Time Warner Cable, Sinclair Deadline Looms

Both sides have incentive to negotiate in good faith.

If they fail to arrive at a mutual agreement, then let the chips fall where they may.

The sooner we can get to ala-carte via OTT, the better.

TW subscribers who want to view Sinclair Broadcasting stations can put up an antenna. Of course this would only work for folks who have the proper digital tuner equipped TV sets or digital to analog converters. TW could assist folks who want to do this. Most cable set top boxes don't have such tuners built in.

Eventually a deal will likely be signed. If not, will subs see a price reduction?

Let's see the stations give it away for free but want to be paid if it is on cable. If I am paying more will I see less ads. The business buying ads should demand to pay less if they lose all those cable eyeballs.
The content providers had better be careful they could kill the goose that has been paying their bills. When people cut the cord the station gets nothing.

This is all about Sinclair losing ad revenue on their OTA local stations and trying to squeeze more money from cable to make up for the lost ad revenue.

Eventually, cable & telco TV will totally squeeze out the OTA stations completely and will deal directly with the content providers. That eliminates 1 source of additional overhead. And with the FCC cooperating by wanting to buy up TV OTA spectrum to sell to cell providers the squeeze is on from both sides.

I am lucky to have cut my cable cord years ago but I do live in Portland.I had TW as cable for over 10 years and never cared about more than 10 or so channels.i finally just told them you can lower my rate or I am taking a hike.They didnot want to do the ala carte thing so I cut my cable.I am not unhappy over that fact.

The thing is these retransmission disputes will only hurt the consumer in the end.We have seen that happen again and again.

With KABB (Fox) here in San Antonio, you can't get them outside the city without a 22ft antenna because they've got such an awful transmitter.

However, an interesting twist in this case is that Time Warner has a national agreement with FOX to continue showing the network feed in the event of the loss of the affiliate... so in effect we're loosing out on KABB's local news (which is a joke compared to the other 3 here) and I think one or two Spurs games (which I'll just go to the bar to see).

»latimesblogs.latimes.com ··· oup.html

Actually, that's not what it is about, but thanks for guessing. It is about the free market arriving at a fair value for a product. If there was no demand for what Sinclair was selling, TWC could just say "bye bye" and drop the channels. But they won't since cable still can't produce the kind of programming most people watch.

quote:

---

In the end, all these disputes really accomplish are higher bills and a craving by the public for Internet video disruption of the traditional TV sector.

---

OH GIVE IT A REST ALREADY. The only people who have this craving are the mods running this website.

When enough people switch to internet video you will see LOW CAPS implemented by ALL ISP's, and/or huge increases for INTERNET ONLY subscribers.

And again Karl, you criticize the negotiations, yet I'm sure tomorrow you'll criticize another "rake hike season".

What do you propose the cable providers do? And, no, that was not a rhetorical question.

No, MMH is absolutely right. It's about lost ad revenue. The fair market value of the product is free. The payment they get is eyeballs on the ad views.

Don't forget that the TV stations use ratings to determine spot rates. No cable = less viewers = less revenue.

"In the end, all these disputes really accomplish are higher bills and a craving by the public for Internet video disruption of the traditional TV sector."

WHY in the world would anyone crave internet video BECAUSE of this?

Are you serious?

... what would make ANYONE believe that getting rid of a cable company because of these retrans and going to internet video would magically solve all the problems? .. the VERY same video content, in question, would either be delivered through ANOTHER middle man who would have to negotiate, for one.. or even worse, you go direct to the very provider that isn't going to play with another giant (TWC, Comcast, Verizon, et all) and simply STICK if to the consumer, direct!

There is something to be said about power in numbers. If you take a giant, such as SINclair, and put them against a giant like Comcast, those two have more power to fight each other and more to lose. You put SINclair up against the single consumer and it's "take it or leave it" and they'll raise the prices as they feel, when they feel.

Besides, last I checked, the very signals in question (local programming) is already free to the end user. Get an antenna.

The ONLY real bargaining power in these cases is that the consumer is too stupid to simply add an antenna for the locals and be done with their retrans agreement charges/profits to begin with.

Even if the end user went to rabbit ears to get the programming, no matter what the consumer wants, they have to pay the locals just because they have cable.

The SERIOUS flaw in this whole picture is that cable companies are still forced to sell Tier1 programming as mandatory to the consumer JUST to have cable. CONGRESS needs to change this rule and change it now! Locals, if they want to be paid for their signal, should be taken out of Tier1 and put on an OPTIONAL local broadcast tier on an ALA CART BASIS. Yes, ala cart! The way I see it, they are no different than HBO or Showtime.. except that they get paid JUST because you have ANY level of cable service, and I see that's just wrong.

Want to put an end to these go-nowhere negotiations and disruption to the public? .. end retrans payments and put the locals on must carry. But NOT A DIME to them for their signal which can be gotten for free. It's time to end the corporate subsidizing in this case.

I hate to say it, but this is the perfect example of why additional regulations are needed to keep both sides from putting, and screwing, the customer in the middle.

While I absolutely despise TWC's "roll over or get tough" PR campaign, because it is indeed disingenuous, Sinclair is doing a fair amount of PR themselves and being just a disingenuous. I've been completely disgusted to see full 30 second commercials and my local news stations imploring viewers to call TWC and complain or to find suitable alternative carriers.

At the end of the day I think the broadcasters hold all the cards. When push comes to shove, as it has in the past, TWC will come around and pony up the cash as customers start to defect for fear of losing their programming. The carriers need the broadcasters more than the broadcasters need the carriers particularly because, while limited, there are at least alternative carriers for consumers to turn to.

