Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
spacer
1
spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-12-28 18:11:37: 2010 is ending with a retransmission dispute between Time Warner Cable and Sinclair Broadcasting, which is fitting for a year that saw such disputes reach new heights (or perhaps depths). ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · next

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
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.


burner50
Proud Union THUG
Premium
join:2002-06-05
Fort Worth, TX
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:3
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

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

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 recommendation

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..

fiberguy
My 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.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
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.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

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.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
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.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to jcremin
Only because of the lack of competition, and the resulting profit "opportunities."


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Dryvlyne

Re: Regulation is needed

The cable companies had regulation giving them the right to carry everything OTA within a 50 mile radius. They weren't happy with that so they along with ted turner sued the FCC. They won and now this is how we ended up with the rules today.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to fiberguy

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

I don't fail to realize anything. The Internet allows users to watch only what they choose... and therefore, pay less if they choose to.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to nukscull

Re: Why mention...?

This is not about "cutting the fiber.". Most cable companies have OTA facilities as a backup or even as a primary means of signal acquisition. This is anout permission to rebroadcast copyrighted content.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to megarock

Re: Hey TW...

They won't do that. TWC would then no longer have an excuse to raise rates, which they were probably going to do anyway.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to r81984

Re: This makes no sense??

Clearly you possess zero understanding of how it works, including the rules that the cable companies themselves helped to create.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Kearnstd

Re: Why cant TWC show it anyway?

Cable benefits more because without locals the consumer has a choice - two dish providers, antenna or even phone company tv. Really this is the cableco's to lose. Ad revenue is down due to the economy. If you really want to complain about retrans fees, try the sports networks. They have to pay those pro athletes salaries somehow.


hamburglar_

join:2002-04-29
united state
Reviews:
·Vestalink
reply to Dryvlyne

Re: Regulation is needed

said by Dryvlyne:

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.

The only bowl game on ABC is The Outback Bowl. NFL is covered with the FOX national feed agreement. I say let Sinclair suffer a bit. I've got OTA set up on my Tivo to supplement and another small antenna on the second TV. They are both picking up 6 and 28 without issue. For me, the only alternative is satellite, and it's not cheaper.

I agree too, these Sinclair ads telling me to switch just aggravate the situation. I also realized while setting up the OTA, we only watch one 6/28 show on a regular basis. No real loss here.


hamburglar_

join:2002-04-29
united state
Reviews:
·Vestalink
reply to QLR

Re: I agree with the retrans rerun LOL

said by QLR:

Just curious, are all Sinclair stations are horrible when compared to the other locals?!?!?

Yes.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to 56403739

Re: What's the problem?

said by 56403739:

said by FFH5:

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.

Actually, that's not what it is about, but thanks for guessing.

Others agree with me:
»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2010 ··· _dispute

Broadcast companies used to allow cable providers to carry their channels for free and made their money selling commercial time. But competition with cable networks for ad dollars has intensified, and the recession underscored how quickly ad spending can fall off when businesses need to cut spending. Now broadcasters see these fees from cable providers as a crucial, second revenue stream.


hottboiinnc4
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to Kearnstd
its not TWC that shuts the networks off. The actual network owner/broadcaster does. They do a blackout of those channels.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to WhatNow

Re: TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting

Are you willing to pay $12 - $14 per channel? That's what premium, ad free channels charge.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Streetlight
A cable company's revenue depends on the number of subscribers. If the number of subscribers drops because cable companies drop a channel and competitors have the channel, then the cable company is 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.

Or customers could simply switch to a dish or telco competitor.

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.

Been there, done that.

beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
reply to hamburglar_

Re: I agree with the retrans rerun LOL

Yes.

In Columbus, OH their newscasts, etc. are an absolute joke.


C_
Kill The Socialists
Premium
join:2001-03-19
kudos:3
reply to fifty nine

Re: Regulation is needed

Wow someone that actually gets it, the cable companies brought this on themselves


C_
Kill The Socialists
Premium
join:2001-03-19
kudos:3
reply to fifty nine

Re: This makes no sense??

said by fifty nine:

Clearly you possess zero understanding


--
"and no matter how drunk you get .. don't lick the wall socket to test polarity..."

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to fifty nine

Re: What's the problem?

And that is part of the rub. The networks do not stand to lose anything in this. If they cut off service, then people flee to another provider. They still have their eyes and TW lost revenue.

So this is very much a 1 sided fight in which the cable company (whom has competition) can't win no matter what.


W8ASA
Noi tieng gi the?

join:2000-07-31
Dayton, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Time Warner Cable

Sinclair Stations in the Dayton Ohio Market

The Sinclair (which happen to be the Fox network stations here) affilates here are running ads telling customers that we will lose coverage. They also give us the 800 number for TW customer service, telling us to call them and quit TW, and go with Dish et all. That's a scumbag maneuver, and all it has accomplished is to pi$$ me off at the local Sinclair affiliates, channels 22 and 45 in this case. I have heard that TW, if the Sinclair drops its local coverage, will continue to provide Fox network coverage through a Cincinnati station. Good for them! To heck with Sinclair and their stupid tactics! Channels 22 and 45 in the Dayton market are wannabe stations anyway.

So, Sinclair wants us to change to Dish/Direct. What happens when they get into a tiff with Dish and Direct? Will they tell those customers to go back to TW? Sheesh..... give me a break.
--
Microwave and RF Components at www.ohiomicrowave.com


wwdubbia

join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY

Already happened

This has already happened in my market. WKTV-NBC, a Smith Broadcasting station, went dark on 12/16. TWC is now piping in WBRE-NBC out of Scranton PA which is over 2 hours away. As a consumer, I feel I am getting shafted because why would I be at all interested in Scranton PA news when I am in Central NY? It's definitely not meeting the community interest threshhold.

WBRE is complaining that TWC is importing their signal to my market illegally; it is a total cluster and local officials don't have the knowledge to effectively pressure the parties involved.

In the end, everyone loses except TW who will just raise rates to offset lost revenue.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to W8ASA

Re: Sinclair Stations in the Dayton Ohio Market

Yeah, Channel 11 (WBAL-TV) was doing a similar thing with Direct TV customers and showing that crawl all the time.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Skippy25

Re: What's the problem?

said by Skippy25:

And that is part of the rub. The networks do not stand to lose anything in this. If they cut off service, then people flee to another provider. They still have their eyes and TW lost revenue.

So this is very much a 1 sided fight in which the cable company (whom has competition) can't win no matter what.

It's not one sided at all. Cable companies are free to drop the stations. The problem is that they can't produce compelling content that people want to watch on their own, except maybe when Comcast finishes the acquisition of NBC. So they have to depend on the stations for the content that their viewers are requesting.