dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
796
share rss forum feed

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.



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

1 recommendation

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

said by FFH:

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.


ITALIAN926

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

2 recommendations

reply to elray

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.


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

1 recommendation

reply to 56403739

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!!



BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:138

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926

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
reply to ITALIAN926

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
reply to 56403739

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



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to ITALIAN926



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


Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to elray

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



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

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

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.



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

said by 56403739:

said by FFH:

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.


Skippy25

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

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

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

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.



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

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