Hacker News Reader

Comment by myrandomcomment | Hacker News Reader

If this is over public airways (like ABC) then Disney should loose their rights to that public space. Netflix should be in court yesterday over this. And the public should be up in arms over this as they are using our PUBLIC airways. For steaming fine but not on PUBLIC spectrum.

View on HN

Wait... is it normal for TV channels to show ads for competitors? (Not owned by the same conglomerate?)

Like... I've never seen an ad for Fox on CBS, or for ABC on NBC. Same as I don't think I've ever seen ads for the NYT inside of the WSJ.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter... but is a policy against Netflix ads on Disney properties really something new and newsworthy, or just par for the course for companies in the US which compete generally?

So lets say you have a public airway to provide TV on and let's say you also own a cable company. Should you be allowed to show ads for that cable company and block ads for commercials at the same rate you charge some soda company for the same time slot for an ad from the satellite company that happens to compete with the cable company you own? Your method of broadcast is over a public owned spectrum. That is the issue. Even for cable, the rights for you to deliver that service is over public land.

Honestly, I don't see what public transmission has to do with it.

Either "advertising" should be considered a "free speech" issue from the point of view of the broadcaster -- that they have the "free speech" to allow/disallow whatever ads they want -- whether because of vulgarity, quality, competition, political alignment, whatever they want, including charging different ads different rates if they so choose.

Or we consider advertising space a "free speech" issue from the point of view of advertisers, that any and all advertising on TV, cable, newspapers, magazines, etc. should be equally available to the highest bidder. Thus a newspaper should not be able to discriminate against an advertiser because of vulgarity, competition, quality, brand alignment, etc.

It's actually a really thorny issue because there are really good arguments on both sides.

There are regulations that exist for public broadcasts that do not apply to cable.

Yes they are here:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#BUSI...

But they explicitly state broadcasters can mostly choose as they like:

> Except for the requirements concerning political advertisements, the limits on the number of commercials that can be aired during children’s programming and the prohibition of advertisements over noncommercial educational stations, the Commission does not regulate a licensee’s business practices, such as its advertising rates or its profits. Rates charged for broadcast time are matters for private negotiation between sponsors and stations. Except for certain classes of political advertisements, STATION LICENSEES HAVE FULL DISCRETION TO ACCEPT OR REJECT ANY ADVERTISING.

(all-caps added for emphasis)

In general I agree. However let us say I own a website that I put ads on. It is my site, I pay for it. Should I have to allow ads for things I disagree with? I am not saying I know the answer here. It would be simpler to say "if you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines". Does this apply to penis pills during kids cartoons? It is not an simpler answer.

> It would be simpler to say "if you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines". Does this apply to penis pills during kids cartoons? It is not an simpler answer.

Seems to me it IS a simple answer:

"If you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines"

What if someone wanted to run an ad against vaccinations? Or the post very ad that you quoted - should Disney be forced to advertise penis enlargement ads during a children’s show?

"that does not violate public guidelines"

Set guidelines.

So can one of those guidelines be “we don’t advertise streaming services”? Who gets to set those guidelines? Do you want the government deciding everything that can and cannot be advertised?

> Do you want the government deciding everything that can and cannot be advertised?

Yes, that's the ideal way to do it in a democracy, isn't it? The will of the people should prevail.

Now we are going to have a government board that decides what can be advertised? Since the majority of Americans are Christians does that mean in a democracy people can decide banning advertising for mosques? What if the majority decided to ban commercials featuring gay couples? Interracial couples (a large percentage of Christians in the south still think interracial marriage is a sin)? With the electoral college and each state having two senators regardless of population giving a disproportionate amount of votes to smaller states, what are the chances that they would ban advertising for companies that employ the “liberal elite” in California?

The “will of the people” led to laws in the south like Jim Crow, laws against interracial marriage, and criminalizing homosexual sex.

Not taking into account market power and anti competitive behavior is a mistake. This is about something other than speech -- the right for firms to compete with each other on a level playing field. When these types of actions are allowed, our economic system deteriorates. But regulatory capture is so strong in the US that Disney and many others will skate by.

The public airwaves have slightly modified free speech constraints because they are a finite commodity. If a station chose to, for example, just broadcast white noise, the FCC can yank their license and give it to someone broadcasting content.

And for the past two decades, the amount of viewing that has been done over the public airways has been declining precipitously. There are more ways to advertise than the networks.

As presented, this isn’t a thorny issue.

Forcing a company to run any ad based on nothing more than who pays the most money is not only a terrible idea, but effectively compelled speech.

“Free speech” doesn’t include a guarantee that someone will publish it for you. It just means no one can stop you from publishing it.

The public airwaves argument is the only argument that makes any sense at all, but it’s a weak one in my opinion; and that’s now how it currently works in practice.

The article even said that it is not abnormal for networks to not allow rival networks to advertise on their channel if they specify a time.

ABC pays for the right to rent the airways and do with it as they please within certain parameters. When you rent an apartment don’t you have the expectation of being allowed to do what you want within your apartment within certain constraints?

It wouldn’t really hurt Disney that much if they couldn’t reach the relatively few people who watch TV over an antennae.

> For steaming fine but not on PUBLIC spectrum. I have to call BS on this. I'm paying for the service and the bandwidth. It often goes over public land or utilities, or at least not over pipes owned by Disney, so if the ad is loaded client side, then Disney is SOL and shouldn't have a say in it.

That said, ads suck, blah blah and I personally don't care.

I agree. I have not had TV service for 10+ years. Amazon and Netflix and VPN (from USA) so we can watch BBC. Dear BBC if you read this - allow non-UK to pay the TV license even at 4x the cost. You will sell it.

Shhh... don’t force us back to piracy iPlayer is nice.

Oh trust me they know, but their rockstar Red Hat infrastructure can take it! (and I believe there are legal complications in the UK for them to sell that otherwise public TV access abroad)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com