dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed



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

Sussex, NJ
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.


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.