networks. As mentioned, these fights break out every few months, with both the networks and the cable companies blaming each other. In the end, consumers end up with higher prices either way. The whole fight itself is silly, but when TV stations get blocked during key sporting events (football, baseball playoffs), apparently Congress immediately sees an issue worth grandstanding over.

And, as Broadband Reports notes, at least in the case of Cablevision/Fox, it's become a partisan issue, with Democrats lining up behind Cablevision, introducing legislation that would bar broadcasters from pulling channels during negotiations. Meanwhile, Republicans are being lobbied heavily by News Corp to take its side. It could just be that it's because this is News Corp./Fox, which tends to support Republicans. So it will be interesting to see if similar battles involving other broadcasters split along similar lines...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cable, politics, retransmission, tv
Companies: cablevision, fox, news corp.

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

zaven (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 5:07am

No Libertarians
I have to say I'm interested to see how this whole thing plays out but as always, the customers are the ones that get screwed when this happens. Less channels but we still pay the same amount on the bill?

As for the political standing, I always thought most people who really give a damn about tech issues seem to lean towards the Libertarian point of view. And everyone else just tends to think of us as paranoid wackos. At least, this is my experience.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 20 Oct 2010 @ 5:28am

Newscorp thinks their content is worth ~100% increase?
What is the rational for this ... ahhhh never mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 5:29am

Tis the order of things...
yes, Fox is rightwing through and through (have you read some of the comments on their boards?) In the ends as said we will be the ones who pay more for less. It will always be that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 5:32am

I remember the good old days when cable companies could legally rebroadcast without paying. I still don't understand how a broadcaster could complain that its number of viewers is being increased by being rebroadcast. Expecting and demanding payment for having your audience vastly increased is pure greed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KKK Rove, 20 Oct 2010 @ 5:50am

Re: Tis the order of things...
How dare you call Fox right winged! It is a fair and balanced news network.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 5:53am

Re: Re: Tis the order of things...
IF, by fair and balanced, you mean buying up all the political estate, sure.

OH wait,t hat was SARCASM. Got it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comboman (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 6:06am

Paywalls
Do cable subscribers realize that you can get Fox for free with a set of rabbit ears (usually with better HD than over cable)? How long will it be before Murdoch tries to put paywalls around broadcast TV?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DaveL (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Tis the order of things...
It's only fair... the conservatives have Fox and the liberals have CNN...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 6:18am

Re: Re: Re: Tis the order of things...
"It's only fair... the conservatives have Fox and the liberals have CNN..."

Which is why they're both worthless....

This whole political theatre show is useless....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2010 @ 6:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tis the order of things...
Amen. I propose we abolish the democratic republic governing system and put in place an Absolute Monarchy. DH HAS THE DIVINE MANDATE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
that_id (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 6:37am

Dems want it fair and GOP wants the market to decide? Work together AND help the consumer at the same time by making cafeteria plans for channel line-ups a mandatory offering by ALL cable and satellite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 6:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tis the order of things...
First order of business: Our National Anthem will henceforth be "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" by Drowning Pool.

Coincidentally, that will also be the theme for our foreign policy....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
minion, 20 Oct 2010 @ 7:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tis the order of things...
All hail the DH.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Fair, 20 Oct 2010 @ 7:33am

Re: Re: Re: Tis the order of things...
CNN? And MSNBC, and NBC, and CBS, and ABC, and TBS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 7:40am

Re:
They need to make up for all the papers that are going to fail because of paywalls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
a-dub (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 7:44am

"For example, News Corp.'s second-largest shareholder, after the Murdoch family, is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (pictured at left, and above right), the nephew of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, and one of the world's richest men."

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/crp19D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CommonSense (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 8:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tis the order of things...
So reality is liberal leaning... That is very good to know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stuart (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 8:18am

Re:
It is if they can get it.
It is not a problem if I want to sell my stuff for what I think it is worth. If I price it to high people will not buy it. Why the fuck do you care how much entity A wants to charge entity B for it services. 2 PRIVATE companies negotiating. It is a fucking crime that congress would step in either way here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2010 @ 8:19am

I gave up cable in lieu of Broadcast Digital. Now I get PBS hah. The best damn programming around and I get 4 channels of it on broadcast TV for free. I don't get $65.00 a month bills. I don't get shutoff notices. I just watch TV. When I had Cable I had tons of channels with lots of reruns and commercials. Then on Saturday and Sunday morning I got tons of 1/2 hour Paid Advertisements. I paid all that money to watch a bunch of ads. I'll pass. People with lives don't have that much time to watch TV anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 8:24am

Re: Re:
"It is a fucking crime that congress would step in either way here."

Agreed, except if this is all a show so that they can both raise prices on the consumer....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChronoFish (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 8:33am

Re:
Happily Sans Cable for 10 years now. Rabbit-ear free for 3 years. Everything I want is legally available online for free or a small pay-as-you-go fee.

-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 8:40am

Re: Paywalls
"Do cable subscribers realize that you can get Fox for free with a set of rabbit ears"

No. The current generation of TV viewers are about three decades removed from the days when we received all TV from antennas. I'd guess that 99% of people under 25 would have no clue that you can get HD network television for free. 95% for those under 30.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sdub, 20 Oct 2010 @ 8:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tis the order of things...
Reality is that all media is liberal... I see plenty of liberal crap on fox(yes, mixed in with the uber conservative crap). Be a human and read multiple news sources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cynyr (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 9:24am

Re: Paywalls
I can't Even with an amplified indoor antenna i get noting here in Minneapolis MN. I think it has something to do with the terrain.

(yes i have looked at antennaweb and etc.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 20 Oct 2010 @ 10:43am

Re: Re:
I've kept my rabbit-ears because I've been unable to find any reliable way to watch HD sports online and broadcast at least gets me some.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
doughless (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 11:12am

Re: Re: Paywalls
Case in point:

A few months ago I put some HD rabbit ears on a TV in our guest room. Tuned into Chuck to test it, and my wife (29) said, "I didn't know you could still do that."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2010 @ 1:50pm

Re: No Libertarians
Never understood the term "consumers getting screwed," in situations like this. If you don't like your service, pull your money. Money speaks loud and clear to corporations. 20,000 people pull their cablevision monthlies, people will notice.

Just pull your money, it's the loudest and clearest way to speak to a corporation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 20 Oct 2010 @ 4:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Paywalls
"HD rabbit ears"

Lol - good one

errr, that was a joke, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zaven (profile), 20 Oct 2010 @ 6:04pm

Re: Re: No Libertarians
So here's the issue to pulling your money. If you actually want to watch TV for example. You still can't. Also remember that a lot of the time, companies force you to sign a contract to get their service. So you really can't just walk away sometimes(without paying some kind of termination fee).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2010 @ 10:22pm

Remember when that bill about loud TV commercials showed up? Now we get a bill to stop cable companies from cutting service in the middle of big sports events. Apparently, somewhere along the line we elected a congress full of couch potatoes, and they're writing laws into effect to improve their viewing experience.
If we get a bill a couple of months from now specifically banning a handful of particularly annoying commercials, I'll probably laugh my head off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 21 Oct 2010 @ 5:19am

Re:
If left to their own devices it would be nothing but commecials,
oh - wait ... it already is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanVan (profile), 22 Oct 2010 @ 9:05am

Those who want true captialism are getting it....no regulations, no rules, and ZERO ability by the consumer to win

I love this country but the idea that the government sets some consumer-friendly rules should be implemented
[ link to this | view in thread ]