View Full Version : Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info
Thursday’s fast national over night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted near the top of Ratings News the second post in this thread.
Washington Notebook
FCC's Martin Pitches Multicast Channel Leasing Proposal
By Glen Dickson Broadcasting & Cable 3/9/2007 (John Eggerton contributed to this report.)
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin used a speech at an American Women in Radio & Television Annual Leadership Summit in Washington Friday to make a strong pitch for his multicast channel leasing proposal, saying broadcasters should "seize the opportunity."
Martin has suggested that TV stations be allowed to lease multicast channels to certain as-yet-unspecified designated entrants, who would get to program the channels and assert must-carry rights that TV stations receive. They would also have public interest obligations.
He said the digital multicasting leasing plan would be "a significant opportunity for new entrants in the broadcast area," allowing them to overcome the expense of building a station and the limited availability of broadcast spectrum.
The FCC is currently reviewing its ownership rules including being pushed by activist groups, unions, legislators, and others to insure more diversity of ownership of the airwaves.
Saying the plan would create jobs and increase dissemination of diverse viewpoints, he said it was "incumbent on broadcasters to seize the chance." For its part, he said, the commission will work to see that they have the opportunity to lease that spectrum.
Some broadcasters are already leasing their channels. Sinclair, for example, leases time on Sunday mornings to local churches to air their services.
Martin drew comparisons between the plan and the FCC's creating low-power FM stations several years ago, and thus new radio opportunities for women and minorities.
On the marketplace side, Martin cited the recent LATV deal , in which a Spanish-language station will be carried on some Post-Newsweek multicast channels, as the kind of opportunity that can be provided to bring new and diverse voices into the broadcasting environment.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6423077.html?display=Breaking+News
HDTVChallenged
03-09-07, 12:46 PM
Washington Notebook
FCC's Martin Pitches Multicast Channel Leasing Proposal
By Glen Dickson Broadcasting & Cable 3/9/2007 (John Eggerton contributed to this report.)
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin used a speech at an American Women in Radio & Television Annual Leadership Summit in Washington Friday to make a strong pitch for his multicast channel leasing proposal, saying broadcasters should "seize the opportunity."
LOL ... Ok so *now* he's all for "diversity" as long as the entrenched media conglomerates can get their "pound-of-flesh" from "minority interests."
Charlie "Good Grief" Brown is getting a real workout today. ;)
The Business of Television
Comcast, Sinclair Reach Retrans Deal
By Mike Farrell MultiChannel News 3/9/2007
With barely one day to spare, Comcast and Sinclair Broadcast Group reached a retransmission-consent agreement for Sinclair stations representing about 3.4 million of the cable operator’s subscribers Friday.
While terms of the deal were not disclosed, Comcast said it did not pay cash for the right to carry Sinclair’s television signals.
“Comcast has achieved its objective of not paying cash for broadcast carriage that would need to be passed on to our customers,” executive vice president David Cohen said in a prepared statement. “Consistent with our existing agreement with Sinclair and all of our other retransmission-consent agreements, comparable value is being exchanged.”
The four-year deal -- it expires March 1, 2011 -- also calls for Comcast to carry digital-multicast channels Sinclair is currently broadcasting in Richmond, Va., and Baltimore, as well as certain other multicast channels in Comcast markets that the stations may broadcast in the future.
And the new deal involves advertising and co-marketing agreements, including Web opportunities, as well as advertising and cross-promotion opportunities on both companies’ properties.
“We have always been willing to discuss exchanges of value with broadcasters,” Cohen said in an interview. “Those exchanges of value vary from deal to deal. We have had with Sinclair an existing exchange of value where we’re paying cash but receiving marketing and advertising benefits back from Sinclair that are of comparable value to the payments we’re making. We were able to make a deal consistent with that model.”
Comcast’s existing deal with Sinclair was set to expire March 10. If the two parties hadn’t reached an agreement, Comcast was in danger of losing the right to carry Sinclair’s 37 stations in 23 markets -- mostly affiliates of Fox, MyNetworkTV and The CW -- in markets such as Baltimore; Pittsburgh; Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.; Nashville, Tenn.; Richmond, Va.; and Tampa. Fla.
Cable operators across the country were keeping a close eye on the negotiations. Sinclair -- just off a three-month battle with midsized cable operator Mediacom Communications, where Mediacom agreed to pay an estimated 40-50 cents per subscriber, per month for stations representing about 50% of its total footprint -- has been one of the more aggressive station groups pressing for cash for retransmission consent. Several operators have said in the past that if Comcast agreed to pay cash for the Sinclair signals, it would represent a paradigm shift in retransmission-consent negotiations.
Operators apparently have dodged that bullet for now.
“I think you can draw a deeper line in the sand,” Cohen said. “Those who would say that there is a sea change occurring in retransmission consent are premature in their assessment.”
While terms were not disclosed, Sinclair had more to lose in a protracted battle with the nation’s largest cable operator. Sinclair stations represented just 15% of Comcast’s total 24.2 million-subscriber footprint, while the Comcast markets accounted for more than 30% of Sinclair’s total advertising revenue. In addition, Comcast carries another Fox station in the Baltimore-Washington, D.C., market, so losing Sinclair’s Baltimore Fox affiliate would have had little effect on the cable operator.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6423098.html?display=Breaking+News
TV Notebook
MyNetTV execs, affils: Change is good
By Kimberly Nordyke The Hollywood Reporter March 9, 2007
Perhaps it's fitting that MyNetworkTV's revamped schedule -- which kicks off Monday in earnest with the first of three new original series -- includes a new show featuring the International Fight League because the News Corp.-owned network is facing a battle of its own in light of disappointing ratings.
Since its launch in September, MyNet has struggled with underwhelming ratings for its all-telenovela schedule. In February, the network announced a more diversified spring schedule that focuses less on scripted dramas, which have been cut back to two nights a week instead of five, and includes two movie nights as well as a new unscripted series, "IFL Battleground."
In fact, the dramas have been performing so poorly that MyNet has scrapped plans to produce scripted programming beyond the next two shows -- "American Heiress" and "Saints & Sinners" -- that debut next week. (The new schedule officially kicked off Thursday night with the 2003 theatrical "The Rundown.")
"I give (MyNetworkTV executives) tremendous credit for launching this network in a short period of time," says Greg Meidel, who in January was named president of MyNetworkTV, which was announced in February 2006. "It took a very valiant effort to make it happen; unfortunately it's been disappointing but a great learning experience for all of us."
In fact, the dramas had been developed by News Corp.-owned Twentieth Television as syndicated programming but instead were used to launch the network, with each airing five nights a week with a total of 65 new episodes.
But the ratings haven't been what executives were hoping for: The network averaged a 0.8 household rating in its first four weeks on the air, according to Nielsen Media Research, but dropped 25% to a 0.6 rating in the most recent four weeks (Jan. 29-Feb. 23) for which national ratings data are available. The first two novelas each averaged a 0.7, while the second pair are averaging a 0.5 through Feb. 23.
"Obviously, they decided to go with the novelas because they thought were was some potential upside there and something that was different than the other networks were doing," Meidel says, noting that "Heiress" and "Saints," the fifth and sixth dramas to air on MyNet, will have their complete 65-episode run (with two episodes airing back-to-back).
But MyNet execs figured it was better to make changes in the schedule sooner rather than later, choosing to relaunch the schedule before the May upfront.
"It wouldn't have been fair to the network, affiliates or advertisers (to wait until fall)," Meidel says. "We are a very station-affiliate-friendly network, so we feel their pain if it's not working out."
Indeed, the financial terms of the affiliate deals were designed to be station-friendly, with no cash license fees and a generous split of the advertising time in each program among the network service and local affiliates.
One station manager expressed his confidence in the executives and their plan for improving ratings.
"We're in with MyNetworkTV for the long haul," says Mark Antonitis, president and GM of KRON San Francisco, which had been independent before becoming a MyNet affiliate. "We know that they're doing everything they can in their power to make long-term success, and we're behind them."
And Bill Carroll, vp and director of programming at station-rep firm Katz Television Group, notes that the station affiliates are encouraged by MyNet's decision to revamp its lineup.
"I think the stations are pleased that there's been a change, and I think they're taking an optimistic wait-and-see attitude on how successful the different elements of the new schedule are," he says.
Indeed, industry sources say that some station affiliates that have signed long-term agreements with MyNet are not pleased with the numbers but are encouraged by the fact that execs are making changes, so they are willing to be patient while the network finds its footing and starts to grow.
However, sources also say that other stations are panicked about the dismal ratings and argue that it's imperative that MyNet have a great upfront. Others point out that Fox, another News Corp.-owned network, saw some failures in its early days too and that MyNet's fellow freshman network, the CW, also is still trying to find its way.
As for MyNet, "I think the stations are going to give the new programming a chance to work, but realistically, they're not going to wait around forever if they could be running other programming and do as well or better," one source says. "Patience is a virtue, but money is money."
But the good news for the stations is that News Corp. is even more invested in making the network a success because 10 of the affiliates are Fox-owned stations. And Meidel argues that there is "higher value" in being affiliated with a network versus being independent.
Moreover, many in the industry applaud MyNet's decision to move away from scripted programming.
Will MyNet ever air another scripted show? "I'm never going to say never, if some point in time the economics make sense," Meidel says. "But I just don't think you can compete against the cost of both development and producing with the 'Grey's Anatomy's' or the 'Houses' of the world. I think we can accomplish our goals much faster by being in the reality business."
Meidel reiterates that MyNet is talking to "the biggest and best names in the reality business" as it looks to fall and beyond. For now, he's scheduling programming that will "make a lot of noise" for the network, like the special "Anna Nicole Smith: A Centerfold Exposed," which aired Wednesday and drew a network-high household rating of a 1.5 in the overnight metered markets, and the upcoming Elton John special "Happy Birthday Elton."
Meidel also is confident that the new lineup is going to attract new viewers -- women as well as the men who are "not being served" by broadcast networks on weeknights -- and get the network "sampled in the way that it hasn't been sampled in the past."
Meanwhile, Antonitis says he is putting his faith in MyNet execs and is encouraged by their decision to make changes now.
"We're very pleased by their action," he says. "In this business these days, you have to have some intestinal fortitude and faith. We took a risk by going with MyNetworkTV, but we did because we have faith and confidence in the people we are working with."
Certainly, Meidel has challenges ahead of him, but he knew that coming into the job. However, the former News Corp. exec, who once served as president and COO of Twentieth TV, was intrigued by the opportunity to help build a new network and remains optimistic about its outlook. He said he's already encouraged by ratings growth on Saturday nights since the MyNet stopped airing the telenovela weekly recaps last month, replacing them with movies. The most recent movie, "The Cider House Rules," averaged a 1.1, nearly tripling the 0.4 rating that the recaps were averaging.
