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). ..

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

What's the problem?

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.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re: What's the problem?

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.

56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: What's the problem?

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. 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.

GeekJedi
RF is Good For You
Premium
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI

1 recommendation

Re: What's the problem?

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.
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!!

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
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.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
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.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Negotiations extended for 2 weeks

Sinclair Broadcasting Group and two cable TV companies agreed to extend contract talks for two more weeks.

»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110101/ap_···_dispute

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 recommendations

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.

BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:156

1 recommendation

Re: What's the problem?

said by ITALIAN926:

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.

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.
dualsub2006

join:2007-07-18
Newport, KY
Uh, I'm not a mod on this site and I am craving it......just sayin

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


And that means we're supposed to like it... why?
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
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
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: What's the problem?

its not TWC that shuts the networks off. The actual network owner/broadcaster does. They do a blackout of those channels.

burner50
Proud Union THUG
Premium
join:2002-06-05
Fort Worth, TX
kudos:1
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!

fifty nine

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

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.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

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.

fifty nine

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

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.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: What's the problem?

So now the cable companies need to become producers of TV shows as well so this doesnt happen?

That is a stupid argument and Comcast should not be able to take over NBC as the delivery method and the product should remain separate.

Streetlight

join:2005-11-07
Colorado Springs, CO

1 edit

TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting

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?
WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Re: TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting

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.

fifty nine

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

Re: TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting

Are you willing to pay $12 - $14 per channel? That's what premium, ad free channels charge.
bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY

Re: TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting

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

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME
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.

kpfx

join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX

1 edit
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/enterta···oup.html

Streetlight

join:2005-11-07
Colorado Springs, CO

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

fifty nine

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

Re: TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting

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.
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
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.)

kpfx

join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX

Re: TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting

The FCC rules do not say anything about retransmission of the national network feed. The DMA is setup so the broadacster serves the community and as such the FCC only cares about the local content that the broadcaster generates.

said by cramer:

...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.

Dish/Direct don't do this because ABC, NBC, CBS, etc won't allow it because it would harm their relationship with the local affiliates.

However, the difference in this case is FOX has essentially dropped the gauntlet and acknowledged that they really don't need their affiliates as much as they did in the past... and I wouldn't put it pas NBC, CBS, etc to do the same in the near future.
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

Re: TW vs. Sinclair Broadcasting

Wrong. DISH and Directv are legally prohibited from offering network feeds to people who can receive local over-the-air broadcasts. It's about protecting ad revenue for local broadcasters.

quote:
DNS (Distant Network Signal) is any television station delivered outside of its home DMA. Federal law prohibits the delivery of DNS programming to any subscriber who does not meet the strict eligibility requirements associated with this type of service.
(Directv's definition of "DNS")

How is eligibility for DNS determined?
Who determines the rules for delivery of local and distant network programming?
Why is only a single East or West Coast feed available for digital DNS service?

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
said by Streetlight:

If not, will subs see a price reduction?

Cable bills only go one way and its NOT down.
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $25? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me
beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

?

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.

BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:156

Re: ?

said by beaups:

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.

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.

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

Re: ?

Whatever you say. It must be true.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

2 recommendations

The most SILLY part of this blog..

"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.

•••••••••••••••

Dryvlyne
Far Beyond Driven
Premium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH

1 recommendation

Regulation is needed

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.

••••

nukscull

@rr.com

3 recommendations

Why mention...?

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.

fifty nine

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

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.

nukscull

@rr.com

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.
megarock

join:2001-06-28
Catawissa, MO
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.
jcremin

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

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.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
They won't do that. TWC would then no longer have an excuse to raise rates, which they were probably going to do anyway.
Zach1
Premium
join:2006-11-26
NW Minnesota

1 edit

1 recommendation

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!

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·row44

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.

fifty nine

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

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.

C_
Kill The Socialists
Premium
join:2001-03-19
kudos:3

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..."
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

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

fifty nine

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

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.
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

hamburglar_

join:2002-04-29
united state
Reviews:
·Vestalink

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.
beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

Re: I agree with the retrans rerun LOL

Yes.

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

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
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

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.

W8ASA
Noi tieng gi the?

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

Re: Sinclair Stations in the Dayton Ohio Market

Last night, I was trying to watch a program on the local Sinclair station (I think WRGT 45), and every time they did their stupid announcement, they made the HD picture the width of an NTSC picture, although the HUGE scroll on the bottom was normal HD width. That made the HD picture a lot smaller, and not easy to see because they kept the HD aspect ratio. In my opinion, the Sinclair stations here have cheap equipment, inept technical people, and terrible studio lighting. Their news reporting leaves a lot to be desired.

Sinclair Group, are you getting the message yet? It's okay to negotiate however you want with Time Warner, but it is NOT okay to let those negotiations interfere with my TV watching with your moronic scrolling messages and ads telling me to move to satellite or U-Verse.
--
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.

fifty nine

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

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.
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
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.
bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY

Screw them both

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

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

One station needs cable badly

One Sinclair station in my area would probably be SOL without Time Warner. Since they went digital, most times I can't even pick their signal up, and I can see their tower from my house!

They were assigned a VHF frequency and everything else in the area is UHF so I and most everyone else has a UHF antenna. On top of that, I'm wondering if they had to reduce transmission power (or are having transmitter/antenna problems) since being so close, one would almost think my gear could pick them up just by signal leakage INTO the cabling even if the UHF antenna wasn't adequate.

Point is, when I watch them, it's via DirecTV Locals. If TWC drops them, there are going to be a lot of TWC customers who probably won't even be able to pick them up with an OTA.

TWC might lose out on this disagreement in other markets, but there's one station in mine that would suffer more.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com

Long_a

@rr.com

Re: One station needs cable badly

If you're referring to WSYX, the FCC gave them a freq. change.

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

Re: One station needs cable badly

Nope. WDKY. There was another in my area that had been moved to VHF as well, but they petitioned and got a UHF allocation from the FCC. The WDKY is still on VHF as far as I know.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com
harald

join:2010-10-22
Columbus, OH
kudos:2

Deadline extended.

In Columbus, Ohio, at least, they have agreed to an additional two weeks of negotiation, according to Sinclair.