OTA commercial subs.....

[Gary's Ice Cream]

Oh yes they do!    For a while (in the analog days before HDTV) I had a TV in my office on an antenna and I would often have it on as I prepared dinner (one in the living room was on cable, one in the office on antenna) so that whichever way I was facing I could see it) and in almost every spot cluster the cable feed would have one or two different commercials than the OTA signal.

                    Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA
www.garysicecream.com           www.icecreamcollege.com





-----Original Message-----
From: Boston-Radio-Interest [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Mike Ward
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Ron Bello
Cc: Boston Radio Group
Subject: Re:

Feel free to correct me, but I'm pretty sure cable/satellite systems don't/can't do spot inserts over broadcast/OTA channels.


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Ron Bello <rbello@belloassoc.com> wrote:

> What has not been mentioned in this discussion is that cable companies 
> substitute commercials that they have sold for those contained in the 
> original transmission from the local TV channels.  This revenue shift 
> does not happen with the Aereo system.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Martin Waters via 
> Boston-Radio-Interest < boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Martin Waters <martinjwaters@yahoo.com>
> > To: "Gary's Ice Cream" <gary@garysicecream.com>, "'Shawn Mamros'" < 
> > mamros@MIT.EDU>
> > Cc: Boston Radio Group <boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org>
> > Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 19:49:10 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Aereo suspending operations as of 11:30 today Gary
> > wrote:
> > >The customer has the channel changing capability of their
> > own tuner at the data center so basically it is a remote tuner for 
> > your
> tv.
> >
> >      That is just what cable and satellite TV provide.
> >
> > Shawn wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >It's just that Congress back then decided the broadcasters should 
> > >get a
> > cut >from the pie. I'm not sure that was the right decision then (or
> now),
> > but that's >the law that was made.  If Aereo shouldn't have to pay 
> > broadcasters for
> > >retransmission, the cable companies shouldn't either.
> >
> >      I am sure that Congress made the right decision. The creators 
> > of intellectual property and the companies that buy the programs, 
> > sell the advertising that pays for them and all the rest, deserve to 
> > be paid when some utility company comes along and wants to grab 
> > their output in an attempt to make a profit.
> >
> >      What is it about the internet that appears to make more and 
> > more people think otherwise? It happened before with music. Aereo 
> > was merely a cynical scam to get around the copyright law. Sure, the 
> > company said
> every
> > viewer was connected to an individual antenna. But Aereo provided 
> > the antenna, received the signal and retransmitted it over the 
> > internet. Case closed.
> >
> >       Luckily the Supreme Court wasn't fooled. If the copyright law 
> > of
> > 1976 needs to be changed, it is to strengthen it on behalf of the
> creators
> > of content due to advancements in technology. Now, I would like to 
> > know what's going to be done to collect the royalties Aereo should 
> > have been paying. Plus, the battle goes on, as there appears to be 
> > no end to people with a new trick and a desire to make money from 
> > someone else's creative work without paying for it.
> >
> >        I'm surprised that some broadcast people would look at Aereo 
> > as anything but a sleazy effort to find a loophole in the copyright 
> > law and steal content. Content is everything. Let us not weep for 
> > the Aereo
> people.
> > Maybe now they can all get jobs developing the next brilliant TV 
> > show or movie. But I doubt it.
> >
> >
>