If the only outlet for sub-channels is OTA, the revenue potential is limited and thus the motivation to add them is limited. Treating the HD feed as a premium channel would force the affiliate to treat it, and pass it through, as such.

If the best way for the affiliate to maximize profit is through sub-channels, the HD PQ is going to be sacrificed. I'd rather have one pristine HD channel than a mediocre HD channel and 3 SD channels with mediocre content.

CPanther95, I'd rather see the mediocre HD picture (KVWB already has USDTV on it) with synced audio than the careless treatment Sinclair is giving to this "Free OTA HDTV" station. It seems like even the people with antennas are being held hostage by Sinclair waiting for cable carriage in the Las Vegas market. We have an HD signal that is unwatchable because the engineers won't sync up audio. Does anybody belive for a second that if Cox signed a carriage agreement the audio wouldn't magically return to sync? It's almost is if Sinclair is dangling a carrot of everybody's head, but keeping it out of reach lest the people actually move to OTA and deny them the .50 (or whatever it is that they really want) if they make a carriage agreement.

Originally posted by CPanther95
Sinclair owns 18 of the Top 79 WB affiliates:
WB Total: 38/79 in HD or 48.1%
Sinclair: 14/18 in HD or 77.8%

I'd appreciate it if you and the other moderators would reduce that to 13/18 WB affialiates in HD, because a station that is consistently several seconds out of sync with audio just isn't watchable by anybody that isn't deaf.

You think it's bad having an audio problem on the WB, Here in Sacto, Sinclair operates KOVR the CBS affiliate, and while they blame the national feed, they seem to be 5 minutes behind in setting up the DD, so the show starts for 5-7 with stereo surround, and oddly, no Center Channel information (or something like that) so that all dialogue is lost.

Free OTA is BS if it's so bad that nobody would care to get it much less incur a cost to get it. My concern isn't as much with this deal as much as the precedent that it may set. It's not just the crappy HD stations, it's the HD stations that are currently doing a great job who may be motivated down the road to sacrifice PQ in order to profit from multicasting.

I definitely see CPanther95's point. On the other hand, my local CBS affiliate, who has a multicast SD channel on Comcast, turns off the OTA multicast whenever there is an HD program. Comcast still gets the station over a dedicated connection, but the OTA people don't. I think most stations will realize that their main HD feed is their bread and butter, especially when there are so many other ways to get a sub-channel onto cable without using OTA bandwidth. I do like the fact that they have to provide compelling content to get on cable...not just infomercials.

Originally posted by leewcraft
there are so many other ways to get a sub-channel onto cable without using OTA bandwidth. I do like the fact that they have to provide compelling content to get on cable...not just infomercials.

If they don't use OTA bandwidth, then "no harm, no foul" - I don't even care if the extra content isn't compelling, that's just 3 more channels along with 100 others that won't make my favorites list.

As long as they have a high quality primary HD feed available to MSO's and OTA - I'll be a happy camper.

Originally posted by leewcraft
I definitely see CPanther95's point. On the other hand, my local CBS affiliate, who has a multicast SD channel on Comcast, turns off the OTA multicast whenever there is an HD program. Comcast still gets the station over a dedicated connection, but the OTA people don't. I think most stations will realize that their main HD feed is their bread and butter, especially when there are so many other ways to get a sub-channel onto cable without using OTA bandwidth. I do like the fact that they have to provide compelling content to get on cable...not just infomercials.

Comcast does not get a "dedicated feed", rather whatever is sent out OTA. So if the station starts to multicast the HD and the SD subchannel at all times, Comcast will get the less quality HD as well, only that it may not have to also give cable subs the SD subchannel.

Though I understand CPanther95's concern, the $0.50 per HD feed does not preserve the HD bandwidth. Since the stations' motivation is financial rather HD picture quality, they may be more inclined to produce more "compelling HD channels" to be simulcasted, and let bandwidth suffer, if they can charge $0.50 for each HD feed.