"We want to continue to grow the network, and our first step is turning around the fate and fortunes of MyNetworkTV," Meidel says. "I think you're going to see more continuity as we go forward and get more of a feel for the audience. The best is yet to come."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i119db77792cbaa0193e3e3893ddc2aff
Carl Jones
03-09-07, 01:33 PM
Fred;
I might be the only one on the planet...but how has the Dresden Files (SciFi) fared so far in the ratings?
I'll see if I can find out some information for you, Carl.
Here are some I could find, Carl. They seem steady if unspectacular.
January 23rd, 2007
The new Sci Fi series Dresden Files, as well as the returning Battlestar Galactica had trouble finding an audience Sunday night, as ‘Dresden’ failed to get to a good start and ‘Galactica’ was off from its Friday night average.
At 9:00 p.m., The Dresden Files earned a 1.37 household rating and was watched by 1.732M viewers. Among the key demos, it delivered 882,000 adults 18-49 and 1.005M adults 25-54. A weak debut for a new series.
Battlestar Galactica did not fare much better at 10:00 p.m., though it did manage to slightly build upon its lead-in. It earned a 1.39 household rating and was watched by 1.802M viewers.
There was some positive news, however, as among adults 18-49 it averaged 1.255M and drew 1.293M adults 25-54. Much better demo numbers than its lead-in.
Compared to its Friday night average this past season, it was down 100,000 viewers. And off even more from the 2.1M it averaged during the second half of season 2.
http://entertainmentnow.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/weak-numbers-for-series-debut-of-dresden-files-and-timeslot-premiere-of-battlestar-galactica/
-------------------------
Battlestar Galactica 1.4
The Dresden Files 1.4
• Source: Nielsen Galaxy Report, 1/15/07 -- 1/21/07
Battlestar Galactica 1.5
The Dresden Files 1.5
• Source: Nielsen Galaxy Report, 1/22/07 -- 1/28/07
Battlestar Galactica 1.2
The Dresden Files 1.2
• Source: Nielsen Galaxy Report, 2/5/07 -- 2/11/07
The Dresden Files 1.4
Battlestar Galactica 1.2
• Source: Nielsen Galaxy Report, 2/12/07 -- 2/18/07
http://forums.scifi.com/index.php?showtopic=2263530&st=20
TV Notebook
Fox to Air American Idol Charity Event
A.J. Frutkin MediaWeek March 9, 2007
As Fox's American Idol continues to draw phenomenal ratings, the only show that could prove more troubling to the competition is...more American Idol. And that's just what Fox has announced.
The network will present a two-night charity special to benefit relief programs helping children in America and Africa. Titled Idol Gives Back, and in partnership with the Charity Projects Entertainment Fund (CPEF), the special will air Tuesday, April 24 from 8-9 p.m, followed by an expanded results show airing Wednesday, April 25 from 8 to 10 p.m.
In the Tuesday night show, the top six finalists will perform, and for every vote cast, sponsors Coca-Cola and AT&T will donate money to participating charities through CPEF (Idol sponsor Ford will anounce charity plans of its own at a later date). The two-hour results show will feature top recording artists including Gwen Stefani, Josh Groban, Michael Buble and Annie Lennox. Comic Sacha Baron Cohen will take the stage in character as Borat. Viewers also will be able to make donations then.
In conjunction with the program, the American Idol website is providing a link to ONE: The Campaign to Make Poverty History. U2 frontman Bono, a co-founder of ONE, said "We'll see worlds collide when Africa appears on America's most-watched TV show. This is a big deal, a little bit of pop history...I wouldn't underestimate the reach of this show or the impact its audience can have."
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003556403
Carl Jones
03-09-07, 02:04 PM
Fred;
Thank you so much.
TV Sports
DirecTV might not possess only ticket for Extra Innings
By Ray Frager Baltimore Sun March 9, 2007
Even before the deal was announced, Major League Baseball was feeling political heat over its pending agreement to award the Extra Innings television rights exclusively to DirecTV.
So yesterday, when MLB officially unveiled the DirecTV deal, it apparently tried to turn down the heat. This arrangement for Extra Innings - the package of out-of-market games that allows an Orioles fan living in Austin, Texas, to follow his favorite team - might turn out not to be exclusive to DirecTV.
The In Demand cable service and another satellite provider, Dish Network, are being given the opportunity to negotiate for Extra Innings, MLB chief operating officer Bob DuPuy said during yesterday's conference call.
However, the president of In Demand, Robert Jacobson, speaking to the Associated Press, sounded pessimistic about reaching an agreement because of "conditions for carriage that MLB and DirecTV designed to be impossible for cable and Dish to meet."
MLB's contract with DirecTV runs seven years, reportedly for $100 million a year, and includes the launch of a baseball channel in 2009.
Baseball was faced with an image problem after news broke about the DirecTV deal. The perception: The Lords of Baseball were forcing hordes of fans to switch from cable to satellite, while other hordes of fans would be disenfranchised because they didn't have access to DirecTV.
Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts asked the Federal Communications Commission to investigate.
But Steve Solomon, a former ABC Sports executive and now a broadcasting consultant, said there was an incorrect "notion this is taking a large number of games from the public.
"From my perspective, it was a balancing act for baseball between the economics and the limited number of fans" the new deal would affect. "It's a bit of a tempest in a teapot."
So how many people would a DirecTV-exclusive deal end up affecting? According to a report in yesterday's Los Angeles Times, Extra Innings had 500,000 subscribers in 2006, and more than half - 270,000 - were DirecTV customers.
As DuPuy noted yesterday, the Extra Innings package has no effect on telecasts via local broadcast stations, regional sports networks, Fox, ESPN, TBS or WGN. So, yes, it's a good thing that MLB is giving a second satellite provider and cable TV another chance to go Extra Innings. But we're talking maybe 250,000 households spread out across the whole country, which, according to Nielsen, has 111.4 million TV households. Not even one rating point's worth.
Tempest in a teapot? Maybe more like a teacup.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-sp.frager09mar09,1,5216659,print.column?coll=bal-home-columnists&ctrack=1&cset=true
The Business of Television
Comcast and Sinclair Agree on Retransmission Deal
By P.J. Bednarski Broadcasting & Cable 3/9/2007
Comcast Corp. and Sinclair Broadcast Group agreed on a four year extension of their retransmission agreement on Friday that will keep Sinclair’s stations on Comcast cable systems reaching about 3.8 million customers in 23 markets.
Sinclair was ready to cut off Comcast on March 1, but extended the deadline to March 10 as talks continued.
Comcast said it “has achieved its objective of not paying cash for broadcast carriage that would need to be passed on to our customers” but agreed on a package that gave comparable value.
Usually that means a cable system buys a certain amount of advertising from the station seeking compensation, but Comcast did not elaborate.
David Smith, Sinclair’s president and CEO, has been vocal in his insistence that it would not allow cable systems to continue to carry Sinclair channels without a cash payment. Sinclair owns 58 stations, more than any other broadcaster. In January, Sinclair yanked its stations from Mediacom cable systems serving 700,000 subscribers in some smaller Midwest markets, and settled just before the Super Bowl, apparently getting as much as 40 cents per subscriber.
Brian Roberts, Comcast’s chairman and CEO, as recently as this week warned Comcast would not pay retransmission fees.
His stance is significant because, as the largest cable operator with 24.2 million subscribers, Comcast’s flexibility will be of great interest to other station groups that face contract renewals with Comcast in the future. “We are not interested and will not pay cash for retrans if that’s all you do,” Roberts said at a Bears Stearns media conference in Palm Beach March 6. Later he said, “That line is drawn. That’s not changing. I don’t anticipate that changing anytime soon.”
Had Sinclair and Comcast not come to some agreement, Sinclair threatened to remove its signal in markets including Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Tampa, Fla., and parts of Baltimore, Sinclair’s headquarters city.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6423120
Fred;
Thank you so much.
Sorry I couldn't come up with actual viewer numbers, Carl -- I always think people who read those ratings figures should have to be wearing a green eyeshade. :)
TV Q&A
Ask Matt (from the Ask Matt column at TVGuide.com
Matt answers your questions about Battlestar, Heroes and American Idol
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic Friday, March 9, 2007
Question: Wow! What a powerful performance by Katee Sackhoff in the March 4 episode of Battlestar Galactica. She has been one of the most interesting characters on TV since the show started. She has problems with authority, alcohol and the people around her. Yet she is the best at what she does, so she is allowed to get away with things that other people wouldn't. Starbuck is quite similar to the character of Gregory House. The question is: Will Sackhoff get the Emmy that her performance in this episode deserves? Unfortunately, she probably won't even get nominated, because every actress on Grey's Anatomy (a show I have never watched, thank the gods) will get a nomination. What are her chances?— Tim G.
Matt Roush: It's not a question of Battlestar Galactica against Grey's — and much as I enjoy what Katee Sackhoff has done with Starbuck, I would deny Chandra Wilson nothing — but more of a question of the Emmys versus sci-fi in general. Sackhoff is hardly alone in doing Emmy-worthy work on the show: Mary McDonnell, Edward James Olmos, James Callis, just to name a few, all are pretty marvelous. You're right that a searingly emotional workout like Sackhoff got in Starbuck's meltdown and tailspin (see my Dispatch from earlier this week for my reaction to the episode) would in better circumstances be Emmy bait. But first, the industry would have to watch the show before they can nominate, let alone reward, work like this. And I just don't think you can assume that's the case. Let me use this as an excuse (like I need one) to plug Battlestar Galactica's remaining episodes, counting down to the jaw-dropping March 25 finale. Can't wait to see the letters sure to pour in after the revelations that are in store over the next few weeks.
Question: I'm impressed by how Heroes has been scheduled so far, given the problems other similar series have had (Lost). So far, it's had two long, cohesive "pods" ramping up to a couple of great climax episodes each. Even the hiatus wasn't horrible, as it was over the holidays. Cutting down on the repeats scattered amongst new episodes helps viewers keep up with the complicated story line. My only concern is that it seems there are only four episodes left in the season after this week. Will they do such a short pod, and can it be successful? What do you think of this schedule? Could it be a solution for other series?— Heidi
Matt Roush: I'm glad you approve of how Heroes rolled out, because I got a number of screaming e-mails from fans who couldn't believe they have to wait until April 23 for a new episode. Personally, I can't believe the number of people incapable of accepting the fact that TV shows occasionally go into repeats or, in this case, temporarily drop out of sight. I'm not exactly sure how NBC will vamp in Heroes' time period (for the first two weeks, anyway, Deal or No Deal expands to two hours), but I'm thinking Heroes is a young enough show that it can even risk a week or two of repeats. There's no perfect solution for any show like this that decides to air from September to May, but Heroes did an admirable job: airing 11 consecutive episodes until breaking from Dec. 4 to Jan. 22. As Heidi says, the absence was less noticeable over the holidays. Once it returned, Heroes aired seven in a row through this week. Given the mid-season churn of March and April, Heroes again can be given a pass for taking a breather. When it returns for what I presume will be a final four-pack taking us to mid-May, there's no reason to think it won't still be a hit. The show got much better in this second "pod" and left us with a powerful, shocking cliff-hanger. If Heroes can keep up the pace in production next season, I imagine it will be programmed on this same model, and it's a good one for others to emulate. The critical element here is to air a fair number of originals consecutively, even if that leaves big gaps between the pods. What irritated Lost fans so much in previous seasons was when ABC would scatter repeats among the originals with no discernible pattern.
