What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
47 Comments
- inactive, on 01/06/2009, -2/+19Although this may not seem like a big deal to most, it is to me. This is a huge blow to free speech, and probably a planned one as well. Anything to prevent free speech right?
- thegrantman, on 01/06/2009, -0/+12Free speech ain't free.
- gravedigga, on 01/06/2009, -0/+7Remember The Spirit of Truth?
- d3matt, on 01/05/2009, -0/+7last post?
- dreicher, on 01/06/2009, -0/+6So what? That's hardly the point. I couldn't care less about public access, and, yes, the internet is a much more efficient vehicle for small producers; however, when is it time to stop rationalizing getting ***** by our government officials and say "enough"? Once again, the only one who loses anything here is us - for everyone else involved (government, old media, new media trying to displace old media) it's a net positive.
- dreicher, on 01/06/2009, -1/+6I'm a Paul supporter and I disagree that he would support it. It is not a tax and it is not something the government is paying for. It is essentially a quid pro quo - in return for allowing broadcast companies to use spectrum owned by us we ask for a few things in return. It was an agreement between those broadcast companies and us through our government.
Now the government has decided what do they need us for, allowed the broadcast companies to pull the "perk" from us and just cut them a check instead. Broadcast companies save some money, politicians get to cash phone company lobby checks, government gets an annual cut of the companies' savings. Everybody wins...oh wait.
No, I don't think Ron Paul would support this. Everything I've read says that he doesn't like when the government comes in and changes the nature of contracts to empower itself or corporations. Yes, I'm certain I read that regarding the mortgage bailouts. That, and this is being done at the local level - not federal, so it doesn't fall under the purview of the Constitution. - atanguay, on 01/06/2009, -0/+5It's a bummer really. I spent many years as a kid hanging around my local cable TV studio learning from a PBS veteran everything from good lighting and camera work, to more abstract skills like how to take directions and work with other people. To use a stale phrase... 'it kept me off the streets'. Sure, we never produced the most amazing television, but the people that volunteered there really believed in it and worked really hard.
I find it really hard to believe that the tiny budgets of these studios is preventing AT&T from getting into the phone business. - KirbyMeister, on 01/06/2009, -1/+5Why scream about crappy conspiracy theories on Public Access where no one is watching, when you can do the same on Youtube and get millions of hits?
- ouzome, on 01/06/2009, -1/+5Hard to believe Cali of all places would pass a law to basically kill PEGs. The vast majority of states still have laws to enforce PEGs and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Vote in smarter government that can think about the results of their actions.
- tdmeth, on 01/06/2009, -1/+5This may have been a major blow to free speech 20 years ago, it has a minimal effect on it now. With the current popularity of the internet, there are many more outlets available to voice your opinions. It takes minutes to set up a free blog or youtube account. And your voice is no longer limited to the region that your broadcast originates from. It can be accessed from almost anywhere in the world. So like I said. This has little to no impact on free speech because we have so many other ways to get our voices out there.
- Samurai77, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3Next in a cost saving measure we will close all libraries,
Of all of the ***** things going on today, this is near the top. California really is starting to suck. - Samurai77, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3Where are you renting a broadcast quality camera and training for ***** free?
- dreicher, on 01/06/2009, -1/+4FTA: "A provision of a law passed by the Legislature in 2006, which took effect Thursday, allows cable television providers the option of dropping their long-standing obligation of providing free studios, equipment and training to the public. In return, providers must pay a substantial annual fee and continue to provide a minimal number of public education and government channels."
So, as long as the gov't gets their money everything is okay. Once again, for those not paying attention at home: the government is no longer in the business of protecting or advocating for it's citizenry. Next up...the crazy series of tubes everyone has been talking about. - duggdowncatisad, on 01/06/2009, -2/+5It's too bad that this show is going off the air, but this really isn't something the government should be paying for or requiring cable companies to pay for (which is essentially a form of tax). Especially when all you need these days is a cheap digital camcorder and a youtube account. Ron Paul would support this move.
- inactive, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3Actually more people watch public access channels than watch youtube.
- saranagati, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3i'm sure if we were passing the provision right now that required them to provide these services he wouldn't support it however, the cable companies were forced to have these services due to the amount of government funding they've received in the past to set up their networks. Now they're allowed to remove them so that another heavily government funded industry can compete in the market and possibly lower the rates. Of course the rates will never lower due to them already knowing what people are willing to pay so they all offer the same price range for similar services.
Ron Paul also signs stuff all the time that directly benefits his district even if it goes against his policy because he doesn't want the citizens of his district to be left out. - circuitz, on 01/06/2009, -1/+4The new law is designed to make it easier for phone companies to enter into the lucrative cable market by relieving them of certain money-draining contractual obligations.
- This is just wrong, these are the same companies that have loosened billions of dollars from taxpayers for the last 20 years. How about a new law that relieves me of certain money-draining contractual obligations with them. - yaddayaddayoda, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3It costs a buck o'five.
- lordmike, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3There used to be a guy named Jimmy Purdue who had a cable access show around here... he was a stoned black guy who just would mumble his name into the camera about 100 times with his name plastered at the bottom of the screen, and would use "state of the art" wipes and fades to give him some sort of psychedelic effect that must have pleased his altered state. Of course, he made sure to also plaster the copyright notice 'cos, you know, everyone might steal his "innovative" concept. His show was on right after the two aged hippies who videotaped their show in their closet complaining about the injustice du jour. You really can't beat public access TV for entertainment value!
- Samurai77, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2I do! so Suck it.
