dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
3139
wth
Premium Member
join:2002-02-20
Iowa City,IA

2 edits

wth

Premium Member

[Cable TV]37 Days 'till Sinclair vs Mediacom Retrans Expires

Last agreement was a 2 year deal signed on 12/24/2010 which covers all Sinclair owned/operated stations.
»Re: [MO] is it true mediacom will be dropping all fox channels?

Link to the Sinclair owned/operated stations: »www.sbgi.net/business/te ··· on.shtml

Hopefully, we won't have to look for our rabbit ears.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: [Cable TV] 41 Days 'till Sinclair vs Mediacom Retrans Expire

said by wth:

Last agreement was a 2 year deal signed on 12/24/2010 which covers all Sinclair owned/operated stations.
»Re: [MO] is it true mediacom will be dropping all fox channels?

Link to the Sinclair owned/operated stations: »www.sbgi.net/business/te ··· on.shtml

Hopefully, we won't have to look for our rabbit ears.

I am betting there will be a dispute.

Honestly, I think Mediacom (and all providers for that matter) should dump local TV network affiliates and say either you provide your signal for free or you don't get carried. That or offer to hookup an antenna outside residential households and tie it into their channel offerings. It doesn't make sense that Mediacom has to pay money to carry local affiliates and then have to compete with their OTA free broadcasts. And every single time the contract ends, the local stations demand more money for often times continuously degrading ratings and content. If Mediacom got some backbone and stood up to the local affiliates, I bet the stations would cave. Last thing they want to do is lose out on both carriage fees and advertising revenue if no one can watch them.

Anonymous88
Premium Member
join:2004-06-01
IA

Anonymous88

Premium Member

The problem is as always the sports fans. As soon as they can't watch their games they will look elsewhere and start cancelling cable TV service. Mediacom should not even negotiate they should just pass on the increase to the subscribers.
drslash (banned)
Goya Asma
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA

drslash (banned) to wth

Member

to wth
The expensive sports channels should be in a sports package. The ESPN family of channels are a big reason for constant steep increases in cable rates. The Sinclair channels should be dropped permanently and left to die on the vine.

Old_CableGuy
@planetcr.net

Old_CableGuy

Anon

Remove sports from Mediacom, save everyone like 80% of the cost of their cable bill, and tell the right-wing loons at Sinclair to get bent.

Us 98% can't afford to keep giving the Mitt Romney's of the world the the XXL sized mansion. When the rich live off the labor and work of the bottom classes (lets face it, most CEOs have never worked a real day in their lives) they might have to live in the XL mansion instead. In case they haven't noticed, a recession is going on.

tsduke
Premium Member
join:2006-03-04
Waterloo, IA

tsduke

Premium Member

said by Old_CableGuy :

Remove sports from Mediacom, save everyone like 80% of the cost of their cable bill, and tell the right-wing loons at Sinclair to get bent.

Us 98% can't afford to keep giving the Mitt Romney's of the world the the XXL sized mansion. When the rich live off the labor and work of the bottom classes (lets face it, most CEOs have never worked a real day in their lives) they might have to live in the XL mansion instead. In case they haven't noticed, a recession is going on.

Why did you have to go to politics about a cable discussion? Corporate greed isn't all red. It exists across all political parties. How about we get rid of Obamacare so we can continue to afford cable.

And yea, go ahead and remove sports from Mediacom. That would be genius. How many customers would be left?

Old_CableGuy
@planetcr.net

Old_CableGuy

Anon

Let the mouthbreething sports fans leave. Maybe they should turn on CNN or the news and see what is happening in the world that is not a game for a change. Who cares about football when Israel is rocking the Gaza strip back to the stone age?
Old_CableGuy

Old_CableGuy to tsduke

Anon

to tsduke
I involve politics because Sinclair is a political organization. Their hit-piece on Obama shown under the guise of a "voter information segment" being just the most recent in a long string of right-wing whacko moves they have made. They're in some serious s--t with the federal election commission because of that piece, by the way.