Question: I just watched the season finale of The Class, and I loved it. I know that CBS still hasn't announced if it's canceling the show or not, but if it does, do you think there is a possibility for another network to pick it up? It was reported that all the networks put in a bid for the show during development season last year. Do you think either ABC or NBC will pick up the show if CBS cancels it, seeing that NBC aired David Crane's Friends and that the show averages at least eight million viewers every week, which, compared to ABC's comedies, is good enough to renew for a second season?— Zack
Matt Roush: I addressed The Class' iffy situation at CBS in a Dispatch earlier this week, but in the larger picture, if CBS passes, no one's likely to come to the rescue. I guess I can't say often enough that such a move is beyond rare, and almost never occurs for a show that didn't exactly pop either in the ratings, in buzz or in the critical press. (I liked the show but still acknowledged that it had some pretty serious growing pains.) The bidding war a year ago was in part due to David Crane's reputation and track record. Plus, it was a very funny pilot, which the actual series only occasionally lived up to. Given how it turned out, it's not likely even ABC would chomp at the bit to nurture the series through a second season. Not that The Class was a disaster by any means. It's just a tough time for TV comedy.
Question: I caught the first two episodes of The Winner on Fox Sunday night, and I have to say I am impressed so far. It had some really funny laughs, and I think the characters are pretty likable. I also appreciated a lot of the pop-culture references, especially about O.J. and Bill Clinton. I thought the sex jokes went overboard, but my opinion on that kind of humor appears to be in the minority these days. Do you see Fox giving this show a chance, or will it be the next Andy Richter Controls the Universe? PS. I guess I'm as big a loser as Glen, because Wings happens to be one of my all-time favorite sitcoms, too. I never understood the animosity toward that show.— Kristen
Matt Roush: With The Winner, you either love it or you hate it. Many of my fellow critics blasted it. I kind of liked it, in a guilty-pleasure kind of way. I was disarmed by the overall sweetness of the main character, though the humor does lean too heavily on stupid sex jokes. Too early to tell whether it's a keeper, but having Family Guy's creator Seth McFarlane behind it can't hurt, since the network no doubt would like to keep him happy. (The show apparently did pretty well among the young-male demographics that eat up Family Guy's raunchy style of humor, so if it does stick around, expect more of the same.) As for Wings, no one's saying it was an awful show. It's just a scream that someone is so passionately obsessed by it, like Glen is.
Question: Why don't the producers at Desperate Housewives just admit they stumbled badly when Rex was pinched out of existence for what amounted to minor offenses in this bent neighborhood? Rex's narration last Sunday reminded me anew of the snark and backbone he added to the plot, as a partner who rolled his eyes along with the rest of us when Bree climbed on her polished soapbox. Steven Culp's Rex is the only male lead struck down when his character could have added such delicious spice to the recipe. Why was Rex sent packing to the afterlife? Marc Cherry has said it was because Rex was modeled on his own late father. But this brand of logic could also lead you to conclude that his real mother (Bree) was an alcoholic who lusted after her sex-addicted sponsor who then bedded her manipulative son (Andrew/Cherry) who in turn embraced life on the streets as a hustler. Well, did Rex's demise enhance the storytelling? Offer insight into Bree or Andrew? Not that I could tell. In fact, it ushered in a dismal Season 2, rife with meaningless plot twists and a bloated cast list. Now in Season 3, it seems we are served more caricatures than characters: the Bree-clone Orson, the makeout master Carlos, a ditzy Tom, a wimpish Ian and a whatever Mike. Even murderers and attempted murderers are well represented, but no Rex. Will producers see the error of their ways and reverse course? After all, his death could have been staged to escape a wife he thought poisoned him — not impossible for a doctor with connections, or for a show with enough loose ends it requires viewers to suffer from amnesia.— Fran M.
Matt Roush: First off, I think we have to accept Marc Cherry's explanation for why he killed off Rex as a creative and personal decision, even if you disagree with it, all of that armchair psychoanalysis aside. It wasn't to punish the character; as you said, there are far more despicable characters on Wisteria Lane. And I don't think all of the failures of Season 2 (and to a certain extent, of Season 3) can be laid at the feet of Rex's corpse, though it's true that Steven Culp is much missed, and it was fun to hear his voice again. I never really gave this much thought, to be honest, but looking back, maybe it would have been better if the pharmacist hadn't killed Rex, but instead only served to drive the couple further apart, to the point of divorce. I'd much rather that Bree and Rex got a divorce than Gabby and Carlos, who've never been as much fun apart as they were together. Bree as an actual divorcée would have been interesting to watch, and if she still had Rex as a possibility in her life, maybe she wouldn't have so eagerly embraced someone as creepy as Orson. Regardless, Rex is most sincerely dead and is likely to stay that way. Should he be resurrected, you're likely to hear shark-jumping cries far and wide, even louder than usual.
Question: Do you know how many more years, if any, Mark Harmon has left on his contract? NCIS is my favorite show because it is very well written and because Mark Harmon's character has so much depth. Most of the episodes are not as violent as the Law & Orders or CSIs, so it is a little easier to watch. We love NCIS and would still watch it even if Gibbs left.— Susan
Matt Roush: You've got nothing to worry about, as far as I know. I certainly haven't heard anything to indicate he's considering an exit strategy. I have no inside knowledge of his deal with CBS, but stars like Mark Harmon are usually locked into at least a seven-year contract, and given how successful NCIS is, I'd bet they've sweetened his deal considerably since the show premiered four seasons ago.
Question: I am having a hard time understanding how the networks are scheduling programs. To me, it just doesn't seem like the audience for Heroes is going to stick around to watch Studio 60 or The Black Donnellys. I don't think these shows mesh at all together. On ABC, they decided that the order of the Wednesday comedy block should be George Lopez, The Knights of Prosperity, According to Jim and In Case of Emergency. Again, I don't see how the audiences of each of those will stick around to watch the other shows. George and Jim are more family-oriented, and Knights and Emergency lean to adults. Unfortunately, shows like Studio 60 and Knights, both of which I like, are not getting fair chances by getting better scheduling. I'm curious about your thoughts on this.— Sammie
Matt Roush: I don't really agree where Studio 60 is concerned. While it's true that Heroes cult fanatics aren't the perfect target audience for Studio 60, it was still a powerful lead-in, and NBC kept Studio 60 in the same time period for longer than most networks would have done, hoping that it would grow and build. It didn't. And except for possibly on Sundays, where the competition would also have likely crushed it, there was nowhere else for Studio 60 to go. At least NBC didn't jerk it around before jerking it off the air. Moving a show tends to cause more harm than good, with rare exceptions. On the other hand, with ABC, Knights didn't stand a chance, given the rotten state of the ABC comedies surrounding it, not to mention the show's vague title (they should have stayed with Let's Rob... ) and the offbeat nature of its quasi-serialized plot. Knights, reportedly a favorite of ABC brass, was moved to the earlier time slot to get it out of the way of American Idol, but when you're keeping company with George, Jim and the unwatchable Emergency, there really wasn't much hope, no matter what ABC tried. As you are no doubt already aware, Knights was put on indefinite hiatus this week, while ABC ponders a future for a show that the network would love to see work. (We may still see those Ray Romano episodes, but I'm at a loss to figure out how, when or where.)
On a similar topic, here's this from Mark: "When was the last time ABC had a sitcom that was successful both critically and in ratings? I figure that means it lasted about three or four years at least to get a good blend of both. I would disqualify both George Lopez and According to Jim because those shows have defied all reason in lasting as long as they have (the Matt Millen of the TV world). I guess My Wife and Kids is actually the most successful they've had, but I hardly consider it a hit. Has it really been since Dharma & Greg and Home Improvement?
Sadly, I think Mark's right. I can't remember an ABC comedy since Dharma that had both good reviews and good ratings. There have been gems along the way, including last season's sadly neglected Sons & Daughters, but mostly it's a ghastly track record.
Question: I'm just writing to weigh in on something you mentioned a few columns ago about the difference between One Tree Hill and The O.C. Don't get me wrong, when both shows kicked off, my favorite by a long shot was The O.C., and it remained that way through the shows' first seasons. I still preferred The O.C. through its second season, holding out hope that it would improve, but as we all know, it didn't. I think where One Tree Hill got it right is that it has always been a guilty pleasure and knows it. However ridiculous the story lines are (and for the record, I do hate the odd dance routine that seems to pop up once or twice a season), they keep me looking forward to the next episode, especially last year with the shooting. What I'm getting at here is that One Tree Hill has been consistent since day one, while The O.C. could not hold onto the brilliance of its freshman season. Obviously the writing, acting and characters are inferior in OTH, but it's one of the best guilty pleasures on TV right now. And after the ending of Episode 15, I am really looking forward to the next one!— Patrick
Matt Roush: Oh, Patrick, surely it's too early to be pulling an April Fools' prank. (And for the record, I'm glad you enjoy your guilty pleasures. What would life be without them?) But what you seem to be saying is that it's better for a show that knows it's crap never to aim higher than crap, because then at least you know what you're getting. As opposed to a show like The O.C., which aimed higher and burned bright, albeit for a shorter period of time and resulted in a few subpar seasons, all of which drew more critical scrutiny than One Tree Hill ever merited. This is because The O.C. actually managed once upon a time to exceed expectations, whereas One Tree Hill has always invited nothing but contempt. Sorry, but longevity does not always convey success or respect. If One Tree Hill had aired anywhere but on the WB and the CW, it would have died long before The O.C. began its irreversible fade. And please, dear readers, spare me the hate mail. One Tree Hill is the Criminal Minds of teen dramas.
