dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


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 page · 1 · 2 · 3 · next


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:
·ObiVoice
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:
·ObiVoice
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/20101229/ap_···_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.


hottboiinnc
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:
·Time Warner Cable
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest

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.


fifty nine

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

Re: Already happened

said by wwdubbia:

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

Isn't Time Warner already raising rates anyway? Congrats to them, they now have a convenient excuse.

bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY

Screw them both

drop them and save the transmit fees and lower my cable TV bill

bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY
reply to fifty nine

Re: TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting

I would pay 10 bucks a month for Discovery and History in 720p

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to fiberguy

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

said by fiberguy:

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.

Yeah, that was a pretty nasty tornado. You'd think with all of those trees gone that we'd be able to get better reception!

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

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.

Um, like I mentioned, the cost of putting up a "real" antenna, along with the amps, tripod, etc sometimes can cost $500 or more, and even then the channel selection can be quite limited, so that is one excuse.

Another is that no, not everyone can get the channels 60 miles away. Just because YOU can get the channels 48 miles from NYC doesn't mean that everyone else lives in the same terrain as you. Someone with more hills in the way or thicker trees might be a lot more limited than you are.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to kpfx

Re: TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting

It doesn't matter what agreement they have with FOX. FCC retransmission rules are very clear here... the national feed(s) cannot compete with local broadcasters. (otherwise DISH and DTV would simply carry 6 national broadcasts and drop the thousands of local stations -- and the billion dollar satellites they built to broadcast them.)

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to wwdubbia

Re: Already happened

said by wwdubbia:

WBRE is complaining that TWC is importing their signal to my market illegally.

And WBRE is correct. TWC is illegally re-broadcasting content outside their market (and very likely in violation of it's contract with WBRE.) Local regulators have nothing to do with it; notify the FCC.

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to KrK

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

said by KrK:

Only because of the lack of competition, and the resulting profit "opportunities."

Since you didn't quote what I said that you were responding to, I'm assuming it is the part about internet video pushing rates higher or caps lower...

If that is the case, no, you are wrong. It does simply cost more to deliver independent streams of video than it does using a broadcast method like satellite or cable. It isn't "only because of lack of competition" and other totally money hungry purposes. Yes, those do sometimes play a roll, but that isn't the main reason that replacing your TV delivery with the internet will cause your ISP to raise rates.

If a TV provider offers 100 channels, it can simply push those 100 channels out through the wire and every house can receive them. Other than the cost of the physical wire or receivers (and obvious things like support), it costs virtually the same to deliver those channels to 100 households as it does for 1000 homes.

Now internet streaming on the other hand would cost over 10 times as much to push 1000 streams vs 100. As I said, it is a horribly inefficient deliver method compared to the technologies that are built for it. You can think of it like a city bus vs individual cars. If you put a 100 cars on the road, you'll have a lot more traffic problems than if those 100 people all hop onto one bus.

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

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.

Yes, but the internet doesn't "care" which channel you are watching. The bandwidth still costs the same. It will cost as much (or more) in bandwidth fees to stream one channel as it does to have 100 channels multicast to you over cable. If you have 2 TV's, it will now cost you twice as much (even if both are streaming the same channel).


nukscull

@rr.com
reply to fifty nine

Re: Why mention...?

And you missed my point.

TWC isn't going to cut off the Sinclair networks until they are TOLD to cut them off, or until they are cut off.

Some of the channels are fiber only, regardless if OTA is available. It's all how it is negociated as to what the connections are. So yes, in many cases it is about "cutting the fiber." I'm not sure why you chose the point to argue, and then ignore the whole point that TWC isn't the one that is going to turn this off. They have no reason to. As long as the channel is getting to them and being rebroadcast, their customers are happy.

As soon as Sinclair turns off the feeds to them, or tells TWC to stop, then TWC's customers are unhappy.

So like I said, TWC has no incentive to turn this off. Yet Sinclair is running banners on their channels saying that TWC is going to cut them off.