If you can prove the Affordable Care Act has contributed to the raising costs of cable TV then I would continue that conversation with you, but it has not, so naturally, you cannot.

tsduke
Premium Member
join:2006-03-04
Waterloo, IA

2 edits

tsduke

Premium Member

Sinclair is no more of a political organization than any other company.

I didn't say it contributed to cable directly. I'm saying it is and will be taking from my pocket that could otherwise use elsewhere. Don't believe, ask your HR department.

Our company has already informed us that 2014 heath premium costs will be impacted significantly as a result of the so called reform.

And you use the term right-wing whacko. I feel the same way about all the left wing whacko crap the so called liar in chief we have now has done. Turning our nation into a nation of people dependent on the govt(taxpapers) instead of encouraging prosperity and success.
Expand your moderator at work
drslash (banned)
Goya Asma
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA

drslash (banned) to Old_CableGuy

Member

to Old_CableGuy

Re: [Cable TV] 41 Days 'till Sinclair vs Mediacom Retrans Expire

said by Old_CableGuy :

I involve politics because Sinclair is a political organization. Their hit-piece on Obama shown under the guise of a "voter information segment" being just the most recent in a long string of right-wing whacko moves they have made. They're in some serious s--t with the federal election commission because of that piece, by the way.

If you can prove the Affordable Care Act has contributed to the raising costs of cable TV then I would continue that conversation with you, but it has not, so naturally, you cannot.

[OT] Obamacare absolutely contributes to higher cable rates by Mediacom's own admission. They always cite the rising cost of healthcare and insurance for employees as a reason for rate hikes. If you think Obamacare is not causing healthcare and insurance costs to go up, then you are blind to the facts.
jrodson69
join:2012-10-02
Independence, IA

jrodson69 to Old_CableGuy

Member

to Old_CableGuy
said by Old_CableGuy :

Remove sports from Mediacom, save everyone like 80% of the cost of their cable bill, and tell the right-wing loons at Sinclair to get bent.

Us 98% can't afford to keep giving the Mitt Romney's of the world the the XXL sized mansion. When the rich live off the labor and work of the bottom classes (lets face it, most CEOs have never worked a real day in their lives) they might have to live in the XL mansion instead. In case they haven't noticed, a recession is going on.

Now this is utterly absurd. As others have pointed out, ObamaCare most definitely has (and will continue to) contribute to cost increases. Not just for Cable TV, but for every product and service. The cost of doing business is passed on to the consumer, the company doesn't just eat it. Why can't "left wing loons" ever get that point? There's no unicorn tears or pixie dust to absorb increased cost. It is passed directly and immediately on to the end user. Which (in most cases) is NOT the guy with an "XXL Mansion" but the regular old Joe, just trying to make ends meet. Wait until 2014, you ain't seen nothing with regard to cost increases yet.

I am not a fan of Sinclair, I could care less their politics, I don't feel any over the air broadcast station should be allowed to charge a provider for carrying their station. It's a service to the OTA provider. So my feeling is, go ahead and drop them. If they want to be carried, THEY should be paying Mediacom (and other carriers) not the other way around.
hifilistener8
join:2008-04-08
Minneapolis, MN

hifilistener8 to Old_CableGuy

Member

to Old_CableGuy
said by Old_CableGuy :

Remove sports from Mediacom, save everyone like 80% of the cost of their cable bill, and tell the right-wing loons at Sinclair to get bent.

It's interesting to see how the "tolerant" progressive/liberals act. This from the people who keep telling everyone how mean spirited the conservatives are. Unfortunately it’s not much of a surprise once you listen to the liberal preaching….
k9iua6
join:2004-05-23
Dubuque, IA

k9iua6 to jrodson69

Member

to jrodson69
said by jrodson69:

If they want to be carried, THEY should be paying Mediacom (and other carriers) not the other way around.

Yes, the FCC got the regulation backwards all those years ago, and we've been literally paying for it since.

To make that work, however, the cable (and satellite) companies will have to stop inserting their own commercials in place of OTA commercials on these particular channels. That is where the beef is - the OTA stations are trying to make up for the missed ad revenue from these insertions.