Question: While not a big fan of most reality shows, I have been a loyal viewer of The Amazing Race and Survivor. But I find that even these shows are no longer appointment TV for me. I have thought for a couple of years that both shows would be better served by airing only one cycle per season. Survivor could occupy the Thursday at 8 pm slot during the fall, while Race would take over the same slot during the spring. Thoughts?— George
Matt Roush: I've often thought the same thing. But until Survivor starts showing serious signs of ratings slippage, which hasn't quite happened yet, CBS is unlikely to risk benching it on such a critical ratings night as Thursday. I personally prefer The Amazing Race, although not so much in this all-star season (still not as bad as the family edition), but for whatever reason its ratings have never matched Survivor's. And it might even be worse for Race in the long run if it were scheduled on Thursday and collapsed against the tough competition, causing CBS to question its long-term future more than it already does. For now, I think we're stuck with two cycles a season, especially in Survivor's case. Given the repetitive nature of the show, diminishing returns are inevitable, but I am encouraged by Survivor's plans to take the show to China. At least there's a chance it might look different.
Question: While I realize Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? is not award-worthy and may be intolerable for some people, it is refreshing to be able to watch a television program with our children without having to worry about its content. That is the reason our family has watched this show three nights in a row, and that is also why we watch other shows like Deal or No Deal. Yes, Jeopardy! and its contestants are more intelligent, and yes, these game shows do drag things out (sometimes to the point of absurdity) and could move faster. However, isn't this world fast enough? Does everything have to be at lightning speed? I enjoy getting to know the contestants, seeing their families and cheering them on. My children are able to participate as well because they can contribute answers and decide if the contestants should gamble or play it safe. We watch it for pure escapism and to get away from shows that are inappropriate for kids. Our children work hard during the school year and learn something new every day. This game show gives them the opportunity to show it off without any pressure or expectations. For me, that's television worth watching!— Tina K.
Matt Roush: All very valid points. There's no question I'd rather sit through an hour of 5th Grader, if only to remind myself of how much basic information I've forgotten, than an hour (let alone two!) of Deal or No Deal, the appeal of which completely escapes me. (I'm not much into gambling, which is the only thing that show is truly about.) But given how few shows there are that families can safely watch together, I've got no problem with harmless hours like 5th Grader.
On a similar topic, David K. writes: "Quick addition to the question from the March column regarding game shows. I watched the multi-night premiere of Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader and actually enjoyed it a lot. I think it is much more fun than some of the other games shows out there. My question is, why must game shows like this one and Deal or No Deal continue to pretend that they're about to reveal the answer to a question or open a case but then say 'after the break' and cut to commercial? Every single time, the studio audience supposedly falls for this gag, as if they had never watched TV or heard of commercials before. Isn't this joke totally played out?"
Why, yes it is. It's one of the more aggravating new clichés in our reality-saturated TV landscape. Blame American Idol, which milked it first (thanks, Ryan Seacrest!) and keeps doing it, like it's clever or something. Just another reason these shows are much better watched in playback mode, not in real time, so we can fast-forward through all the nonsense. (You can probably watch an hour of Deal or No Deal in 15 minutes that way. Results episodes of Idol in 10 or less.)
http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Matt/Default.aspx#01battlestar
TV Sports
Commentary: Major League Baseball’s Velvet Hammer
By Wayne Friedman MediaPost.com March 9th, 2007
In its cable channel campaign, Major League Baseball may have learned a lesson or two from the NFL’s cable channel efforts of last year.
MLB is putting a proposal together for cable operators, asking them to run out-of-market games under a package called, “Extra Innings,” if they agree to a new baseball cable channel — to be launched in 2009 — that will run on their most valuable, analog tier of program networks.
If operators don’t agree to that deal, then DirecTV, which just signed a new seven-year deal for “Extra Innings,” will have the package exclusively. In the hard-fought race for consumers’ eyeballs, this will give DirecTV an advantage over cable.
The NFL similarly tried just that sort of end around with the NFL Network and cable operators. But that was somewhat different, asking operators to pay a big increase in subscriber fees all year long for a mere eight live games.
Cable operators wanted to run it on their pricey digital tier — which goes to a narrower pool of their customers. The NFL said no way. The difference was that the NFL already had a deal with DirecTV for out-of-market games — its “NFL Sunday Ticket” package — so consumers already had this option.
Consumers needed to pay an extra fee to get that NFL DirecTV package. Not so with DirecTV’s MLB package — it is committing its widest number of consumers to the deal, some 15 million consumers (though it has yet to be seen whether DirecTV might raise its overall rates).
The cable operators in this fight are actually flipping to the NFL argument –that consumers shouldn’t be denied the sport, in this case baseball games.
The reality is that consumers are being denied baseball teams that are not in their home market. That’s of far less value to most fans. By any estimation, out-of-market baseball games typically have lower ratings.
The key for any of this is advertising. Sports still are in high demand for advertisers, because it typically attracts male viewers that are difficult to reach.
The MLB, like the NFL, knows that any sports network means big money from advertisers. The NFL could have got wider distribution — and thus improved advertising revenues — if it wasn’t so greedy in asking for triple the price for its monthly subscriber fees.
The MLB must be learning from the NFL’s mistakes. Its principals must realize that a new MLB channel will be another lightning rod for cable operators. MLB isn’t — presently — forcing more baseball down the throats of cable operators. Instead, it is just using DirecTV as not-too-quiet leverage.
Sure, it seems like a take-it-or-leave-it proposal — especially to InDemand, the programming pay service of Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications, which wants the “Extra Innings” package. But the fact is that this isn’t the 1970s, when sports leagues would cry that you couldn’t deny consumers their baseball, their football, their basketball teams.
These days consumers already have that, and have other ways to get more out-of-market games. It’s the same with NFL.
For baseball, the deal is not an obvious hard ball — it’s a knee-buckling and somewhat cunning change-up.
http://blogs.mediapost.com/tv_watch/?p=645
cherry ghost
03-09-07, 03:31 PM
TV Q&A
Ask Matt (from the Ask Matt column at TVGuide.com
Matt answers your questions about Battlestar, Heroes and American Idol
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic Friday, March 9, 2007
Matt Roush: I'm glad you approve of how Heroes rolled out, because I got a number of screaming e-mails from fans who couldn't believe they have to wait until April 23 for a new episode. Personally, I can't believe the number of people incapable of accepting the fact that TV shows occasionally go into repeats or, in this case, temporarily drop out of sight. I'm not exactly sure how NBC will vamp in Heroes' time period (for the first two weeks, anyway, Deal or No Deal expands to two hours), but I'm thinking Heroes is a young enough show that it can even risk a week or two of repeats. There's no perfect solution for any show like this that decides to air from September to May, but Heroes did an admirable job: airing 11 consecutive episodes until breaking from Dec. 4 to Jan. 22. As Heidi says, the absence was less noticeable over the holidays. Once it returned, Heroes aired seven in a row through this week. Given the mid-season churn of March and April, Heroes again can be given a pass for taking a breather. When it returns for what I presume will be a final four-pack taking us to mid-May, there's no reason to think it won't still be a hit. The show got much better in this second "pod" and left us with a powerful, shocking cliff-hanger. If Heroes can keep up the pace in production next season, I imagine it will be programmed on this same model, and it's a good one for others to emulate. The critical element here is to air a fair number of originals consecutively, even if that leaves big gaps between the pods. What irritated Lost fans so much in previous seasons was when ABC would scatter repeats among the originals with no discernible pattern.
I could have sworn that I read somewhere that Heroes was expanded to 23 episodes, which would mean there are five left. Coming back on April 23rd with only four episodes doesn't make much sense. Anyone else remember this?
Fred;
I might be the only one on the planet...but how has the Dresden Files (SciFi) fared so far in the ratings?
You're not the only one. I prefer the books, of course, but it's interesting to see how they're adapting the subject for TV.
Yes, cherry ghost, I believe that was just a case of an uniformed person asking the question, and Matt Roush just not checking the facts before answering, but everything I've seen indicates that Heroes got an additional episode added to it's season order. There should be 5 episodes when the show comes back.
CPanther95
03-09-07, 04:36 PM
Could the finale be two hours? I thought the initial request was for two additional episodes (or hours).
DoubleDAZ
03-09-07, 04:41 PM
You're not the only one. I prefer the books, of course, but it's interesting to see how they're adapting the subject for TV.I shoud have thought there might be books, but it never occurred to me. I'll have to check out the library and see if I can add that series to my reading list. Thanks for mentioning it.
dad1153
03-09-07, 04:46 PM
I know there's a thread for "Heroes" elsewhere on this site, but is anyone here on this forum following this show (Fred in particular)? I don't know, the high intellect of the crowd that hangs around this thread makes me think "Heroes" is a little too fantastic and low-brow for the "Battlestar Galactica"-loving type of readers that Fred is trying to reach to. Me? I've watched since the beginning but wasn't really emotionally invested in it or in love with it as much as I am with "Studio 60," the "Law & Order" trilogy or "Dateline NBC: To Catch A Predator." But that "Heroes" episode a couple of weeks ago, Chapter 17: Company Man (the next-to-last before the current hiatus), literally shook and thrilled me like few hours of network TV have in years. Its as if the previous 16 episodes all were leading up to #17, and at that point "Heroes" became I show I'm proud to say I love as opposed to one I watch (big difference). Just curious if anybody else here amongst the "elite" TV viewing public is following this gonzo show. :confused:
DoubleDAZ
03-09-07, 04:46 PM
So, Comcast/Sinclair work out a NON-cash deal and MCC gets bullied into cash. And, Comcast gets to mention/brag about the details to boot, while details of the MCC deal remain undisclosed. Am I the only one who finds this weird? :)
I think it just depends on your defintion of "paid", Dave.
Clearly, as PJ's article points out, cash will be exchanged. If Comcast wants to say it is buying all that extra advertising on Sinclair stations because it wants to, so be it.
And perhaps it is also allowing Sinclair to sell some advertising in local avails on various cable nets and who knows what other ingenious ways of making sure the transfer can't appear to be soley for retransmission rights..
But I would be stunned if the rather hefty rewards of this agreement don't become clear in the next six months or so on Sinclair's bottom line.
Maestro J
03-09-07, 04:52 PM
Dad: Haven't missed an episode. I too am loving the show more and more with each episode. I agree - #17 and #18 to a certain extent were 2 hours of excellent writing & direction. The acting wasn't half bad either.
I read recently that Heroes will be on HD DVD in late summer/early fall!!!!!
dad, "Heroes" is one I missed early on.
When the DVD appears, or show the show repeated in sequence, I'll probably give it a try.
dad1153, I've followed "Heroes" since the development stage, and haven't missed an episode, I'd have to say it's my favorite show right now. Of course, you may not consider me one of the "elite" TV viewing public, since I've not watched a single episode of "Studio 60" or "FNL." But then again, I consider myself a scifi fan, but I have also never watched an episode of "Battlestar Galactica." In my opinion though, I would think that there would be a large overlap between BSG and Heroes viewers.