- duggdowncatisad, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2it's youtube not utube. Utube makes tubes and rollforms.
- inactive, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2Actually more people watch public access channels than watch youtube.
- Skooma714, on 01/06/2009, -1/+3Oh well ***** the old media. The smart one already have gone to the internet anyway.
New Hampshire cable access gets a lot of viewers I hear. Mostly because those who don't have cable or satellite can't get much else. There is some good Libertarian stuff there which on the internet as well. - inactive, on 01/06/2009, -1/+3We're gonna miss out on the next Wally George. I'm ***** pissed.
- CapeKid, on 01/06/2009, -3/+5I'm sure the one guy who watches public access will be pissed.
- immatellyouwhat, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2"There's a hefty ***** fee..."
- cottonThePirat, on 01/06/2009, -1/+3This is for Cable companies, which don't use public airways but do sometimes use public right-of-ways. The broadcast companies have never had any requirement for public access programing.
- jackelopeus, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2I guess I will have to resort to the online version of Wayne's World now...
- MattB123, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2Seems like YouTube could fill this niche and the content providers could reach a bigger potential audience.
- Zeroxysm, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2You suck.
- edwartica, on 01/12/2009, -0/+1Yeah. I work for a cable access company, and while I don't think it would be very professional of me to give examples, let's just say that there are some - interesting - programs out there.
- edwartica, on 01/12/2009, -0/+1Yeah, I actually work for a cable access company, and I'm amazed at how many people watch our programming.
- edwartica, on 01/12/2009, -0/+1Yeah, the whole fios fiasco, as we in public access like to call it, is just wrong. Basically verizon is being a bunch of dumb asses and insisting that if this kind of thing isn't cut, then maybe they should cut, say, customer service or the like.
- HappyScrappy, on 01/06/2009, -1/+2I don't view this as getting ***** by our government officials.
Note, I have satellite TV, and DirectTV has never had public access channels. They don't even carry CSPAN3.
It is no longer necessary for the government to force media outlets to charge us to run channels to get the "little people" exposure when the little people can get it easier on the internet.
It'd be like saying you're angry because the government stopped putting up public hitching posts for horses in parks. - saranagati, on 01/06/2009, -1/+2The government isn't charging us for this well not in the sense you're talking about. The state and federal government gave/give grants and funding to these companies to help them set up their network and in return these companies are supposed to provide these services for us. Now they'll still provide funding if they need it but they no longer have to provide these services.
- edwartica, on 01/12/2009, -0/+1It differs from region to region, but some of it is valuable programing.
Sure, you have your nut jobs and your religious programming, and not to mention the old retired people who have nothing better to do. But you also have public municipal meetings as well as a educational programming.
I work for a public access station, and we broadcast (and rebroadcast) pretty much every municipal meeting in our jurisdiction, nasa tv, and we even have one channel specifically for education and arts. - edwartica, on 01/12/2009, -0/+1This has nothing to do with NPR. But no, NPR does not suck.
- edwartica, on 01/12/2009, -0/+1And this kind of programming is not all cable access is. Want to hear the latest public proposals by your local town hall? Well, guess who provides that?
- HappyScrappy, on 01/06/2009, -1/+2I'm not. You don't need that stuff to get the word out.
- edwartica, on 01/12/2009, -0/+1and if you don't put in you ***** o'five, who will?
- promixr, on 04/13/2009, -0/+0As a taxpayer and consumer of cable television I am calling on the FCC to regulate cable television providers and remove the obstacles to 'A La Carte' cable television service. Subscribers should be able to choose individual networks that they would like to subscribe to without having to buy costly 'packages.' Subscribers should also be able to discontinue channels that are included with basic packages of channels they are not watching, or whose content they deem dangerous, offensive or otherwise dissatisfying.
This change to the rules of cable television would be good for the industry:
a) it would inspire more competitive programming, stations with the most informative or enjoyable content would remain on, stations whose content is uninformative would go away.
b) Cable would become more family friendly, as parents could permanently unsubscribe from cable programming they deem unsuitable for their children, without sacrificing channels that are harmless.
c) advertisers would have a better gauge of effective programming, the networks could charge more money for ad time on most watched networks, sponsorship becomes more effective, products could be targeted more effectively.
d) consumers could make political statements through subscription, (for example, viewers who object to the propaganda they see on FOX or CNBC could switch that channel off- providing in effect a check and balance to ineffective or just plain 'wrong' media coverage, broadcasters of 'news' programming would be forced to adhere to high standards of broadcast journalism)
e) consumers would have access to a broader range of entertainment, by spending money on only the media they wish to view. A consumer currently may not subscribe to an entire expensive cable package to view the content of a particular cable channel, so that consumer is cut off from it. Cable television would benefit because while the 'packages' would go away, subscribers would make up for it in the individual variety of a la carte subscriptions. A sports nut would be turning off food networks, but adding sports channels, a sci-fi nut would be turning off children's programming, but subscribing to more movie channels, etc...
The FCC needs to overcome, through regulation, the objections of cable television lobbying groups and large media providers and serve the best interests of the consumer of media. The best and most progressive way to do this is through a La Carte cable television. - HappyScrappy, on 01/06/2009, -4/+2This really doesn't matter. You can get far better exposure on YouTube, and far more cost effectively.
- salstress, on 01/06/2009, -5/+2NPR sucks.
- A14049752, on 01/06/2009, -9/+4Who cares? Get with the times and use youtube.
- inactive, on 01/06/2009, -7/+2If people have a message, they can pay for it. Can't get something for nothing.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is