Anonymous88
Premium Member
join:2004-06-01
IA

Anonymous88 to drslash

Premium Member

to drslash
I doubt Obamacare had anything to do with this. Mediacom has always offered health insurance to their employees, the price is slowly creeping up just like everything else but overall I'm happy with the coverage.

Only companies who don't offer insurance should be worried.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to k9iua6

Premium Member

to k9iua6
said by k9iua6:

said by jrodson69:

If they want to be carried, THEY should be paying Mediacom (and other carriers) not the other way around.

Yes, the FCC got the regulation backwards all those years ago, and we've been literally paying for it since.

To make that work, however, the cable (and satellite) companies will have to stop inserting their own commercials in place of OTA commercials on these particular channels. That is where the beef is - the OTA stations are trying to make up for the missed ad revenue from these insertions.

Altering a broadcast is against federal law. Cable companies would not be able to alter broadcasts if OTA stations didn't give them permission. Although I have never heard any stations mention a loss of revenue from this practice and I am not sure it is a common practice.

tsduke
Premium Member
join:2006-03-04
Waterloo, IA

tsduke to Anonymous88

Premium Member

to Anonymous88
said by Anonymous88:

I doubt Obamacare had anything to do with this. Mediacom has always offered health insurance to their employees, the price is slowly creeping up just like everything else but overall I'm happy with the coverage.

Only companies who don't offer insurance should be worried.

Alternatively to raising 2014 health premiums our company brass will be heavily considering discontinuing health coverage for employees. The per employee penalty for not covering is much much less than the avg cost per employee to insure.

We as citizens will feel it in our wallets.
drslash (banned)
Goya Asma
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA

drslash (banned) to Anonymous88

Member

to Anonymous88
said by Anonymous88:

I doubt Obamacare had anything to do with this. Mediacom has always offered health insurance to their employees, the price is slowly creeping up just like everything else but overall I'm happy with the coverage.

Only companies who don't offer insurance should be worried.

I guess you don't read Mediacom's rate increase notices then. Just about every one that I have read has cited the increase in health insurance costs as one reason for a rate increase. I guess you don't read anything about what is going on in health care and the health insurance business. I keep up on it. Anecdotally, my insurance rates have gone up the most since Obamacare was passed. Many experts in the industry have cited Obamacare for the rapid rise in costs and insurance rates. 20-25% annual increase in health insurance costs is not "slowly creeping" up. Those percentage increases cause insurance costs to double in a few years.

The people who should be worried are those who currently have a health insurance plan offered by their employer. Many of those people will lose their coverage and have to buy on the open market at extremely higher rates.
StreatorTech
join:2009-12-02
Streator, IL

StreatorTech

Member

I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but Mediacom and other CATV providers cannot just choose to not carry OTA local stations due to the FCC Must Carry regulation. Where I live in northern Illinois, we have to carry both Chicago and Peoria stations because of where we are situated.

As for the rising cost of cable services

»articles.philly.com/2012 ··· e-sports

These sports players making $10million plus a season are one reason of the increases.

danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium Member
join:2002-03-02
Thorndale, ON

danawhitaker to drslash

Premium Member

to drslash
said by drslash:

said by Anonymous88:

I doubt Obamacare had anything to do with this. Mediacom has always offered health insurance to their employees, the price is slowly creeping up just like everything else but overall I'm happy with the coverage.

Only companies who don't offer insurance should be worried.

I guess you don't read Mediacom's rate increase notices then. Just about every one that I have read has cited the increase in health insurance costs as one reason for a rate increase. I guess you don't read anything about what is going on in health care and the health insurance business. I keep up on it. Anecdotally, my insurance rates have gone up the most since Obamacare was passed. Many experts in the industry have cited Obamacare for the rapid rise in costs and insurance rates. 20-25% annual increase in health insurance costs is not "slowly creeping" up. Those percentage increases cause insurance costs to double in a few years.

The people who should be worried are those who currently have a health insurance plan offered by their employer. Many of those people will lose their coverage and have to buy on the open market at extremely higher rates.