"Produce more compelling HD Channels"

Not that it's a big quibble, but my impression is that you can only fit one HD channel into the 6MHZ digital stream. You can usually squeeze an SD channel alongside it, but that's where the issues start. At least for 1080i. Supposedly 720p can sport one extra SD channel pretty easily. And I think there's little doubt that a broadcaster could only charge $.50 (market-wise) for the Network HD feed. Comcast would never pay $.50 for a HD feed of just misc HD programming. (The 8:30 O'Clock news...in HD)

Does Sinclair, or any local broadcaster, really feel that they can come up with a channel that is as compelling as network programming? Especially, considering they are already responsible for filling 21 hours a day/7 days a week (for most weeks). I've seen that programming that fills the 21 hours, I don't think the next 24 hours of programming will be very marketable. ;)

CPanther, since I've been criticizing Sinclair's absolutely unwatchable HDTV, I'll be nice and point out that they do have a decent SD independent in Las Vegas, KFBT Gold 33. It's full of second tier syndication, judge shows, dating shows, and talk zoos like Springer. Occaisionaly it shows local sports. It's probably not the greatest and definitely not the classiest programming available, but it is stuff that people will watch, unlike, say, weather radar. I don't know how many of these types of stations a market can really support (especially since you can see much of the same on your UPN/WB during hours not programmed by the network). It's definitely something that can be pulled off once, but the returns will diminish rapidly as more local stations program channels of leftovers on subchannels.

Originally posted by CPanther95
Does Sinclair, or any local broadcaster, really feel that they can come up with a channel that is as compelling as network programming? Especially, considering they are already responsible for filling 21 hours a day/7 days a week (for most weeks). I've seen that programming that fills the 21 hours, I don't think the next 24 hours of programming will be very marketable. ;)

Although it is a very long shot, they can in theory partner with HDNet (not rebroadcasting HDNet) or other HD services and put it on the air then ask Comcast to pay $0.50 to show some HD programming that is already repeated on InHD. Or $0.10 for another SD simulcast channel.

All I am saying is $0.50 does not avoid bandwidth crunch since the motivation here is money, not preserving HD quality.

jac, I agree - the motivation will always be money. My problem is there's only one way to get that money now and it is not good for HD.

Sinclair is probably going to give us NewsCentral LIVE! 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, a NewsCentral Weather channel LIVE! 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the Propaganda Channel Live!, All Good News! channel, and, um, that's it... I ran out of ideas...

Anybody else want to hazard a guess?

I got home here in Pittsburgh, and what do I notice? Fox-HD (a Sinclair carrier) was no longer being carried. I called CSR and they already generated an automatic message notifying us that Sinclair has requested all local carriers stop transmitting their channels. Looks like us customers are back to square one as far as the waiting game goes. At least they were considerate enough to show the Super Bowl and the Daytona 500 in HD. What a tease.

Same thing happened in Baltimore. At least you all got a few American Idol Episodes.

I quess Sinclair doesn't really care if people want to watch their programs in HD. Maybe they think that the FOX programming is so good everyone will still be glad to watch it in SD. I for one will not. The way I see it, they offer an over the air HD signal for free but since most people have cable and are not willing to spend additional money needed to receive the free signal, they will try to extort the money from the cable company because they know their customers want HD. This is pure greed and I hope it costs them in lost viewers and lost advertising revenue. They allowed their signal to be carried for 2 of the top sports broadcasts, Superbowl and Daytona 500 then pulled the plug hoping to put pressure on Comcast to get what their customers want. A company that thinks this way has no respect for their viewers and should expect none in return. The cable companys are obligated to carry Sinclairs SD signal but we're not obligated to watch it!

It is nothing even close to extortion.

Maybe I chose a strong word since it doesn't fit the definition of illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage. Maybe I don't understand but Sinclair did not upgrade their stations to transmit HD so that they could sell it to the cable company. I thought they did it to be ready when the market shifts to digital and retain their viewers. If I'm wrong on this please let me know. Once again I apologize because they have done nothing illegal.

Originally posted by BamaUnc1
I got home here in Pittsburgh, and what do I notice? Fox-HD (a Sinclair carrier) was no longer being carried. I called CSR and they already generated an automatic message notifying us that Sinclair has requested all local carriers stop transmitting their channels. Looks like us customers are back to square one as far as the waiting game goes. At least they were considerate enough to show the Super Bowl and the Daytona 500 in HD. What a tease.

Wow, just the sort of thing to promote goodwill with the customer, eh? :rolleyes:

There was an agreement in principle. Looks like someone has no principles after all.

Are there any statistics to show what the total viewership was of HD viewers during the Superbowl or the Daytona 500?

Why am I not surprised? Sinclair once again shows what they are made of. I have nothing but contempt for the way this company does business. They are the lowest scum of the broadcasting world.

There, that felt better.

