nanog mailing list archives
Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
From: Jay Farrell via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 02:55:59 -0500
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Jameson, Daniel < Daniel.Jameson () tdstelecom com> wrote:
In the US certain channels have the *must Carry* designation. Which puts a retransmitter in a poor negotiating position, essentially the provider can charge whatever they want.
Under must-carry a station cannot charge the cable companies a fee. But the station can waive must-carry and then can negotiate fees. The cable company can decline to carry under those circumstances, if they don't want to pay the fee.
Current thread:
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world, (continued)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Brandon Butterworth (Nov 21)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world K. Scott Helms (Nov 21)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke Guillory (Nov 21)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Mike Hammett (Nov 21)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke Guillory (Nov 21)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Mike Hammett (Nov 21)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Jean-Francois Mezei (Nov 17)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Jameson, Daniel (Nov 17)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke Guillory (Nov 17)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Jay Farrell via NANOG (Nov 17)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke Guillory (Nov 17)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world shawn wilson (Nov 17)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke Guillory (Nov 17)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Jean-Francois Mezei (Nov 17)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Wayne Bouchard (Nov 18)