This time of the season is also particularly bad for TWC to be trying to take a stand with the BCS games and NFL playoffs looming. I distinctly remember a few years ago when a similar dispute caused TWC to lose all sorts of customers here where I live in OH because OSU was in the BCS National Championship game and nobody was going to chance losing their programming. I've never seen so many satellite installs done in a matter of 3-4 weeks than I did during that time.

I for one am content to let things ride out for a couple of weeks, but after that all bets are off as far as me staying with TWC especially if I don't see a decrease in my bill (which I know I won't) to reflect the loss of programming. I suspect a lot of other TWC customers feel the same as I do if they have not already switch to another carrier. The fact is most consumers are much more loyal to their programming than they are to their carrier.

Why mention TWC's disingenuous roll over and get tough campaign and not mention the disingenuous misinformation campaign by Sinclair?

They run scrolling banners on their channels saying that TWC is going to drop the channels, when that is not true at all.

TWC would continue broadcasting the channel as long as Sinclair was sending it to them. As soon as Sinclair disconnects the fiber or revokes the authorization to the receiver hardware is when the channel will stop being broadcast by TWC. TWC has no incentive to stop sending the channel to TWC.

And the worst thing. When Sinclair is running these banners on their HD stations, it scales it down to an SD signal, which pretty much makes the channel unwatchable anyway.

Cable bills only go one way and its NOT down.

Well you got it half right... Karl Bode would never give TW credit for at least making the attempt to hold costs back and as usual this is his way at taking yet another jab at TW. I look forward to the day when Verizon faces the same thing...can't wait to see his (cough) "objective" reporting of that.

Glad to see another who sees right through Karl....at least you get it... TW could give free cable to everyone and he would still find a way to bitch about it...why? Because it's cable aka TW and we all know how Karl feels about TW. There is no objective reporting here...the sooner people realize it...the better.

Uh, I'm not a mod on this site and I am craving it......just sayin

I totally agree either made Teir 1 free or charge like HBO and the customer has to opt in like HBO.
The only hope is enough individual content providers start to do like some music artists sell it direct. Instead of Mad Men being on a cable channel the Producer sells it by subscription on the internet or a Premium Channel like Showtime.

What Free market do you speak of? The one where I can just pick to watch whatever channel I wish? OH WAIT. I can't.

This isn't about "fair market value" at all.

It's about how much people get bent over.

No wonder people look to other ways to get programming.

And that means we're supposed to like it... why?

Whatever you say. It must be true.

Ummmm let me see here.

Could it THE BILL?

As noted in other postings here, an over the air station's ad revenue depends on the number of eyeballs viewing its product. If that number drops because cable drops the stream and it cannot be picked up by antenna, then the station's losing revenue. If TW-San Antonio drops the FOX channel, and outlying areas can't get it via antenna, then the station will have to produce a better signal to retain the lost eyeballs, else they're going to lose revenue.

In all these retransmission agreement arguments, cable companies should play hardball and drop the station. A test case is needed to see how long before the stations cave in.

Just CUT THEM OFF and then tell them to go blow a goat. Tell your customers you're doing it to keep prices right for them and they will understand. A FREE OVER THE AIR BROADCAST should not be paid for because IT ALREADY IS BY AD REVENUE and by the cable operator carrying that signal it can only help penetrate more homes. Cut them off, the advertisers will then see there are less people viewing their ads and cut payment to Sinclair and they will cave.

Simple economics. It's a free signal and doesn't cost the broadcast channel a penny more for it to be retransmitted. Stop paying them and CUT THEM OFF.

Yet another retransmission rerun.

The programmer raises rates, the distributor pitches a fit, the consumer gets the bill and complains but can't won't vote with their wallet and live without. Repeat. Should be really interesting once the likes of Comcast own the likes of NBC.

'Round here it's OTA or Off. If OTA goes away, I'll have more help splitting firewood and plowing snow!

OTA is free for viewing from ad revenue.
It makes no sense that a cable company would pay anything to rebroadcast OTA to make it convient for customers and to give the OTA channels more viewer/ad revenue.

If a cable company has to pay anything for OTA they should be able to remove all the ads and insert their own ads.

because the Networks get their money from ads. for example how would I viewing 6abcHD from Philadelphia via Antenna be any different than me consuming the content delivered via Coax to my house via Comcast. I see the same exact advertisements and the same exact programing.

I never understood these fees as anything more than a money grab. cable allows them to have higher ratings because it allows them to get eyeballs outside of their transmitter range.

TWC should continue to show their stations after the contract expires and simply claim the tech that knows how to shut down those channels is union and has New Years off.

It costs MORE in the bandwidth required to deliver video than it costs cable or satellite companies. Therefore if everyone eliminates a $40 TV bill and streams all that content over the internet, they should expect their internet bill to go up at $40.

All internet video will do is push ISP's to metered billing, caps, or both. Consumers are shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating the more efficient delivery methods and replacing it with the internet. It may be saving money now, but the days are numbered for "all you can eat" bandwidth.

I totally agree with everything you said, but I do want to point out that it is virtually impossible in many areas to get reception with an OTA antenna.

In the area I live, you are lucky to pick up more than a few channels with a large rooftop antenna on a tripod with 10' mast and an amplifier, and the installation costs are $500 or more in many cases. After the DTV transition, about 1/2 of the residents had to switch to cable or satellite because the reception was too bad with an antenna.

So sometimes people have no OTA choice even for local stations. But yes, as you said it should be an OPTIONAL addon for those who don't want to pay for them.