Topic 'Re: What's the problem?' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Negotiations extended for 2 weeks

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 16:42:09 EDT

Linklist posted : 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

Re: What's the problem?

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:42:31 EDT

Skippy25 posted : 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.

Re: What's the problem?

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 11:13:54 EDT

fifty nine posted :

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.

Re: What's the problem?

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:22:43 EDT

Skippy25 posted : 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.

Re: What's the problem?

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 07:57:58 EDT

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

Re: What's the problem?

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 07:36:52 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by 56403739:

said by Linklist:

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.

Re: What's the problem?

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 06:57:06 EDT

fifty nine posted : 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.

Re: What's the problem?

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 01:43:20 EDT

burner50 posted : 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!

Re: What's the problem?

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:10:49 EDT

Kearnstd posted : 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

Re: What's the problem?

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:09:29 EDT

KrK posted : :uhh:

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

Re: What's the problem?

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:08:07 EDT

KrK posted : 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

Re: What's the problem?

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:39:18 EDT

dualsub2006 posted : Uh, I'm not a mod on this site and I am craving it......just sayin

Re: What's the problem?

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:30:58 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

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.

Re: What's the problem?

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:47:06 EDT

GeekJedi posted : 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!!

Re: What's the problem?

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:36:19 EDT

ITALIAN926 posted :

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.

Re: What's the problem?

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:35:17 EDT

56403739 posted :

said by Linklist:

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.

Re: What's the problem?

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:51:18 EDT

Linklist posted : 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.

What's the problem?

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:19:01 EDT

elray posted : 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.