<div dir="ltr">Hi Hika<br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Content_protection_.28HDCP.29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Content_protection_.28HDCP.29</a><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 7 September 2014 11:49, Hika van den Hoven <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hikavdh@gmail.com" target="_blank">hikavdh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hoi Another,<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
Sunday, September 7, 2014, 12:41:00 PM, you wrote:<br>
<br>
> Richard<br>
<br>
<br>
> The 'local' stations in the US are actually often affiliates of the Big US Networks....<br>
<br>
> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliates" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliates</a><br>
<br>
<br>
> often the cable companies would just retransmit the 'local'<br>
> stations until about 5 years ago when the Fox stations IIRC told the<br>
> cable companies they couldn't rebroadcast their content unless they<br>
> paid them a fee. This was also influenced by what is known as the 'must carry' rules<br>
<br>
> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> There were a number of stories when Fox played hardball of which this is one.<br>
<br>
> <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/18/us-fox-timewarnercable-idUSTRE5BH2FX20091218" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/18/us-fox-timewarnercable-idUSTRE5BH2FX20091218</a><br>
<br>
> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> In effect the 'local' stations negotiated the retransmit fee at the<br>
> same time as the removal of the must carry clause.<br>
<br>
<br>
> Now whereas in the UK sport is concentrated on the Sky premium<br>
> platform in the US the NFL is shown extensively on the broadcast<br>
> networks and many other sports also look to maximise their exposure<br>
> by ensuring they are on the Broadcast networks in some form or<br>
> another so the cable companies were suddenly presented with a<br>
> situation where their customers couldn't get major network shows<br>
> (say CSI or Big Bang Theory) or major sports or local news (much<br>
> bigger deal in the US then in the UK) through their cable provider.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> This is quite a good article to give you some idea of the monies involved<br>
<br>
> <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/11/broadcast-networks-retransmission-consent-fees.html" target="_blank">http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/11/broadcast-networks-retransmission-consent-fees.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> All of this presents a much more complicated setup then the UK.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> However I would point out to you that SKY actually paid the BBC to<br>
> retransmit its broadcasts, what SKY then did though was charge huge<br>
> fees (£70m PA IIRC) for the encryption required and the placement on<br>
> the listing guide. You may remember back in 2003 when the BBC moved<br>
> from one Astra satellite to another it went 'Free to Air' and that's<br>
> when the argument with SKY kicked off with Murdoch threatening to<br>
> pull the Beeb off the listings and getting Hollywood to boycott<br>
> providing movies to the BBC, basically the Beeb had outmanoeuvred Murdoch and called his bluff<br>
<br>
> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jun/13/bskyb.bbc" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jun/13/bskyb.bbc</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> So the landscape is very different in the UK from the US and you<br>
> should understand that 'local' stations in the US is a bit of a<br>
> misnomer, in many cases they're actually the providers of the most popular programs on TV.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Tony<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On 7 September 2014 10:48, Hika van den Hoven <<a href="mailto:hikavdh@gmail.com">hikavdh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hoi Richard,<br>
><br>
<br>
> Sunday, September 7, 2014, 10:17:32 AM, you wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On 7 Sep 2014 02:24, "Gary Buhrmaster" <<a href="mailto:gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com">gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Bert Haskins <<a href="mailto:bhaskins@chartermi.net">bhaskins@chartermi.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Among the absolutely insane number of current polycrap ads is one that<br>
>>> says that our "representatives " are trying to kill free TV.<br>
>>> Given the level of integrity that these guys have shown in the past this<br>
>>> doesn't surprise me but I wonder if other list members have heard about it.<br>
><br>
>> It is all about the money (and who gets to collect it),<br>
>> focused on re-transmission consent. The big MSOs<br>
>> do not want to pay to retransmit free OTA content,<br>
>> and the OTA channels do not want to lose the revenue<br>
>> from the MSOs (claiming that if they do not get the<br>
>> money from the MSOs, they will have to close up shop).<br>
>> Both sides are using tactics that presume people are<br>
>> stupid. Unfortunately, past experience shows such<br>
>> tactics work for the aforementioned reason.<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> mythtv-users mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users" target="_blank">http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br>
>> <a href="http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette" target="_blank">http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette</a><br>
>><br>
>> Looking at this from a uk perspective and therefore knowing little<br>
>> of how it works it appears that the channels are being paid by the<br>
>> cable companies to rebroadcast the content.<br>
>> This seems perverse. Are these channels that good? Do they have that high a following?<br>
>> As the cable companies appear from this side of the pond to be the<br>
>> gateway to the majority of the population in the US I would expect<br>
>> that the independent channels would be paying the cable company a<br>
>> fee for retransmitting the channel.<br>
>> Sky satellite charged even the BBC (which produces the most watched<br>
>> telly channel in the uk) a retransmission fee until fairly recently<br>
>> until the BBC got some balls and negotiated harder<br>
>> I guess the reason that the mso's post these channels is why you<br>
>> have many local channels and we only just set some up (and must<br>
>> don't have the production standards we are used to in the uk so they<br>
>> don't get good audiences and even close/fail)<br>
>> <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_television_in_the_United_Kingdom" target="_blank">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_television_in_the_United_Kingdom</a><br>
>> Sky does broadcast these local channels as it is regulated to do so...<br>
>> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/9262158/Ofcom-and-Sky-on-fresh-collision-course.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/9262158/Ofcom-and-Sky-on-fresh-collision-course.html</a><br>
>> Our TV stations (local or otherwise) have to survive on advertising<br>
>> revenues alone... (And when content is good enough selling<br>
>> individual TV programmes for rebroadcast in other territories)<br>
>> So the questions are...<br>
>> 1 Do the local channels have that high a following that customers<br>
>> would desert the cable subscription if the local channels were removed?<br>
>> 2 Would the local channels prevent rebroadcast if they didn't<br>
>> receive cash from the cable company? (They'd be reducing their<br>
>> viewer numbers considerably and therefore advertising revenue would also be hit)<br>
>> Sorry if my comments here are way off the mark as I don't<br>
>> understand much of the cable history in the US.<br>
>> R<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
> Luckily her in the Netherlands we have a law that tells the cable<br>
> companies which channels they at least must transmit. This includes<br>
> the public and the local channels. Further on top every city has a<br>
> kind of veto on what must at least be available on cable. Third the<br>
> public channels will always stay free available of the air. This last<br>
> only some time ago changed from analog to digital.<br>
><br>
> Tot mails,<br>
> Hika mailto:<a href="mailto:hikavdh@gmail.com">hikavdh@gmail.com</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>Maybe a dum question. I never understood the copy ones, and I must<br>
admit also never realy looked into it.<br>
Wouldn't it be technically possible to capture the hdmi stream going<br>
to the tv and record at that point? Or even earlier in the proces<br>
since then you could only record one channel at a time? Like fooling<br>
the tuner about where the stream is going?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Tot mails,<br>
Hika mailto:<a href="mailto:hikavdh@gmail.com">hikavdh@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
"Zonder hoop kun je niet leven<br>
Zonder leven is er geen hoop<br>
Het eeuwige dilemma<br>
Zeker als je hoop moet vernietigen om te kunnen overleven!"<br>
<br>
De lerende Mens<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
mythtv-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users" target="_blank">http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br>
<a href="http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette" target="_blank">http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette</a><br>
MythTV Forums: <a href="https://forum.mythtv.org" target="_blank">https://forum.mythtv.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>