OTA commercial subs.....

[Mike Ward]

I've never experienced cable spot subbing over OTA channels, ever.

One would think the station would be quite upset with a cable system
covering its commercials...so this may have been some sort of arrangement
to sell "extra" spots on top of promos or PSAs or something?

Has anyone else seen cable systems subbing spots on broadcast channels?


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Gary's Ice Cream <gary@garysicecream.com>
wrote:

> 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>