And just when I was starting to get used to watching 24 in HD (the only Fox program I really ever watch, except for sports). Sorry Sinclair, I will NOT be buying an OTA setup just so I can watch your sorry station.

Gosh there are a lot of people whining about putting up a freaking $20 antenna. Give me a break! And again, this goes back to why should Sinclair give it's valuable programming over to Cable companies who turn around and sell their programming but eliminate their advertising revenue by providing DVR's and the like.

I'm still amazed at the level outrage generated over an inability to "splurge" on a $20 antenna...(CM 4221 btw).

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
Gosh there are a lot of people whining about putting up a freaking $20 antenna. Give me a break! And again, this goes back to why should Sinclair give it's valuable programming over to Cable companies who turn around and sell their programming but eliminate their advertising revenue by providing DVR's and the like.

I'm still amazed at the level outrage generated over an inability to "splurge" on a $20 antenna...(CM 4221 btw).

So is sinclair now providing free OTA HD boxes, where do I get mine?

And WHO made that choice when they bought their TV? The purchaser chose Volutantarily to be at the mercy of their programming provider; don't blame Sinclair that he got chinsy when it came to buying their TV! The purchaser chose to buy an incomplete product, Sinclair didn't force it on the purchaser. Like I said, the purchaser chose to be at the mercy of the Cable/Sat provider, big surprise, that you're getting screwed by them, them not being willing to shell out $.50 on your behalf so you can enjoy that programming.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80


I'm still amazed at the level outrage generated over an inability to "splurge" on a $20 antenna...(CM 4221 btw).

Here we again...:rolleyes:

Of course the "valuable programming" the poor folks at Sinclair don't want to "give away" is, for the most part, programming coming down the line from their network affiliations.

Life would be so much easier if the networks were just allowed to sell us their programming directly. (And I am convinced that not too many years from now, they will be able to do just that.)

Then if Sinclair, or anyone else, wanted to charge us for THEIR programming, they might have to provide some compelling reason for us to pay for it.

They -- and other group owners -- might have to deviate from putting the cheapest programming on their stations to trying, in some manner, to put the best programming on their stations.

What a concept.

It amazes me that after all of the BS Sinclair is pulling there are still people defending them. These people must work for Sinclair or else have a stake in the company somehow.

Originally posted by gtree10
So is sinclair now providing free OTA HD boxes, where do I get mine?
And make my $20 antenna super-duper enough to pull a signal from 90 miles. I don't exactly live in a rural area either. Here in the Myrtle Beach area all the towers are in the middle of the state. You don't see any antennas here.

Really, a lot of people are frusterated with Sinclair, as though they have done something wrong. Really, they haven't...All the arguements come down to...everyone else gives away their signal for free to Cable, so Sinclair should too; that, just is not persuasive. Go look at www.myfreehdtv.com, obviously, broadcasters think they have some incentive to move people away from Cable and Sat cos to OTA transmissions, I've already presented a couple (I think) good reasons for why this is so.

Look, if you want a bunch of other programming choices (Cable or Sat), and be offered the ability to fast forward through advertising (DVRs) one better be prepared to pay for programming. Because otherwise there's just a lot less ways to generate revenue. And coo, I have no interest in Sinclair, except that I used to be a cable customer and have since gone OTA only. Which is no more or less of an interest than, being a cable customer who doesn't want to see Comcast pay for programming on the broadcast affiliates.

As to the Networks selling their programming directly to cable, that may happen, but will the cable cos really benefit? At that point they really will be paying for Network programming, and you know what, the Network's could probably command much more than $.50, if, for example, ESPN is worth about $3/sub, one can imagine how much CBS would be.

And really as to blaming Sinclair, do they really look to be the baddies? They thought they had a deal with Comcast, tentatively allowed the Comcast to carry the biggest event of the year, but ultimately decided that Comcast wasn't being reasonable? What more can they do? Sinclair seemed to be incredibly reasonable esp. in allowing the Super Bowl on Comcast. Forbid that they should try to seek a good deal after allowing the SB on Comcast.

Originally posted by coomarlin
It amazes me that after all of the BS Sinclair is pulling there are still people defending them. These people must work for Sinclair or else have a stake in the company somehow.

I wonder how much of the outrage about Sinclair is due to their political leanings (please don't expand on that). I don't see the same outrage over Raycom or any other broadcast groups - and it's odd to see a cable company garner this kind of loyalty.