VisionOn
03-09-07, 04:59 PM
Just curious if anybody else here amongst the "elite" TV viewing public is following this gonzo show. :confused:
I don't think the HotP thread is for the elitist of AVS readers. I know I don't consider myself part of a special crowd, I'm just interested in television.
I've watched Heroes since episode one and I've always thought it was great. Purely because it's an exciting and entertaining show with fun characters. In a contest of shows I wouldn't even blink twice about choosing Heroes over BSG. I don't consider Heroes a "low-brow" show at all. It's true to it's comic book roots and has no pretensions. The more self-important a show thinks it is the less likely I am to not forgive it's logical faults, which is why I don't like BSG.
The Business of Television
Sinclair on Comcast Deal:
A Shift in the Retrans Paradigm
(From the Evening Bridge from mediabizcorp.com) March 9, 2007
Comcast and Sinclair reached a retransmission consent agreement allowing for delivery of the broadcaster's stations by the cable giant.
Soon after the deal was announced, Sinclair released a statement saying it expects revenues generated from retrans contracts to reach $53 million, up from previous guidance of $48 million.
"In our opinion this agreement, together with other agreements we have entered into recently, does in fact represent a shift in the retransmission consent paradigm," said Sinclair President and CEO David Smith. "
This view is well supported by the expectation of $53 million in retransmission consent revenue. In fact, we would be more than happy to waive the confidentiality clause included in the agreement with Comcast and disclose the specific terms to the general public."
The Business of Television
Sinclair on Comcast Deal
(Sinclair News Release) March 9, 2007
Comcast and Sinclair enter into four-year extension of analog and digital
carriage agreement
PHILADELPHIA, PA and BALTIMORE, MD (March 7, 2007) - Comcast (Nasdaq:
CMCSA, CMCSK) and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SBGI) announced
today that they have reached a four-year extension to their retransmission
consent agreement. The agreement, which expires on March 1, 2011, provides
for the continued carriage of the analog and digital signals of 37 stations
in 23 markets owned or operated by Sinclair.
The agreement also providesfor the carriage of digital multicast channels which Sinclair is currentlybroadcasting in Baltimore and Richmond, as well as certain other multicastchannels which the stations located in Comcast markets may broadcast in the future.
The following stations will continue to be carried by Comcast pursuant to
the agreement:
Asheville, NC/Anderson, SC: WLOS/WMYA
Baltimore, MD: WBFF/WNUV
Birmingham, AL: WABM/WTTO/WDBB
Buffalo, NY: WUTV
Cape Girardeau, MO/Paducah, KY: WDKA/KBSI
Charleston, SC: WMMP/WTAT
Charleston, WV: WCHS/WVAH
Cincinnati, OH: WSTR
Dayton, OH: WRGT
Flint, MI: WSMH
Greensboro/High Point/Winston Salem, NC: WMYV/WXLV
Minneapolis, MN: WUCW
Nashville, TN: WZTV/WUXP/WNAB
Norfolk, VA: WTVZ
Pensacola, FL/Mobile, AL: WEAR/WFGX
Pittsburgh. PA: WPGH/WPMY
Portland, ME: WGME
Raleigh, NC: WLFL/WRDC
Richmond, VA: WRLH
Springfield. MA: WGGB
Springfield/Champaign, IL: WICS/WICD
Tallahassee, FL: WTWC
Tampa, FL: WTTA
http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_200739_208.shtml
dad1153
03-09-07, 06:03 PM
Look what I got today in the FedEx truck:
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j294/DMayATL/747ontheground.jpg
That is actually a picture taken from the 747i thread at the LCD forum from a guy named RunOff of his 747i, but it's pretty much identical to mine so why waste time taking another snap. Actually I'm in no rush to hook the thing up though. I have a SD DVR that I want to empty tonight (about five "Lost" episodes and three "BG" I have to record to SD DVD, plus five or so "Price Is Right" and a dozen or so regular gameshows) so tomorrow I can go to the Time Warner center to see if I can get an HD DVR box. So basically tonight is my last night as an SD exclusive viewer. Tomorrow is a new day! :)
Enjoy your last night of freedom, dad.
VisionOn
03-09-07, 06:21 PM
so tomorrow I can go to the Time Warner center to see if I can get an HD DVR box. So basically tonight is my last night as an SD exclusive viewer. Tomorrow is a new day! :)
cross your fingers! Call ahead to avoid disappointment, those TWC folks don't like just handing those HD DVRs over in some areas. Good luck!
humdinger70
03-09-07, 06:26 PM
As you well know, humdinger, San Diego is a very tough nut for a Cox competitor to crack.
DBS penetration is under 10%, among the very lowest in the nation, to some extent because Cox controls the local sports market with its Channel 4 San Diego, broadcasting, among other things, 112 Padres games in HD this year. (With another 40 in SD).
Telcos and DBS would have no access to those games, and thuis I suspect SD will be pretty much last as Verizon builds out. There just is no way to make easy inroads there.
And on top of being a tough competitor, Cox keeps its cusyomers in San Diego pretty happy -- its customer service is very good and so there is no burning reason many people would find to make a change.
The pickings in the LA area, where Adelphia (before the TWC takeover) did a hideous job, and TWC has been stumbling ever since, should be much easier.
I've been here about 26 years and you'd wonder how Cox would allow other systems to even got a small foothold in San Diego County.
Adelphia got in because they bought out some of the smaller systems (like Daniels Cablevision) serving the coastal north county areas (Carlsbad, Encinitas, etc).
I was watching Cox when I lived with my folks in the early 80s (south of I-8). I moved to an area near UCSD around '91 that was on an oddball (??) system (Pacific Cablevision, later bought out by Optel). It was a very local system with some huge dishes - I know because they were directly over the carport where I parked my car in the condo complex where I lived. (Complex still there and so are the dishes - i wonder if they're still in use??)
I think I even remember an occasional Adelphia truck coming around. The condo complex finally switched over to Southwestern Cable, which was bought out by Time-Warner.
humdinger70
03-09-07, 06:48 PM
Dawson was great, Gene Rayburn in his heyday was wonderful, and I still have some affection for Allen Ludden and Bill Cullen.
Don't forget Art James, Dennis James, Tom Kennedy, Jack Narz, Hugh Downs, Gary Moore, Steve Allen.
shuttermaker
03-09-07, 07:16 PM
cross your fingers! Call ahead to avoid disappointment, those TWC folks don't like just handing those HD DVRs over in some areas. Good luck!
Very true and, you may have to take your TV's owners manual to the office to prove you can use the box.
I kid you not.
Don't forget Art James, Dennis James, Tom Kennedy, Jack Narz, Hugh Downs, Gary Moore, Steve Allen.
How could I forget Gary Moore? He was great.
So, Comcast/Sinclair work out a NON-cash deal and MCC gets bullied into cash. And, Comcast gets to mention/brag about the details to boot, while details of the MCC deal remain undisclosed. Am I the only one who finds this weird? :)Sinclair released its side of the story this afternoon, here (http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_200739_209.shtml). Here's part of their response:
"In response to certain statements made by Comcast today, I note that Sinclair's policy is that it does not enter into retransmission consent agreements without receiving compensation for retransmission rights and we did not violate that policy in our agreement with Comcast," commented Barry Faber, VP and General Counsel of Sinclair.
"In addition, we believe that Mr. Cohen's statement that Comcast did not pay 'cash for broadcast carriage that would need to be passed on to [Comcast's] customers,' is not a denial that Comcast agreed to pay cash, but instead represents a claim that any such payments will not need to be passed on to subscribers," Faber said. "Since we believe that customers are already paying cable operators such as Comcast for the right to receive all of the programming carried, including broadcast stations, we are pleased to know that our agreement with Comcast will not require their subscribers to pay any additional amounts."
In the same press release, Sinclair now estimates it will receive $53 million from retransmission deals in 2007, up $5 million from its previous estimate. Sinclair says the new figure takes the Comcast deal and deals with several smaller cable companies into account, but does not include potential deals with Cox or Charter which are still being negotiated.
PJO1966
03-09-07, 07:53 PM
It was a bit odd reading this. I grew up in Bloomfield and know Holsten's well. I've only seen the first episode of the Sopranos, but didn't care for it. I am an Italian-American and I can understand people not watching the show because of the negative stereotypes, but barring them from filming a fictional show is just ridiculous. If you don't like the show, don't watch it. The location was going to be used for the final episode. What harm could be done by allowing them to use Hosten's at this point? If they hate the show so much they should be glad it's going off the air. Personally, I would love it if they shot there. I would watch.
It looks like the "powers that be" in my home town came to their senses...
'Sopranos' Can Film in North Jersey Town
By JANET FRANKSTON LORIN
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) - Tony Soprano is welcome in the North Jersey town of Bloomfield after all. Earlier this week, the town's mayor and council had denied a permit to film the series' final scene, saying they found the HBO mob drama a disparaging portrait of Italian-Americans.
However, township attorney Brian Aloia determined the council doesn't have a say in the permit process unless a waiver is needed, and said the town clerk has now issued the filming permit.
A waiver wasn't needed because producers would be filming in a commercial area after 8 p.m., he said.
HBO intended to shoot the scene at an ice cream shop in Bloomfield. The town borders Newark, where fictional mob boss Tony Soprano grew up.
Aloia said the clerk must issue a permit after determining that a shoot fulfills certain legal requirements, such as having adequate insurance.
"She must look at the application in an objective manner," he said. "She cannot consider, for instance, what's being filmed or in this case if she likes the show or doesn't like the show."
"The Sopranos" is scheduled to return with its last episodes April 8.
Permits were approved last week. But after complaints, the council voted again on Monday and rejected them.
Bloomfield Mayor Raymond McCarthy, whose wife is Italian, voted against the shoot twice.
"I don't think 'The Sopranos' depicts the life of a typical Italian-American in a positive way," he said, "and I still don't like the way people see New Jersey based upon 'The Sopranos' series."
The owners of the old-fashioned ice cream parlor selected for the series' final scene, Holsten's Brookdale Confectionary, said personal feelings shouldn't stand in the way.
After receiving word Friday of the town's reversal, co-owner Ron Stark was excited about becoming a pop culture landmark.
"Hopefully, this will all work out," he said.
Stark said creator David Chase visited the shop twice to scout it, and that HBO officials told him the 1939 building would be used for the final scene of the series finale. Three days of filming were scheduled for late March.
http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/Sopranos_Rejected.sff_NJMD108_20070307174538.jpg
(AP) Customers leave Holsten's Brookdale Confectionary store in Bloomfield, N.J., Wednesday, March 7,...
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070309/D8NOV4100.html
Sinclair released its side of the story this afternoon, here (http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_200739_209.shtml). Here's part of their response:
"In response to certain statements made by Comcast today, I note that Sinclair's policy is that it does not enter into retransmission consent agreements without receiving compensation for retransmission rights and we did not violate that policy in our agreement with Comcast," commented Barry Faber, VP and General Counsel of Sinclair.