Cable TV rates have been rising a lot longer than Obamacare has been a factor. They're just using that as an excuse. It's a convenient one that employers can use to pass along more costs to the customers because it's "popular" right now and everyone else is doing it - sort of like how when you see one gas station change their prices the rest follow, or one company implements something and their competitors follow. Just because they say that's the cause, what proof is there it actually is? Their words on a printed statement telling you about a rate increase notice? They have to put *something* there, and the programming cost increase excuse has been wearing thin for a long time. And I'll be blunt - if I had to choose between paying more for my cable service so employees could have access to decent health insurance, or paying more for my cable service to carry more stupid sports channels, I'd take the former over the latter any day.

There's a difference between prosperity and greed. No one - on either side of the political spectrum - truly believes that prosperity and doing well in business is wrong. Many of us, however, sincerely believe that some corporations have crossed the threshold from prosperity into greed territory, at the expense of their employees and customers.

Personally, I'd be thrilled to have a TV option that didn't involve any of the sports channels. I never watch them. In my case though, losing Sinclair means losing Fox 17, which means losing access to one of my favorite shows (Bones). I could use an antenna again if I had to.

tsduke
Premium Member
join:2006-03-04
Waterloo, IA

tsduke

Premium Member

If you think using Obamacare is an excuse, lets meet back here in a year and see if you still think that. Obamacare forces companies to cover things that companies don't cover now. That's not free. If you have an income in which you pay taxes you might want to google healthcare reform taxes. This think will cost us more in premiums and taxes. He said it would be less than 1 trillion. It's not sitting at $2.7 trillion.

On the prosperity comment. Name me one action that Obama has promoted that supports prosperity and success. He's too focused on entitlement programs to do that.
jrodson69
join:2012-10-02
Independence, IA

jrodson69

Member

said by tsduke:

If you think using Obamacare is an excuse, lets meet back here in a year and see if you still think that. Obamacare forces companies to cover things that companies don't cover now. That's not free. If you have an income in which you pay taxes you might want to google healthcare reform taxes. This think will cost us more in premiums and taxes. He said it would be less than 1 trillion. It's not sitting at $2.7 trillion.

Wait until they find out they will have to declare the full value of any employer sponsored or provided health care coverage as income on their tax returns...and that government will have direct debit access to any checking or savings accounts in their name to debit any health care costs...

On the prosperity comment. Name me one action that Obama has promoted that supports prosperity and success. He's too focused on entitlement programs to do that.

Entitlements = Votes. It really is that simple.

tsduke
Premium Member
join:2006-03-04
Waterloo, IA

tsduke

Premium Member

said by jrodson69:

said by tsduke:

If you think using Obamacare is an excuse, lets meet back here in a year and see if you still think that. Obamacare forces companies to cover things that companies don't cover now. That's not free. If you have an income in which you pay taxes you might want to google healthcare reform taxes. This think will cost us more in premiums and taxes. He said it would be less than 1 trillion. It's not sitting at $2.7 trillion.

Wait until they find out they will have to declare the full value of any employer sponsored or provided health care coverage as income on their tax returns...and that government will have direct debit access to any checking or savings accounts in their name to debit any health care costs...

On the prosperity comment. Name me one action that Obama has promoted that supports prosperity and success. He's too focused on entitlement programs to do that.

Entitlements = Votes. It really is that simple.

Exactly!!!

danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium Member
join:2002-03-02
Thorndale, ON

danawhitaker to jrodson69

Premium Member

to jrodson69
said by jrodson69:

said by tsduke:

If you think using Obamacare is an excuse, lets meet back here in a year and see if you still think that. Obamacare forces companies to cover things that companies don't cover now. That's not free. If you have an income in which you pay taxes you might want to google healthcare reform taxes. This think will cost us more in premiums and taxes. He said it would be less than 1 trillion. It's not sitting at $2.7 trillion.

Wait until they find out they will have to declare the full value of any employer sponsored or provided health care coverage as income on their tax returns...and that government will have direct debit access to any checking or savings accounts in their name to debit any health care costs...

On the prosperity comment. Name me one action that Obama has promoted that supports prosperity and success. He's too focused on entitlement programs to do that.

Entitlements = Votes. It really is that simple.