I also don't get the lack of AVS members that would rather absorb $0.50 per major network, than support a deal that promotes multicasting. We've voted with our wallet through this transition and have had very few programming supporters. Yet the one source of the vast amount of HD original programming is when we so "no more" - not gonna pay a penny. But your cable bill will continue to rise and the biggest benefactor will be the cable company and the 100's of SD networks they have and will be adding.

I'd rather see the cable company lock in a long-term deal that assures adequate bandwidth and a flat fee (per HD subscriber). I also would like the 700 or so affiliates who went out on a financial limb to give us HD, see some return on that investment and maybe even be able to fund converting the local studios to HD as well. It would also prompt the affiliates who are not HD to potentially upgrade with some foreseeable payoff date.

I wonder how much of the outrage about Sinclair is due to their political leanings (please don't expand on that). I don't see the same outrage over Raycom or any other broadcast groups - and it's odd to see a cable company garner this kind of loyalty.


I had no idea of their political leanings when I was sworn at and hung up on by their engineers in St. Louis just for simpy asking when they would comply with 5/1 deadline in May 2002. From top to bottom since then I've gotten nothing but lies. This frustration was compounded by finding out about the used car lot, helicopter, and prostitute scandals along with the later political leanings crap thrust upon viewers this past 1.5 years.

Originally posted by Joseph S
I had no idea of their political leanings when I was sworn at and hung up on by their engineers in St. Louis just for simpy asking when they would comply with 5/1 deadline in May 2002. From top to bottom since then I've gotten nothing but lies. This frustration was compounded by finding out about the used car lot, helicopter, and prostitute scandals along with the later political leanings crap thrust upon viewers this past 1.5 years.

That explains why you hate Sinclair, but it doesn't explain why you would be happy with a multicasting deal, but not a $0.50 per sub deal. What about all your other affiliates, do you hate them as well?

I could not care less about Sinclair or any other group, I'm only looking at it from the perspective of the local affiliate vs. the cable company.

I don't understand the logic behind paying $0.50 for a National network feed, but not the local affiliate's feed of the same network.

I don't understand the logic of the cable subs saying that local HD through cable is passed through "free", then ignoring the $10 - $15 a month for analog SD local networks that they are being charged.

If the arguments are simply because you hate a specific station or group, that's fine - but try and look at the broader view of HD moving forward. If affiliates are paid off with sub-channel carriage, we'll end up with mediocre HD for all the original programming that the networks are generating. We'll all end up paying $1.50 a month for the "20th Century FOX HD" channel and watching "24" in HD 9 months after it's network debut so we can watch it with decent PQ.

Selfishly, I don't want cable to offer a multicasting deal that will end up screwing the 35% (guesstimate) of us who either (paid to) get it free OTA or are willing to pay a DBS company for it. If the 65% of cable subs are the only ones that are not willing to pay to get quality HD, then they will be the ones responsible for HD-Lite network programming that we'll all be complaining about in 5 years.

That explains why you hate Sinclair, but it doesn't explain why you would be happy with a multicasting deal, but not a $0.50 per sub deal. What about all your other affiliates, do you hate them as well?


No, though one is inept at flipping the switch and I would like it addressed.

I own four OTA devices, none of which can pick up both of Sinclair's underpowered stations with the antenna in one position because they are drowned out by the other affiliates broadcasting at much higher power. There's no way I should have to pay or will pay for QAM when they aren't paying for a signal and are only upconverting/HD on one of two stations.

I pay $6.95 a month for TWCs HD tier. I would have no problem paying an additional 50 cents or 2 dollars more per month in order to get FOX HD without multicasting.

If we receive fox by cable, what do we care if they are multicasting?

I'll pay 50 cents or take multicasting. I don't care, just give it to me :)

It's been said before, but let me repeat. I have no problem with the general concept of paying an "al a carte" fee for the Fox HD signal. And I would have no problem with Sinclair getting that money. But that isn't the way the system is set up right now. If I'm going to pay a la carte then I want to be able to choose ALL my stations individually instead of the cable tier system. If I could do that then I would be able to greatly reduce my overall bill while paying for what's important to me.

However, given the system that is existing the precedent has already been set that local broadcasters in general are not getting paid by the cable companies in this way. So to me, when Sinclair wants to change that paradigm and I can't get their HD signal via cable, Sinclair is the bad guy. Sorry if you disagree, that's just the way I as the consumer see it. If it's good enough for the other stations, it should be good enough for them. Period.

