 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to BHNtechXpert
Re: ? Whatever you say. It must be true. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to fiberguy
Re: The most SILLY part of this blog.. said by fiberguy:WHY in the world would anyone crave internet video BECAUSE of this? Ummmm let me see here.
Could it THE BILL?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
|
|
| reply to kpfx
Re: TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting 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.
--
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.
Sherlock Holmes in
The Boscombe Valley Mystery
A. C. Doyle
Strand Magazine, October 1891 |
|
Reviews:
 ·Charter
| Hey TW... 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. |
|
Zach 58Premium
join:2006-11-26
NW Minnesota
1 edit | Yawn 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!  |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| This makes no sense?? 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.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Why cant TWC show it anyway? 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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to elray
Re: What's the problem? 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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | reply to KrK
Re: The most SILLY part of this blog.. said by KrK:said by fiberguy:WHY in the world would anyone crave internet video BECAUSE of this? Ummmm let me see here. Could it THE BILL? 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. |
|
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:Besides, last I checked, the very signals in question (local programming) is already free to the end user. Get an antenna. 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. |
|
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | reply to Dryvlyne
Re: Regulation is needed said by Dryvlyne: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. More regulations will cost more than the negotiations themselves because now we have more lawyers and politicians involved. Let TV broadcasting get so out of hand the whole system crashes and they need to rebuild it. No bailouts are needed here, just like the rest of the bailouts really didn't help anything. Will there be consumer collateral damage? Yes, no matter which way it goes there will be, so might as well leave the politicians out of it. |
|
 burner50Proud Union THUGPremium,VIP
join:2002-06-05
Texas
kudos:1 | reply to elray
Re: What's the problem? In my opinion, it is time that large providers team up against these ridiculous broadcasters.
Negotiate all at once, all or nothing, nationwide agreement. Sinclair holds the power now, time to take it back.
Where I work, the companies did it... The union negotiates with one body that represents 130+ companies. They hammer out one deal, and that sticks for the majority of the industry across the country.
Let's see sinclair swallow losing All of their cable subs at the same time...
--
I'm tired of killing stupid people just trying to do my job and go home! |
|
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | reply to megarock
Re: Hey TW... said by megarock: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.
Agreed. The broadcast companies are doing the cable companies a favor by providing content, but the cable companies are doing the broadcast companies a favor by expanding their footprint and giving them move viewers. They should call it a wash and neither should pay each other anything.
The only problem with the "cut them off for the customers" solution is that the customers are never happy and will be more pissed about losing channels and demanding lower rates, rather than keeping the channels and paying slightly higher rates. Most customers are just never happy, whether something is done for their own good or not. It's a lose-lose situation either way. |
|
QLR
join:2009-06-23
Tallahassee, FL Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Wireless..
| I agree with the retrans rerun LOL Sinclair is always in a fight with the cable providers... this time last year, they were fighting with Mediacom. The Mediacom users in Georgia ended up losing WTWC (the Sinclair NBC affiliate around here) for a few days as a result... I dont think many people cared since another NBC affiliate (WALB, owned by Media General) is also on the line up... that and possibly, WALB is much better than WTWC.
Just curious, are all Sinclair stations are horrible when compared to the other locals?!?!? I only look at WTWC for the NBC programming; no news is offered, and the PQ for non-NBC programming is atrocious. I wonder what would happen if Sinclair threatens Comcast? LOL |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to jcremin
Re: The most SILLY part of this blog.. What KrK fails to realize or understand is that it all comes from the same source.. and to think that the content providers are going to make it any cheaper is ignorance to the facts.
So I'm still kinda trying to understand why he would say "Could it THE BILL?" when all it means is that people would go to the internet to pay MORE for less, only get it direct from the source who'd be willing to sell you piece rate at a higher price than you're paying the cable or satellite companies already.
Yea.. makes sense.
I DO get the overall amount of the check every month for the entire bill, but still, people running direct to the internet for content is the same is being half dead and running TOWARDS the light, and not away from it.
The content providers don't care if you get it from cable or direct.. if you go online and buy from smaller middle-men, you're going to pay a higher price as well.
In the end, the content provider wins anyway.. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to jcremin
heh.. in Siren WI, it also seems virtually impossible for them to get the storm Sirens working too! lol. Sorry man, I couldn't resist.
But you're right.. in some areas you're right. And honestly, this is one of those moments where I personally feel that cable SHOULD be able to carry those networks and I believe that it should NOT be a charge to the consumer for it OR to the cable operator. I also feel that the locals should have to cover more areas than they currently do. In the cities where the signal IS available, it should be a charge, but on an ala cart basis and as an option.
I kinda get tired of the locals having their cake and eating it too these days. |
|
| reply to burner50
Re: What's the problem? You're doing like they dont have options. The dish and phone company tv guys are more than happy to pick up the slack where cable drops the ball. |
|
1 edit | reply to fiberguy
Re: The most SILLY part of this blog.. Stations negotiate cable and local stations as a package, so a la carte locals would not be possible anyway. The whole fox/cablevision dispute was about the whole package of fox cable channels and the local O&O, not just one or the other.
Like I said, if the cable companies don't like the price, they can make their own content. Then you would end up with quality channels owned by cable companies such as G4 *snicker*
Don't be fooled. Time Warner is probably going to raise rates anyway. They just have a convenient excuse now by blaming station owners. |
|
| reply to fiberguy
There's no excuse if you live less than 60 miles from the transmitters. I live 48 miles from NYC and my ota setup gets everything. Tell your hoa to shove it and put up a real antenna and enjoy your free tv. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to jcremin
Only because of the lack of competition, and the resulting profit "opportunities." |
|