"In addition, we believe that Mr. Cohen's statement that Comcast did not pay 'cash for broadcast carriage that would need to be passed on to [Comcast's] customers,' is not a denial that Comcast agreed to pay cash, but instead represents a claim that any such payments will not need to be passed on to subscribers," Faber said. "Since we believe that customers are already paying cable operators such as Comcast for the right to receive all of the programming carried, including broadcast stations, we are pleased to know that our agreement with Comcast will not require their subscribers to pay any additional amounts."
In the same press release, Sinclair now estimates it will receive $53 million from retransmission deals in 2007, up $5 million from its previous estimate. Sinclair says the new figure takes the Comcast deal and deals with several smaller cable companies into account, but does not include potential deals with Cox or Charter which are still being negotiated.
Thanks dline.
rebkell
03-09-07, 08:00 PM
I know there's a thread for "Heroes" elsewhere on this site, but is anyone here on this forum following this show (Fred in particular)? I don't know, the high intellect of the crowd that hangs around this thread makes me think "Heroes" is a little too fantastic and low-brow for the "Battlestar Galactica"-loving type of readers that Fred is trying to reach to. Me? I've watched since the beginning but wasn't really emotionally invested in it or in love with it as much as I am with "Studio 60," the "Law & Order" trilogy or "Dateline NBC: To Catch A Predator." But that "Heroes" episode a couple of weeks ago, Chapter 17: Company Man (the next-to-last before the current hiatus), literally shook and thrilled me like few hours of network TV have in years. Its as if the previous 16 episodes all were leading up to #17, and at that point "Heroes" became I show I'm proud to say I love as opposed to one I watch (big difference). Just curious if anybody else here amongst the "elite" TV viewing public is following this gonzo show. :confused:
Definitely love Heroes, I would have to rank it in my top three shows, I probably look forward to seeing a new Heroes more than any show on TV presently. I agree about the episode a couple of weeks ago as being the best. I'm hooked completely, it just keeps getting better.I've been watching since day one(remember the In-Sinkerator bruhaha) I watch BSG, but I've been known to go a couple of weeks before I even watch some of the episodes, Heroes on the other hand, I'm there live every time.
This is MSNBC’s loss. Rota Cosby is a really fine journalist, and just as good a person.
TV Notebook
Cosby Out at MSNBC
By Anne Becker Broadcasting & Cable 3/9/2007
Rita Cosby is leaving MSNBC at the end of the month. Her contract was due to expire April 1 and was not going to be renewed, according to sources familiar with the matter.
MSNBC cancelled Cosby's 10 p.m. show, Rita Cosby Live and Direct, in June. The network dumped Tucker Carlson's 11 p.m. show then too to make way for documentary programming.
At the time, Cosby was named head of a new specials unit, but she has been featured sparingly since.
The former Fox News personality gained notoriety for her celebrity pieces, most recently a story on Anna Nicole Smith's private funeral in the Bahamas.
"NBC replaced live programming with taped shows during some primetime slots, including mine," Cosby said in a statement. "I then began discussions with the network about my future interests and expressed my desire to move on.
"I am committed to devoting my attention full-time to my work and obligations at the network. I intend to continue doing so until I leave at the end of the month. I wish all of my MSNBC and NBC colleagues the best for the future. As of April 1st, I will begin to explore the new opportunities."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6423284.html?display=Breaking+News
TV Sports
MLB Talks Head Into Extra Innings
Cable, EchoStar Still Alive But Balking at Terms
By R. Thomas Umstead Multihannel News 3/9/2007
Major League Baseball’s negotiations with cable over carriage of its out-of-market live-game package are now officially in extra innings.
MLB met Friday with executives from In Demand Networks to try to strike a deal for distribution of MLB’s Extra Innings live-game package on cable systems. The meeting came one day after the league announced that it would give cable operators and EchoStar Communications’ Dish Network until the end of the month to reach an Extra Innings accord before the pay-per-view package becomes the exclusive property of DirecTV in a $700 million, seven-year deal.
The catch: Cable and Dish have to agree in principle to the same deal terms MLB and DirecTV announced for the Extra Innings package: placing the games on the operators’ most widely available tier of programming and taking a stake in the league’s baseball network when it launches in 2009.
But right now, it doesn’t look like those negotiations will yield a home run deal with cable operators. Pay television distributor In Demand, which is representing the cable industry, immediately shot down baseball’s pitch, calling it “a de facto exclusive deal” with carriage provisions that are impossible for cable operators to meet.
Meanwhile, the three-week negotiation grace period puts DirecTV in financial and marketing limbo. DirecTV CEO Chase Carey said its reported $100 million-per-year payment to baseball for the package will drop “significantly” if it loses exclusivity to cable or EchoStar.
“There’s a degree of short-term uncertainty -- this agreement has a period where it’s not clear how these rights end up in terms of exclusive versus nonexclusive rights,” Carey added. “It creates some short-term issues as to how we develop the properties around it, but we’ll work through that.”
About 500,000 people bought Extra Innings in 2006 through the three distributors, with DirecTV leading the way with a reported 270,000.
DirecTV will charge $159 for Extra Innings and an additional $39 for the SuperFan interactive features.
Both In Demand and Dish have to agree within a three-week window to meet DirecTV’s payment for Extra Innings, as well as to distribute the league’s 24/7 Baseball Channel on a basic tier, or perhaps field the anger of subscribers who will no longer be able to get the out-of-market games.
DirecTV will carry the channel -- in which it would own a reported 20% stake -- on its basic tier, reaching more than 15 million subscribers.
“It’s quite a simple process … we want to make this available to our fans,” MLB executive vice president of business Tim Brosnan said. “The issue is whether the incumbents want to pay the freight to make it available to their customers.”
While the industry is willing to match DirecTV’s price for Extra Innings, it wants to offer the new baseball channel on a premium sports tier rather than part of its basic digital offering. Cable-operator executives close to the negotiations said MLB spurned the industry’s guarantee to more than match DirecTV’s 15 million-subscriber commitment by the time the network launches.
“Major League Baseball has chosen to cut a de facto exclusive deal -- including conditions for carriage that MLB and DirecTV designed to be impossible for cable and Dish to meet -- with one satellite operator and disenfranchise baseball fans in the 75 million multichannel households who do not subscribe to DirecTV,” In Demand CEO Robert Jacobson said in a prepared statement.
EchoStar was also lukewarm to the offer. “We have been asking Major League Baseball to make the package available a la carte so that only those who choose to get the games today can continue to do so,” the company said in a prepared statement. “We hope they will act in the best interest of consumers and provide that option.”
It was unclear at press time if Dish officials had met with MLB Friday to discuss the new deal.
But MLB president Bob DuPuy said the extended negotiation window should allay any concerns and criticisms among fans and congressional leaders that baseball is trying to deprive baseball fans of the Extra Innings package, which cable has distributed since 2001.
“I would hope it would alleviate those concerns [from lawmakers] because the product is now being offered to everyone that had the package,” DuPuy said. “Going back to the incumbents was driven principally by our desire to deliver the most baseball programming to our fans.”
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who first voiced his opposition to a potential exclusive DirecTV-MLB deal in late January, was encouraged by baseball’s move but remained cautious. “I will review this deal to ensure that it benefits consumers,” he said.
As part of its deal, DirecTV will offer several interactive features to the Extra Innings package, including a mosaic channel that shows multiple games and a Strike Zone informational channel, according to Carey.
A DirecTV spokesman said the satellite service will soon roll out an extensive, national multimedia marketing and promotion campaign unprecedented in value for Extra Innings. Exact details of the campaign -- as well as an actual start date -- were not available at press time.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6423265.html?display=Breaking+News
The Business of Television
Cash in Question in Comcast, Sinclair Retransmission Deal
By Jon Lafayette Television Week March 9, 2007
Comcast and Sinclair Broadcast Group reached an agreement on retransmission consent, but disagreed on whether one of the largest broadcasters received cash from the nation’s biggest cable operator.
In a statement, Comcast said it “achieved its objective of not paying cash for broadcast carriage that would need to be passed on to our customers.”
But Barry Faber, VP and general counsel of Sinclair, said Comcast’s statement “mischaracterized” the deal.
After completing the Comcast deal, Sinclair said it raised its estimate for 2007 retransmission revenues to $53 million from $48 million. The company said the $48 million figure included an estimate of how much it would get from Comcast.
Mr. Farber said the Comcast statement “is not a denial that Comcast agreed to pay cash, but instead represents a claim that any such payment will not need to be passed on to subscribers.”
He offered to provide a copy of the retransmission agreement, if Comcast was willing to waive a nondisclosure provision.
Sinclair has been one of the more aggressive broadcasters in seeking retransmission consent from cable operators, and it succeeded in winning payments after a long battle with Mediacom last month.
Today's deal comes after the companies extended their previous retransmission agreement.
CBS recently reached agreements with a group of smaller cable operators in which the broadcaster was getting about 50 cents per subscriber for its retransmission consent.
Mr. Faber said the Comcast deal, and others that have recently been signed, represent a sea-change in the relationship between broadcasters and cable operators on retrans.
Comcast had no comment beyond its statement. CEO Brian Roberts has said the company’s policy is not to pay cash for retransmission consent.
The deal covers the analog and digital signals of 37 stations in 23 markets owned or operated by Sinclair. The agreement also provides for carriage of digital multicast signals currently broadcast in Baltimore and Richmond, Va., and certain other multicast channels Sinclair stations may broadcast in the future.
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11690
Critic’s Notebook
Having Your Beefcake and Talking About It, Too
By Alessandra Stanley The New York Times March 9, 2007
Evidently the average man wants to watch sports, politics, strippers, car chases and crashes, have sex and go to sleep. ABC has figured out that women prefer to watch shows about sex: couples who talk about sex, then have sex, lots of it, and then talk about sex some more to each other and to their best friends.
More often than not the fantasy is not coital so much as conversational. “You think we’re not connecting because we’re not having enough sex?” Bridget asks the hero of “What About Brian” on ABC. “That’s funny, because I think we’re not having sex because we’re not connecting.”
Male viewers click off in droves. But that kind of intimate chat was the lifeblood of “Sex and the City,” and guides “Grey’s Anatomy” and its Jägermeister chaser, “Men in Trees,” as well as ABC’s Sunday double feature of “Desperate Housewives” and “Brothers & Sisters.” These shows are the television version of chick lit, though most of these sex-and-romance dramas are far better written than the typical “Bridget Jones’s Diary” knockoff.
All of them offer female fantasy of the most romantic — and torrid — sort, and that’s not multiple orgasm, it’s multiple choice.