Don't forget too, we're talking about more than $0.50, because if Sinclair gets it then all the rest will want the same deal, and may even be entitled to demand it under "most favored nation" clauses in their contracts. So now we're talking about several dollars a month more.

It should be noted Hondo, there's nothing that prevents you from purchasing channels a la carte, but the Cable Cos. The Cable Cos consistently argue that bundling is a total necessity in the cable business.

Don't forget that this system was created when ATSC didn't even exist. The signal most would receive would be plagued by snow and ghosting. Those concerns now abating, gives the broadcasters a little more leverage than before.

And really, it's not just Sinclair, a number of the broadcast groups are trying to get some kind of per cash fee. Sinclair just has more numerous desirable affiliates.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
...
And really as to blaming Sinclair, do they really look to be the baddies? They thought they had a deal with Comcast, tentatively allowed the Comcast to carry the biggest event of the year, but ultimately decided that Comcast wasn't being reasonable? What more can they do? Sinclair seemed to be incredibly reasonable esp. in allowing the Super Bowl on Comcast. Forbid that they should try to seek a good deal after allowing the SB on Comcast.

Yes, Sinclair really does look to be the bad guy to me. None of us really know what went on in these negotiations, so it's all speculation. But observing what I will say is the less than exemplary "character" of Sinclair over the past few years my suspicions are that this was all a ploy by them from the beginning, and they intended all along to eventually pull the stations back to try to make a statement.

Allowing Comcast to have the signal for a few weeks, conveniently covering the Super Bowl and Daytona 500, was something that would deflect heat from the public for those high profile events. It would also get people used to receiving it on cable so they would then "know what they're missing," then hopefully it would put Comcast in a bad light as the ones who didn't do what it took to keep the station on. I think Sinclair is desparate and realizes that their hokey "freehtv" campaign is a loser that isn't earning them a cent.

I'm not a fan or defender of Comcast and it's prices and policies in general, but Sinclair is a number of rungs below them in my opinion.

BTW, others have already pointed out the stupidity of your uninformed statements about a "$20 antenna" -- not everybody can receive the OTA signals, and not everyone wants to pay for an OTA box which costs a lot more than $20 and would take up another input on the TV they may not want to use. We're very happy that you're happy with Sinclair OTA, but we don't need you telling us we should suck it up and be happy too.

Originally posted by hondo21
BTW, others have already pointed out the stupidity of your uninformed statements about a "$20 antenna" -- not everybody can receive the OTA signals, and not everyone wants to pay for an OTA box which costs a lot more than $20 and would take up another input on the TV they may not want to use. We're very happy that you're happy with Sinclair OTA, but we don't need you telling us we should suck it up and be happy too.

There's nothing uninformed about the $20 antenna. It may not apply to all, but I put a $5 (now $15) RS double-bowtie antenna on my TV and picked up all 7 HD networks in Charlotte. My TV, and an increasing number of them moving forward, have a digital tuner built-in and a cheap antenna is all that's needed. I upgraded to a $26 (rooftop) antenna and now get HD channels from 3 markets. And are you really saying that the fact that you do not want to use an input on your TV means that the local affiliate should not get a retransmission fee :confused:

Bottom line is going the OTA route is a choice some may take, and that doesn't impact you at all. But your choice to go with cable doesn't mean you're entitled to anything specifically either - and really has no bearing on what is a fair resolution.

Thanks CPanther,

Lol...I don't think my comments are stupid or uniformed ;-), people who don't want to go the OTA route, which for one channel for something like 85% of the population would be really pretty easy are entitled to make that decision, but really, I've been amazed at how easy getting reception is. Heck in the Walnut Creek-HDTV thread people in the hilly East bay have been able to get ATSC signals from Sacto and Sutro tower. But, if that's not you, it sucks, I know it sucks and I'm sorry, but sometimes, life just sucks, and that's not Sinclair's or the broadcaster's fault.
And like I said about the OTA box, you have the right not to pay for one, but then you're going to have to buy from Comcast or DBS, and that puts you at the provider's mercy. That's just life; however, demanding Sinclair give away it's product for free really isn't right.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by j_buckingham80
[B]It should be noted Hondo, there's nothing that prevents you from purchasing channels a la carte, but the Cable Cos. The Cable Cos consistently argue that bundling is a total necessity in the cable business.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cable co's say it's impractical as the only way to do this is to scramble all channels so that you can then unscramble only those that a customer wants. That would force more than half of all US cable households to have to have a box, which they don't currently have, to keep receiving what they already have. This doesn't include all those other outlets in the homes that would have to have a box as well.

