dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
880
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

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 Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

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 (banned)
Less than 5 months left
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL

1 recommendation

56403739 (banned)

Member

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.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

2 recommendations

ITALIAN926 to elray

Member

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 Member
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
ARRIS TM1602
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
Ooma Telo

1 recommendation

GeekJedi to 56403739

Premium Member

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.
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

1 recommendation

BHNtechXpert to ITALIAN926

Premium Member

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

dualsub2006 to ITALIAN926

Member

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 Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to 56403739

Premium Member

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.
KrK

KrK to ITALIAN926

Premium Member

to ITALIAN926


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

Kearnstd to elray

Premium Member

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.

burner50
Proud Union THUG
Premium Member
join:2002-06-05
Iowa

burner50 to elray

Premium Member

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...

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

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.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to 56403739

Premium Member

to 56403739
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/2010 ··· _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.

hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to Kearnstd

Member

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

Skippy25 to fifty nine

Member

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

fifty nine

Member

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

Skippy25

Member

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.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

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/2011 ··· _dispute