dslreports logo
 story category
Time Warner Cable, Sinclair Deadline Looms
2010 ends with yet another retransmission fight

2010 is ending with a retransmission dispute between Time Warner Cable and Sinclair Broadcasting, which is fitting for a year that saw such disputes reach new heights (or perhaps depths). A December 31 contract extension deadline is fast approaching, and both companies have been negotiating for months with no luck. If no new agreement is reached, 33 Sinclair stations in 21 markets -- including Fox, NBC, CBS and ABC affiliates -- will go dark Friday at midnight for Time Warner Cable customers.

quote:
In the latest dispute, Sinclair is asking for more cash for the right to carry signals from its stations, but Time Warner Cable is resisting the increase. If a deal isn't reached, 33 Sinclair stations in 21 markets — among them Fox, NBC, CBS and ABC affiliates — could go dark for Time Warner customers after midnight Friday. Sinclair said Tuesday that Time Warner has not presented a counterproposal since rejecting Sinclair's most recent offer. But in a statement, Time Warner said it is still ready to negotiate.
Another report has both sides accusing the other of backing out of negotiations. As we've been saying all year, these disputes are a lose/lose scenario for consumers, who get prodded to outrage by both sides, then face continually skyrocketing cable TV rates regardless of which side "wins." As they have in previous disputes, Time Warner Cable has trotted out their rather disingenuous Roll Over Or Get Tough PR campaign, which is designed to use customer outrage at high prices (for which TWC is partially responsible) as a negotiations weapon.

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.

Most recommended from 86 comments



nukscull
@rr.com

3 recommendations

nukscull

Anon

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.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

2 recommendations

fiberguy2

Premium Member

The most SILLY part of this blog..

"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."

WHY in the world would anyone crave internet video BECAUSE of this?

Are you serious?

... what would make ANYONE believe that getting rid of a cable company because of these retrans and going to internet video would magically solve all the problems? .. the VERY same video content, in question, would either be delivered through ANOTHER middle man who would have to negotiate, for one.. or even worse, you go direct to the very provider that isn't going to play with another giant (TWC, Comcast, Verizon, et all) and simply STICK if to the consumer, direct!

There is something to be said about power in numbers. If you take a giant, such as SINclair, and put them against a giant like Comcast, those two have more power to fight each other and more to lose. You put SINclair up against the single consumer and it's "take it or leave it" and they'll raise the prices as they feel, when they feel.

Besides, last I checked, the very signals in question (local programming) is already free to the end user. Get an antenna.

The ONLY real bargaining power in these cases is that the consumer is too stupid to simply add an antenna for the locals and be done with their retrans agreement charges/profits to begin with.

Even if the end user went to rabbit ears to get the programming, no matter what the consumer wants, they have to pay the locals just because they have cable.

The SERIOUS flaw in this whole picture is that cable companies are still forced to sell Tier1 programming as mandatory to the consumer JUST to have cable. CONGRESS needs to change this rule and change it now! Locals, if they want to be paid for their signal, should be taken out of Tier1 and put on an OPTIONAL local broadcast tier on an ALA CART BASIS. Yes, ala cart! The way I see it, they are no different than HBO or Showtime.. except that they get paid JUST because you have ANY level of cable service, and I see that's just wrong.

Want to put an end to these go-nowhere negotiations and disruption to the public? .. end retrans payments and put the locals on must carry. But NOT A DIME to them for their signal which can be gotten for free. It's time to end the corporate subsidizing in this case.