Independent studies support that the cost would be higher and channel choice would decline. The FCC and the GAO also agree that this would be the outcome.

And, there does not exist a channel today that is advertiser supported that contractually allows a cable co. to sell it independently. They require tier carriage.

Your statement is not accurate and I wanted to offer this rebuttal. My intention is not to get this thread off-track as this issue is well worn on AVS.

GoIrish

Originally posted by CPanther95
Bottom line is going the OTA route is a choice some may take, and that doesn't impact you at all.

"Bottom line is going the OTA route is a choice some may (be able to, if they can) take"

:D
I told you, I have a program that searches for remarks like this... :p

Right, GoIrish - this is not an a la carte issue. The assumption is that this fee would be incorporated into the cable rates. You would also have to assume that this fee would be (x4) plus something less for UPN and WB.

I happen to think it is actually the best thing for high quality HD, and the best thing for expansion of HD in the smaller markets. I would really like to hear the details though. For instance, is this fee for HD subs only, or are they trying to get this fee for ALL subs.

Originally posted by keenan
"Bottom line is going the OTA route is a choice some may (be able to, if they can) take"

:D
I told you, I have a program that searches for remarks like this... :p

Crap...I'll have to add the Keenan clause to my sig. :)

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
Thanks CPanther,

Lol...I don't think my comments are stupid or uniformed ;-), people who don't want to go the OTA route, which for one channel for something like 85% of the population would be really pretty easy are entitled to make that decision, but really, I've been amazed at how easy getting reception is. Heck in the Walnut Creek-HDTV thread people in the hilly East bay have been able to get ATSC signals from Sacto and Sutro tower.

What 85%? OTA reception is easy for some people and for you, living in one of the flattest places on earth, the California San Joaquin Valley, I can understand why you thinks it's so easy. Fact is roughly only 19% of the nation gates their TV OTA. In the SF bay area is as low 12%. Yes, some folks in the Walnut Creek-easy bay have been able to get OTA, but the overwhelming majority who have tried cannot.


But, if that's not you, it sucks, I know it sucks and I'm sorry, but sometimes, life just sucks, and that's not Sinclair's or the broadcaster's fault.


It is if they are not broadcasting at full power, or not putting as much effort into propagating their digital signal as they do with their analog signal.


That's just life; however, demanding Sinclair give away it's product for free really isn't right.

It's not right for Sinclair to subsidize their digital signal by forcing people who cannot get it OTA(cable-sat) to pay for it so that OTA viewers can get it for free.

Originally posted by CPanther95
Crap...I'll have to add the Keenan clause to my sig. :)

Yes, I'll have my attorneys see if that will be acceptable..:p

I do not dispute the price of an OTA antenna. Your statements were "stupid and uninformed" because they simplistically implied that all anyone needs is a $20 antenna to get their Sinclair HD channel and all would be rosy. What a bunch of idiots we all are for not just spending that $20, huh? I'm sorry, but you insult me by implying that. Please note these points:

1. My HDTV, like many others, does not have a built-in OTA tuner. Thus, to get just this one station in HD OTA I would have to buy an OTA tuner. At least $200 I believe. Unless you know of some $20 box/antenna combos I haven't heard about.

2. I cannot use just a simple set-top OTA antenna, such as the "silver sensor" or whatever. I have tested this by borrowing a co-worker's OTA box and small antenna when he had it disconnected for a time. My HDTV (a Pioneer Elite 610) is in a family room that is below ground level, towards the front of the house. The local stations are located in the direction of the back of the house. I couldn't get a good enough signal on any of the stations with a small antenna on top of my set. I would need to at least put a larger antenna in my attic and somehow run the wire up through two floors with finished ceilings and walls. Alternately, I could come out the side of the house and install a rooftop antenna (not the most attractive thing). I *think* then I could probably get the local Fox HD channel, but I'm not certain of their signal strength. I also would then possibly face issues receiving some of the other weaker local digital stations, such as PBS.

3. I want my DVR. The ability to time-shift HD material is something I really want. I have the Motorola 6412 HD-DVR, which I rent from Comcast for $10 a month. If a newer HD-DVR model with more capacity or features is released all I'll need to do is exchange it. If I want DVR capability with satellite/OTA right now I have to buy a box that costs close to $1000. Plus, no upgrades in the future without paying again.