In classic novels, characters like Anna Karenina face tough decisions (solitude or the train tracks). On “Brothers & Sisters,” which is one of the best of the chick TV genre, the heroine Kitty (Calista Flockhart) must choose between a handsome rich ex-boyfriend, a handsome talk show co-star and a handsome senator. “Desperate Housewives,” which started ABC on its swoony course, still has a satiric edge, yet even there Susan (Teri Hatcher) has two handsome suitors vying for her hand — and armed with dueling diamond rings.
Next week ABC will replace “Men in Trees” with “October Road,” a romantic drama in which a young woman (Laura Prepon) is torn between her handsome boyfriend and the handsome ex-boyfriend who returns to town after a 10-year absence.
“Men in Trees” was not as successful as ABC hoped it would be when the network scheduled it right after “Grey’s Anatomy,” probably because its star, Anne Heche, is miscast as a sympathetic heroine; her knife-blade beauty and pinched persona are better suited to the role of shrill boss or irritating neighbor. But the show’s setting was ideally suited to the pursuit of eligible options: a jilted New Yorker moves to Alaska and discovers that it’s snowing men.
Passion doesn’t last, and shows fixated on love and lust lose their spark fairly quickly. “Grey’s Anatomy,” now in its third season, dragged out the romantic problem of its heroine, Meredith (Ellen Pompeo), as long as possible, but eventually she picked the handsome surgeon known around the hospital as McDreamy over the handsome veterinarian. (She had already passed on McSteamy.)
And that left writers with their own problem: what should Meredith be torn about next? It was a sweeps month, so they had her choose between life and death. (She flatlines after falling into icy waters, walks toward the white light, seeks the advice of dead friends, then decides to return among the living.)
ABC is so immersed in chick TV that its one gender-blind hit, “Lost,” seems marooned in a sea of estrogen. That’s because networks don’t create their identities so much as stumble on them. ABC was floundering, uncertain whether it was blue collar or Disney family-friendly. “Lost” was a fluke hit, but “Desperate Housewives” became a pop-culture tsunami and gave ABC its calling.
One danger to dramas like “Desperate Housewives” and “Grey’s Anatomy” is that when their popularity peaks, attention shifts from the soap opera on the screen to the soap opera on the set. The hydra-headed gossip industry feasted on cast feuds and catfights first on “Sex and the City,” then “Desperate Housewives” and now “Grey’s Anatomy.” On that drama, however, the diva squabbling extended to the male leads. Bad behavior forced Isaiah Washington (McMeanie) into sensitivity counseling.
In fairness, these dramas are not just about sex. They also traffic in crises, though financial failures and failing kidneys serve mostly as palate cleansers between sexual encounters. “Grey’s Anatomy” is crammed with cataclysms, from a bomb explosion in the operating room to a ferry on fire at the Seattle docks. But even the worst emergencies tend to be more about the doctor than the patient. Each procedure brings some kind of crucial emotional catharsis to Meredith and her friends.
“Sex and the City” loosened sexual inhibition; “Gilmore Girls” loosened mother-daughter tongues. Perhaps the most appealing fantasy fulfillment is about healing family relationships. On “Brothers & Sisters,” which stars Sally Field as Nora, the matriarch of a family of California food growers, mothers and daughters can smooth out ancient grievances without screams or stress eating. (“Grey’s Anatomy” offers a different fantasy: a mother with Alzheimer’s snaps out of it long enough to remind her daughter why she is quite right not to miss her.)
Plenty of people are baffled by the popularity of chick TV, but it’s not so complicated. Like Ben & Jerry’s, which includes Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream among its most popular flavors, these shows dish out exactly what women want in lavish quantities that they cannot quite believe anyone would allow them to have.
A little goes a long way, but a lot goes even further.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/arts/television/09chic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=television&pagewanted=print
The Business of Television
Cash in Question in Comcast, Sinclair Retransmission Deal
By Jon Lafayette Television Week March 9, 2007
He offered to provide a copy of the retransmission agreement, if Comcast was willing to waive a nondisclosure provision.
Well, on the surface at least, it doesn't look so good for the big guys after all.
Agreed, foxeng.
Anyone who thought Comcast would win this one in a walkover has been rudely awakened.
DoubleDAZ
03-09-07, 11:43 PM
I think it just depends on your defintion of "paid", Dave.
I know all you in the industry are estatic about all this (enjoy your pay raises :) ), but unlike some others, my definition has always been $x.xx/sub. Anything else is no different than what goes on today, no matter how either side wants to spin it.
Dave I am not ecstatic.
But I do strongly believe that stations which provide so much of cable (and satellite) content should be compensated for it. And as they spend heavily to move into HD, their content is even more desirable to providers.
"American Idol", "Grey's Anatomy", "Heroes" and "CSI" (and dozens of other HD programs) certainly bring value to the cable and satellite companies. As do the college footbal and basketball, March Madness, golf, the Olympics, MLB, and, of course, the NFL.
If many cable and satellite companies charge an extra $10 or so for (essentially) HD versions of SD channels, why shouldn't stations get a share?
There is no reason why subs should have to pay more. They already generally pay less for satellite -- and DBS has been paying for stations since they started. If the costs go up, let the providers jettison some of the cable networks which very few people watch.
DoubleDAZ
03-10-07, 12:08 AM
Fred,
I'll take your word for it, but you "seem" pretty darned happy with any outcome that takes money away from the cableco's and lowers their ability to compete against satellite. I won't argue that plenty of money goes into cable owner's pockets, but I don't see satco owners or Sinclair hurting for $$$ either.
The fact that satco's already pay for locals doesn't really do much for me because the entire pricing model used by both cable and sat is so convoluted that you'd be hard pressed to figure out what any part of the service really costs. They all simply structure their pricing to something they think the buying public will accept with very little consideration given to how a given fee correlates to actual cost.
And I don't disagree that locals add value, but take away cable/sat and the locals will feel it in lost advertising revenue. That is something you and others don't seem to appreciate. Both locals and cable/sat get something, now the locals get even more. :(
VideoGrabber
03-10-07, 12:10 AM
Fred,
> If many cable and satellite companies charge an extra $10 or so for (essentially) HD versions of SD channels, why shouldn't stations get a share? <
Seems very reasonable. I'd definitely buy the "if".
Since my cable co. charges me nothing extra for the HD-feeds of my local ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox channels, how much should they have to pay for them?
- Tim
And I don't disagree that locals add value, but take away cable/sat and the locals will feel it in lost advertising revenue. That is something you and others don't seem to appreciate. Both locals and cable/sat get something, now the locals get even more. :(
It has been shown that viewers will seek out the local stations by switching providers or going OTA. Because of this the advertising losses the local stations will see should be short-term and a rather small because most viewers will seek out those local stations.
Since my cable co. charges me nothing extra for the HD-feeds of my local ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox channels, how much should they have to pay for them?
An amount that accounts for cable's ability to attract customers because they carry those channels.
CPanther95
03-10-07, 09:11 AM
I know all you in the industry are estatic about all this (enjoy your pay raises :) ), but unlike some others, my definition has always been $x.xx/sub. Anything else is no different than what goes on today, no matter how either side wants to spin it.
I agree. Even though it now appears that cash was involved - if the deal was isolated to some kind of barter (even valuable multicast carriage), it would be no different than status quo. No matter how attractive the barter arrangement becomes for the local broadcaster, it would still allow the cablecos to claim that there is no paradigm shift.
DoubleDAZ
03-10-07, 09:17 AM
An amount that accounts for cable's ability to attract customers because they carry those channels.That is a VERY subjective amount and you seem to overlook the fact that there IS (read that again, IS) compensation given for the locals. Also, cableco's do not provide them for free just because someone isn't charged directly (it's all in the package price), but they don't get them from free either, there IS compensation given. IF (there's that big word again), they simply grabbed them out of the air and retransmitted them without ANY compensation to the stations, then I'd whole-heartedly agree.
All we're talking about here though is a change from indirect compensation (via free advertising, inclusion of other channels the station owns, cable-purchased advertising, etc., vs direct $x.xx/sub in CASH. I really don't care one way or the other as long as the end result is that my cable bill doesn't go up because of it. If they settle for cash vs advertising and the end result in $$$ remains the same, who really cares? There are those however, who want the cableco's to PAY MORE, not just through a different compensation arrangement, but in ADDED compensation.
Then too, many seem to forget that there is a lot of government regulation involved in both cable and sat carriage. Get rid of the rules and let the free-market determine what the worth is. Also, let me get rid of the $2.80 fee I HAVE to pay for ESPN and I'll gladly pay it to the locals. Or better yet, let me put up an antenna, not pay for the locals at all, and still receive all the other channels for a lower fee. Gee, that sounds like ala carte and letting the consumer determine what the worth is. What a novel idea! :)
That is a VERY subjective amount and you seem to overlook the fact that there IS (read that again, IS) compensation given for the locals. Also, cableco's do not provide them for free just because someone isn't charged directly (it's all in the package price), but they don't get them from free either, there IS compensation given. IF (there's that big word again), they simply grabbed them out of the air and retransmitted them without ANY compensation to the stations, then I'd whole-heartedly agree.
Nope, not overlooking anything I am aware of the current practices to exchange advertising for carriage.
All we're talking about here though is a change from indirect compensation (via free advertising, inclusion of other channels the station owns, cable-purchased advertising, etc., vs direct $x.xx/sub in CASH. I really don't care one way or the other as long as the end result is that my cable bill doesn't go up because of it. If they settle for cash vs advertising and the end result in $$$ remains the same, who really cares?
Both the stations and the cablcos would care. If the agreement shifted compensation to cash from advertising it would free up advertising slots on the local station. These now open slots would provide new revenue and allow the local stations to grab some other local advertisers that might otherwise spend their ad dollars on local cable advertising.
There are those however, who want the cableco's to PAY MORE, not just through a different compensation arrangement, but in ADDED compensation.
As witnessed in Iowa with Mediacomm, I think some cable companies are underestimating the value that local channel bring to their station. If that is the case I think that the local stations have every right to ask for more compensation be it in more cash or more advertising barter.
As witnessed in Iowa with Mediacomm, I think some cable companies are underestimating the value that local channel bring to their station. If that is the case I think that the local stations have every right to ask for more compensation be it in more cash or more advertising barter.
Comcast knows all too well what the local stations bring to their systems.
(To no one in particular) Why do you think Comcast did what it did? To avoid another Mediacom media debacle. Even the TWCs and the Comcast's, who could afford the holdouts, can't stand up to the constant media blitz that would go along with it, just like Mediacom couldn't.
