It has been a while...

I created this site, for a class, about 2 years ago. I never really thought that I was gonna use this site ever again after that class... but today, for some reason after having a million things in my head (ok, I'm exaggerating.. only a couple) I thought: maybe this is a good way of letting it all out and perhaps with these words things can become a little bit clearer. Perhaps this can serve as medium to connect with someone who is experiencing something similar, or just feels on the same boat as I am now. Or perhaps my sister can read it regularly and keep up with me... whatever reason, I'm just writing, just because, just to let it all out.

 I'm from Colombia and moved to the US to go to school. While in the US, I learned to appreciate the little things that didn't see before, didn't hear before, didn't notice before. I learned to appreciate family, those meals that only grandma makes that until this day I can't make. I learned that my mom has so many things to teach me, to show me, to tell me to make my life less complicated and more filling. I learned that were I come from is so unique and authentic... nowhere you can find a little town in the middle of the mountains. Be surrounded by green, huge trees, all kinds of flowers, species, colors, flavors. I really learned to appreciate a meal made with love, with real flavors, with real stuff, free of chemicals and weird additives that you can't even pronounce. I started to notice that I'm not living solo neither I'm an individual... I'm not a different or separate specie.

I can't speak for others but what I noticed is that what I do, what I choose, what I eat, has an effect, an impact not only on me but on others. And is because of all these that I started a search, for a healthier, better, happier, improved life style. I plan to change what I'm used to eat, I plan to use my abilities and skills as a journalist to let others know what's up in my hometown, so others can notice too (as I did) and then they can make their choice.

Will see and will keep you posted...

Meet Judy... GSTV's Janitor

This is a story I did for the news show at GSTV, the Panther Report. The story features the most lovely and interesting person behind the lady that cleans our office. She is not only the janitor.. she is our friend, she is our GSU momma!

Cable is now a government issue...

           Remember that Cablevision and News Corp. dilemma? Well, since the issue became public, it has attracted the attention of many. Newspapers keep following up with what really happened with the two companies. While in Congress, some politicians had demanded FCC’s involvement.

In an article in The Hill's Congress Blog by Former Rep. Jack Fields, who sponsored retransmission consent, he states that the congress created this term in order to “ensure that the public would retain access to local broadcast programming as cable television gained in power and influence.” However, it didn’t work quite well because broadcasters are using these provisions as an excuse to charge cable companies high fees for programming.

 Fields explains that when the Federal Communications Commission created this ruling the main purpose was to help market competition. They initially thought that cable stations were going to be a monopoly, so they created the retransmission consent in order to avoid future problems between broadcasters and cable stations. 

             The FCC has stated in their 2000 ruling that rates charged by networks or cable companies are determined by these businesses and the “commission does not have the authority to review these rates or to investigate allegations that the rates are excessive.” 

            However, now that the FCC doesn’t have any control over how much broadcasters can charge for their programming, broadcasters are taking advantage of the provision. Broadcasters know they can charge as much as they want because cable stations need their programming.

Right after the dispute between the two companies, Senator John Kerry conducted a meeting with some broadcast executives to examine the retransmission consent. He stated in a press release that in order to provide a fair service to subscribers this provision has to be changed. He also stated that the “FCC can and should use its existing authority to draft new rules” and he also reminded “the agency that its role is to protect those consumers.”

            As of now, the FCC has not taking any action about this issue. Hopefully, after the attention that Cablevision and News Corp.’s dilemma took in the media and the Congress, the FCC will get more involved and do something about it. The issue here is that subscribers are the most affected by this inconvenient, and they are the ones who will have to pay the price. Because it’s for sure that cable companies will have to raise their fees in order to maintain their business.

 

Cable.. a luxury?

Everyday day we hear that the economy is recuperating, slowly but is getting better. Still for some people money is tight and so they try to find solutions to save some money. Some choose to eat more at home, but for some others the solution is: no cable. According to an article in the New York Times’ Media Decoder, cable subscriptions have gone down tremendosly in the past months. Little by little consumers have canceled their cable and satellite subscriptions.

“Cable distributors like Comcast have been hardest hit by the loss of subscribers. Some people who had cable have switched to satellite or to new telecommunications services like Verizon FiOS. Others, according to Comcast, are reverting to over-the-air television signals.”

This situation has affected the television industry because most of the money they collect comes from cable distributors like Comcast and DISHNetwork. However, some TV companies are trying to come up with new strategies to help solve the problem. Time Warner Cable, for example, is trying to retain consumers by introducing cheaper packages of TV programming. Right now they hope that subscriptions will increase during the third quarter of the year, since during this season they expect that more people will want to watch special programming.

This issue relates to the News Corp and Cablevision dilemma. The prices of subscriptions are directly affected by increments in programming fees, and in such a hard economy customers are not able to pay much for TV.

The problem is that when companies like News Corp make cable companies pay huge amounts of money for their programming, it is causing that TV viewers take drastically actions, like canceling their cable subscriptions. The question now is, if we can watch TV for free (over the airwaves or online), why do we have to pay ridiculously amounts of money for a subscription? I agree that if you want more, well, you pay more, but I don’t agree that a regular consumer be forced to unsubscribe from this service because companies just want to take too much advantage of their products.

Panther Report Ep. 5

And here is our Halloween edition of the Panther Report!! Make sure you watch the entire episode! It has 2 parts.We are looking so much better... and we are learning so much out of this experience, you can actually see our progress!

Also, in this episode we have an interview with The Economist's Economics editor, Zanny Minton Beddoes. Check it out!

Panther Report Ep. 4

It's been long time since my last post... it's always hard to take time off!! But here is an update... watch the 4th episode of the Panther Report. It's divided in 3 parts, so just click on it to watch the rest!

Cablevision vs. News Corp continues (Part 2)

A couple of days ago Cablevision (the cable company that serves the New York metropolitan area) and News Corporation (owner of Fox) were having some difficulties reaching an end to the negotiation terms for the cable company to carry Fox.

Cablevision’ subscribers were unable to watch Fox since October 16, and their main concern was that Fox was going to broadcast the World Series. While the dispute was taking place, subscribers were unable to watch these series, and some others were forced to switch to other cable companies. Other methods used for subscribers were to watch shows online and some others went back to the use of an antenna.

The dispute finally came to an end last Saturday (October 30), just in time for cablevision subscribers to watch the third game of the World Series. According to an article in the New York Times, the two companies came to an agreement, in which Cablevision accepted to pay a huge amount of money to News Corp. Cablevision stated that it was ridiculous they had to pay so much money to carry these channels when people can get them for free over the airwaves.

Even though the two companies reached a deal, it seems they still involve in a big dispute. Cablevision stated that the retransmission consent system is badly managed and they ask the government to take a more active action in the issue. Since they, and some other cable companies, believe that the government doesn’t care much about these issues.

However, News Corporation stated that Cablevision has always been complaining about the prices. They also alleged that the only reason why Cablevision wants to get the government involved is because they want a change in the regulations to benefit their company.

Everyday we see disputes like this, in which businesses try to take the most advantage out of their services. It’s ridiculous that the broadcast company want to charge so much when subscribers can get these same channels for free with an antenna. And what is unfair is that subscribers are the ones who will have to pay the price, because it’s for sure that the cable company will raise their prices. In situations like this, I think that government (precisely the FCC) should take action, because at the end consumers are the most affected.