Why not? The companies have created a service for which people pay. The study done in 1993 showed that more than half the people would expect that their bill would be halved if the channels weren't on the system.
In 1993 people in my CITY got all exited that our cable company jumped from 36 to 66 channels. There were barely any special interest channels, 1 channel for each movie package(I might be wrong, I don't exactly know when HBO2 was launched), 1 Discovery channel/Disney Channel/MTV/ESPN/etc., ABC Family was still The Family Channel and not owned by Disney, No Out of Market Sports packages, PPV was still in its toddler stage, Starz didn't exist, and the list goes on and on. In 1993, nobody would ever expected that re-runs of Family Guy on Adult Swim would beat out NBC and CBS first run late night programming (did Cartoon Network even exist?) Networks were a huge part of viewing in 1993, so it was expected that networks be carried, as still is today; however, I would expect that people wouldn't (in 2010 based upon the wider variety of cable/sat channels (not networks) provided by virtually all providers) be expecting to pay less if they were missing 4 channels. A history discussion is the only place to pull up a study made in 1993. Espically, when the topic at hand has evolved beyond our wildest imaginations. Comparing TV in 1993 to TV in 2010 is like comparing a Modle T driver's expectation of what their car should do in 1915 to a Mustang driver's in 1969.
Fine. Dish Network can receive them, but not rebroadcast them. Just because they are available for free to anyone that can receive them doesn't mean they should be free to those who need to receive them.
I think you are missing my point. YES THEY SHOULD (here's the fine print) if said channel is able to be picked up by OTA to said viewer. Here's an example, WNYW is FOX's broadcast station in NYC. For me in Boston, Unless I hook up a mammouth sattelite to my TV, I can't get FOX 5 NYC. So, if I want that particular channel, and I want to use a pay service to get it, then I should have to pay for the provider to give it to me, and in turn FOX should get a cut of those profits because I'm paying to get their content. Now, untill the digital transition was completed, I could hook a metal coat hanger to my TV to get WFXT (FOX's broadcast station in Boston) and still can with the new digital antennas. I pay for satellite TV, proceeding also applies to cable subs. I'm paying for channels like TBS/FX/ESPN/RSNs/Encore/History Channel/etc. The satellite/cable provider said "hey you are in the Boston DMA" so they gave me WFXT with my sub. They shouldn't be allowed to charge me a penny to receive that station, and FOX shouldn't charge them to send me that signal, as long as it's provable that I can get WFXT without their assistance, which living in Boston, I have strong case. In the case Dish's package in the 230's for distance locals, yes, Dish should pay the networks and I should pay Dish for supplying that content. For me, who ordered satellite for the cable/sat only channels, ABSOLUTELY NOT! If you want to make the arguement of someone paying, Cable and Sat providers should be charging the networks rental space for taking up room on their systems and giving stronger signals to get their content out. I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT (but makes more sense than charging for someone to relay (retransmit) a free service for free.
To wrap this up, I work at a school in a poor neighborhood. Almost every student is on a free lunch program. One day, one student didn't want his pear. He gave it another student. I got into the same arguement with the lunch police who demanded that the first student now pay for the pear, because it wasn't him who ate it. If you give it out for free, then you crap out of luck on how it's used. If the student charged his friend for the pear, I would have sided with the lunch lady, but to demand profit for something you gave for free and in turn was given again for free, makes you nothing but a money hungry greedy bastard. I think I made my point.