You wreck a business reputation and it is almost impossible to get that back. Look at the anti-D*, E*, Comcast, TWC, (insert name here) people who populate AVSForum. Many of those people will NEVER go back to those systems they had a problem with. Any company starts to alienate mass numbers of its customers and the business goes under. Basic economics. The Comcast's and TWC's of the world are smarter than that. That is why you have this Comcast/Sincalir deal. It makes both sides come out smelling like roses. Win-win for both sides.
TV Sports
TV cable deal talks are held
By Larry Stewart From Los Angeles Times Staff and Wire Reports March 10, 2007
Robert Jacobson, president and chief executive of In Demand, met with baseball executives Friday to discuss a possible deal for cable to carry the Extra Innings out-of-market pay television package, according to a spokeswoman for In Demand.
The meeting came one day after Jacobson said conditions set by baseball made it impossible for the In Demand service to offer the package.
A key issue is the Baseball Channel, to be launched in 2009. DirecTV, which has a 20% minority stake in the channel, has agreed to make it available to most of its customers. Because In Demand serves 50 million digital cable customers, it claims that the cost would be prohibitive.
One cable executive suggested the cost to cable companies might be as much as $2.50 a month per subscriber. Industry sources say it would be more in the 30-cent range.
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-sp-bbnotes10mar10,0,54035,print.story?coll=cl-tvent
The Business of Television
Trying to Beat Broadcast Over the Ears
CableLabs’ Off-Air Receiver Project Could Pull In TV Signals, Reclaim Bandwidth, Sidestep Retrans Fees
By Todd Spangler MultiChannel News 3/12/2007
Cable wants to put rabbit ears back in the home — a technical irony that could help the industry conserve big chunks of bandwidth on its network of fiber and coaxial transmission pipes.
The plan could also let the industry avoid shelling out millions in retransmission fees to broadcasters.
CableLabs, in a two-paragraph press release earlier this month, said it is developing specifications for an interface that would let set-top boxes receive digital broadcast signals off the air. This technology would allow households to see broadcast TV signals alongside cable programming “as an integrated viewing experience,” the consortium said.
Why would a cable operator want to do this?
The prime motivation appears to be improving cable’s bargaining position with broadcast TV station operators over carriage of their signals.
Under current public policy, broadcasters can pursue two paths in getting distribution for their stations on cable systems. Either they can force carriage, without getting payment, through federal must-carry rules. Or, if they want to get paid, they can negotiate specific agreements with cable operators over the terms of retransmission.
Antenna In a Set-Top: What’s At Stake
CableLabs is developing a specification to let set-top boxes receive TV broadcasters’ signals over the air in a fashion that would be “integrated” with programming that comes in from a cable. The technology could let operators:
• Save bandwidth for ’must-carry’ stations by picking them off the air, rather than pulling in from the coaxial cable network
• Offer the full range of a local TV station’s digital multicasts, including high-definition signals
• Avoid paying broadcasters for retransmission of their signals, since no retransmission is involved
(Source: Multichannel News research)
In the must-carry case, turning set-top boxes into off-air TV receivers could save cable operators bandwidth.
Here’s how. The Federal Communications Commission has mandated that broadcasters provide all-digital over-the-air signals by Feb. 17, 2009. Existing FCC rules require operators to carry just one programming stream from each local digital-TV station that has elected mandatory carriage. Right now, those signals must be carried over the cable system’s physical plant. But if there’s a reliable technical alternative, such as this, those regulations may change.
The broadcasters might even push for the change. With the digital transition, TV stations would like operators to carry multiple programming streams — as many as five or six, including bandwidth-hungry high-definition signals, which can take up as much space as 10 standard-definition channels on a digital-cable system.
If set-tops with built-in digital tuners were widely deployed, cable operators could offer all of that local TV programming for “free” — that is, without having to pipe the digital signals over their networks. That could eventually let an operator reclaim valuable spectrum for other uses, such as high-speed data or HD programming.
In a city with at least five broadcast stations, and where an operator carries HD simulcasts for each one, pulling those feeds from the air could free up roughly 24 Megahertz of bandwidth in the cable system itself. That would provide space for 40 standard-definition channels in a digital tier of programming.
That would benefit broadcasters, according to a consultant who works with local TV affiliates, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“If implemented properly, the technology sounds as though it would give cable subscribers access to all the digital offerings of a local broadcaster, including a station’s multicast programming,” the consultant said.
RETRANS END-RUN?
If a broadcaster wants to negotiate for retransmission, however, the off-air receiver could help cable operators avoid paying tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for rights to retransmit the signals of local TV stations.
More broadcasters have been demanding that cable operators pay for the right to carry their signals. For example, CBS last month struck a deal worth $6 million per year with nine small cable operators (which it didn’t name), representing 1 million subscribers.
Sinclair Broadcast Group, which recently signed new agreements with Mediacom Communications, Time Warner Cable and Belo Corp., projects that it will take in $48 million in revenue this year from allowing retransmission of its local TV signals, up from $2.6 million in 2003 (“Dueling for Dollars,’’ March 5, 2007, page 6). For its part, Hearst-Argyle Television projects an almost tenfold increase to more than $18 million this year, up from $1.9 million in 2003.
Bruce Leichtman, president of consulting firm Leichtman Research Group, said a cable box with a tuner seemed intended to put cable in a less vulnerable position with broadcasters.
With this interface, viewers would technically be getting local-TV signals off the air, into their set-top boxes and then onto their TVs. The operator’s network of fiber and coaxial cable would not be involved.
“When companies like CBS are hell-bent at getting 50 cents a sub [for retransmission rights], it would certainly make sense for cable to say, 'Hey, we don’t need to pay you. We’ll just get the signal over the air,’ ” he said.
“It’s an intelligent, strategic use of technology,” Leichtman added. “It’s a bargaining chip for cable.”
CableLabs CEO Dick Green, when asked whether this technology could help operators sidestep retransmission agreements, declined to comment. Meanwhile, large multiple-system operators, including Comcast and Time Warner Cable, referred questions about the off-air project back to CableLabs.
“The honest truth is the MSOs have different ideas about how they’re going to use this,” Green said. “Those are business interests, and we [CableLabs] simply don’t get into those things.”
Green noted that direct-broadcast satellite operators today pluck local TV signals off the air, using tuners built into the dishes they’ve already installed on customers’ homes. That’s designed to let DBS providers conserve bandwidth on their satellites by not having to retransmit every single feed from every local TV station.
In addition, Green said that outside the United States, cable operators commonly provide broadcast signals by installing external antennas at subscribers’ homes.
National Association of Broadcasters director of media relations Kristopher Jones said the NAB is “reviewing CableLabs’s announcement” and declined to comment further.
But one senior executive at a major broadcaster, who asked to remain anonymous, dismissed the idea that a cable set-top with a built-in off-air tuner would somehow allow operators to avoid retransmission negotiations.
“If they want to have our channels integrated into the cable set-top, as part of their lineup, they would need our permission,” the executive said.
TECH TIMING
From the CableLabs perspective, Green said, there were three primary factors that made the timing right to develop a set-top with a digital antenna in it.
First is the FCC deadline for broadcasters to move to all-digital signals by February 2009. “We’re two years away from the digital transition, so all the industry players are getting more serious about this,” he said.
Second, Green said, developments in radio-frequency technology have made it possible to provide an off-air tuner on a single chip.
Finally, set-top boxes have greater processing power, which would allow them to use software to combine off-air signals with cable. “We could have done this in the past, but we didn’t have the processor capabilities,” he said.
In fact, Green claimed, CableLabs has been kicking around off-air concepts for about 15 years, but has only become feasible with the new technical breakthroughs. “It’s been on our back burner for some time,” he said.
Green expects to be able to demonstrate a working prototype of a set-top with a digital broadcast tuner before the end of 2007.
CableLabs is designing the specification to support multiple implementations. One could be a set-top with a built-in tuner, but the spec will also allow existing digital set-tops to connect to an external antenna.
For a viewer, clicking to a broadcast channel from a program guide hosted on the set-top would “be transparent to you … you wouldn’t need to know that they’re off-air,” Green said.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6423301.html?display=Top+Stories
HDTVChallenged
03-10-07, 12:46 PM
The Business of Television
Trying to Beat Broadcast Over the Ears
CableLabs’ Off-Air Receiver Project Could Pull In TV Signals, Reclaim Bandwidth, Sidestep Retrans Fees
By Todd Spangler MultiChannel News 3/12/2007
Cable wants to put rabbit ears back in the home — a technical irony that could help the industry conserve big chunks of bandwidth on its network of fiber and coaxial transmission pipes.
Humm ... why reinvent the wheel? Just license the tech from TiVo ... chances are pretty good that you'd run into a "patent" issue anyway. :)
That having been said, it would be funny if all these "retransmission" demands ultimately backfired in broadcasters' faces. :D
Yesterday’s fast national over night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted near the top of Ratings News the second post in this thread.
The Business of Television
Trying to Beat Broadcast Over the Ears
CableLabs’ Off-Air Receiver Project Could Pull In TV Signals, Reclaim Bandwidth, Sidestep Retrans Fees
By Todd Spangler MultiChannel News 3/12/2007
The plan could also let the industry avoid shelling out millions in retransmission fees to broadcasters.
That should pretty much settle any doubting Thomas' that cable doesn't need the local stations. I suspect this will backfire on cable. It takes much of the rhetoric cable has been saying for 40 years that people NEED the cable to get locals. If someone wants an antenna, they aren't going to pay cable for the privilege of have an antenna.
IMHO, knee jerk reaction to the retrans issue. Like I have been saying, the emperor has no clothes and the masses now see it.
Interesting how this has gone full circle.
Remember in the early days of DBS, when cable was running ads saying that satellite didn't offer local channels? Never mind, of course, that the satellite boxes also had an antenna input. Satellite suffered anyway. Now, millions of dollars in upgrades later, satellite DOES offer those local channels (at least the SD versions) and is finally considered a serious competitor to cable. And now there's talk of cable going the other way?
As I said, interesting ...
steverobertson
03-10-07, 03:25 PM
Interesting how this has gone full circle.
Remember in the early days of DBS, when cable was running ads saying that satellite didn't offer local channels? Never mind, of course, that the satellite boxes also had an antenna input. Satellite suffered anyway. Now, millions of dollars in upgrades later, satellite DOES offer those local channels (at least the SD versions) and is finally considered a serious competitor to cable. And now there's talk of cable going the other way?
As I said, interesting ...
That is kind of funny how more things change the more they stay the same.
Philosopher George Santayana, who famously said: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it," would probably be smiling at all of this.
GeorgeLV
03-10-07, 04:11 PM
That should pretty much settle any doubting Thomas' that cable doesn't need the local stations. I suspect this will backfire on cable. It takes much of the rhetoric cable has been saying for 40 years that people NEED the cable to get locals. If someone wants an antenna, they aren't going to pay cable for the privilege of have an antenna.