»www.snopes.com/politics/ ··· thil.asp - you look smarter when you research your claims about what Obamacare does/doesn't do.

As for things that Obama wants to do to help increase prosperity, well, in my view, anything that helps make college more affordable will lead to students graduating with lower debt loads, which means less of their income will be down the drain immediately to student loan payments and can be spent actually purchasing things or can be saved. Less debt load also means that young people who'd like to start their own businesses might have more opportunities to do so. You really do have to have money to make money - success and prosperity don't come from nothing, and in general it seems the people who complain about Obama not doing anything to encourage prosperity are people who already are, in fact, prosperous. They're just disgruntled because what he wants to do encourages the opportunity of prosperity and success among people who were perhaps shut out completely before. And access to health care means that people can *stay* healthy, and therefore be able to work and hopefully be more successful. But I suppose in your mind, you should just be fortunate enough to be born into a family where your parents can pay for those things for you, or you just shouldn't have the opportunity of higher education at all.

Seriously though, stop acting like cable rates never increased before this. They increased all the time. That's the point I was trying to make, and it's ridiculous how off-kilter this thread has gone. They'd increase prices no matter who was president, or what bills were passed. The price of cable rose during Bush's administration too. It rose during Clinton's. It'll rise again during Obama's. And it'll rise again in the next administration. Cable rates are just as bad in countries like Canada too, even though insurance there isn't tied to your job. The cable industry as a whole is plagued with the mentality that prices must go up. It's either equipment fees, or programming increases, or fees for services that were previously included (like voicemail in the case of Mediacom) or whatever they can come up with to dig a little deeper into consumer pockets. And even if Romney had theoretically been elected, and had subsequently managed to repeal Obamacare, do you really think that rates would go back *down*? When's the last time your cable bill *decreased* (excluding promotional packages)?

tsduke
Premium Member
join:2006-03-04
Waterloo, IA

tsduke

Premium Member

danawhitaker - You might want to read back a little earlier in the thread. I didn't open the political gate.
garn91
join:2005-01-15
Ankeny, IA

garn91 to wth

Member

to wth

Re: [Cable TV]37 Days 'till Sinclair vs Mediacom Retrans Expires

said by wth:

Last agreement was a 2 year deal signed on 12/24/2010 which covers all Sinclair owned/operated stations.
»Re: [MO] is it true mediacom will be dropping all fox channels?

Link to the Sinclair owned/operated stations: »www.sbgi.net/business/te ··· on.shtml

Hopefully, we won't have to look for our rabbit ears.

Here we go again. Why cann't the two agree to a long term deal so we don't have to go through this crap every couple of years?
drslash (banned)
Goya Asma
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA

drslash (banned)

Member

said by garn91:

said by wth:

Last agreement was a 2 year deal signed on 12/24/2010 which covers all Sinclair owned/operated stations.
»Re: [MO] is it true mediacom will be dropping all fox channels?

Link to the Sinclair owned/operated stations: »www.sbgi.net/business/te ··· on.shtml

Hopefully, we won't have to look for our rabbit ears.

Here we go again. Why cann't the two agree to a long term deal so we don't have to go through this crap every couple of years?

Easy explanation...why gouge customers every 10 years when it can be done every 2?

BozotheHEtec
@netins.net

BozotheHEtec to wth

Anon

to wth
Local broadcasters have a monopoly in their markets. The cable and satellite companies have no choice, they can either pay what rate the local station wants or drop them. They are not permitted to get the national feeds from other sources, which they can do very easily. For years local stations were a must carry and no matter how bad the station was they had to carry it. Local feeds are free over the air, and if they want the cable companies to pay for it then the cable companies should have the right to get the national feeds from other sources.
DeltaDart1
join:2007-12-13
Cedar Rapids, IA

DeltaDart1

Member

What do you think would happen if Mediacom just said "NO"? And just tell Sinclair we have decided not to carry your channels. I would back Mediacom 100% if they did this. This crap is getting very old.
GLIMMER
join:2004-01-17
Fisher, IL

GLIMMER to wth

Member

to wth
they will work it out or the channels will go off the air.... I hate these retrans problems only costs customers money