4. I want my ESPN-HD, Discovery HD, plus some others. So I need either cable or DBS HD capability. Fortunately for me I have a clear view of the southern sky for satellite should I ever decide to do that. But many others don't have that choice, so they have to use cable.

5. I have my broadband internet via Comcast (no DSL at my location, plus I don't like it as much as cable anyway). If I dropped cable TV the cable internet price would increase by about $15 a month. (Yes, I know that Comcast is to blame for that, but it's the reality.)

6. I am running out of component inputs on myTV. I currently have a progressive-scan DVD player on Input 1 and the cable box on Input 2. Input 3 is all that I have left with HD-component video on my TV has to use an RGB input for HD-component video. That's another expense for a converter cable, and another input to calibrate on the TV.

For the reasons above, cable TV makes the most sense for me at this time. To get just a single HD channel through a different means (OTA), with the ability to record/time-shift it, would be a significant hassle and additional expense. At the end of the day, to me, Sinclair is the one preventing me from having a single, integrated means of receiving and recording all the available HD content.

This is what I feared and mentioned in other threads. I was just sort of not feeling like Sinclair was so bad (I'm trying to be nice now) and now poof!

So an agreement in principle is not an agreement until it is signed.

I guess we'll never know what's going on. No more NFL (NFC) and World Series in HD. I guess there is some reason to hope, though, I'm sure the principal principles are still valid and it is just getting the fine points down.
(Of course, it was the fine points that killed the NHL too.)

Rich N.

There has been a lot of debate over the past several hours about the wisdom of one of our member's unqualified remark that "Gosh there are a lot of people whining about putting up a freaking $20 antenna [to watch Fox on Sinclair stations]." There seem to be two schools of thought about the comment: (1) that it was appropriate, or (2) that it was ill-advised because of it's willful refusal to account for those who would have to buy a several hundred dollar tuner or, worse, are in locations where they couldn't watch Fox on Sinclair even with an OTA tuner. I am rather firmly in school (2).

Actually, No. 1 indicates not too much thought at all...:D

Just some more thoughts to throw out there...I don't dispute that some people would have to purchase a $2-300 tuner to receive decode ATSC transmissions. My own personal opinion is that when an individual chooses to purchase an HD monitor and not an HDTV they take the risk incumbent upon it. Believe it or not, you didn't "save" $300 by buying the cheaper set, instead you bought something else...basically a big screen computer moniter with a max resolution of 1920 X 1080 (or something else depending). That's a fine decision and for someone who knows they're going to what Cable or DBS service that's fine, but it does limit your options. That was your choice, and really, I don't think should be factored into the cost of putting up an antenna. The individual decided to forgo the benefit that OTA provides (an alternative to Cable and DBS).

As to those who are in locations where they cannot receive OTA, I think this actually quite overblown. I have become relatively convinced through reading the boards, other sites (like hdtvprimer, etc), my own experience in the flat SJ Valley, and other places, that some people are exaggerating the difficulty in receiving and decoding ATSC transmissions. Do these places and cases exist? YES, are they nearly as ubiquitious as some claim, I doubt it very highly. Someone pointed out that few places are as flat as the San Joaquin Valley, yes, the San Joaquin valley is flat, but so is much of the US, and most people live within a few miles of broadcast towers. The San Joaquin Valley is not so much unusually flat as the SF Bay Area is unusually hilly, and, if you drive through much of the SF Bay Area (especially in East Bay communities West of the caldecutt) you can see that OTA reception is not that difficult or even just look at the S.F. OTA thread.

And just to examine, Hondo, your post is a good example of why I think that Sinclair is not unreasonable. You insist on the ability to time-shift (and skip commercials) from Comcast. That's value, that Sinclair is losing to Comcast. Comcast receives at no price, the programming signal with advertising that allows Sinclair to generate revenue. Comcast then turns around and sells to you, that programming, and the ability to skip the advertising that Sinclair depends on for revenue. For Sinclair to shift business models as a result of this changing dynamic, especially prevalent among HD viewers, seems like a very prudent business decision.

Also, the usual signal strength complaint, I think is a weak one. I find few true low power Sinclair or other DTV stations, instead most seem to be 1 MW stations, that's not low power by any means. And yes, there are some, but really quite few.

As to the difficulty of installing and running RG-6 cable from one's attic to the HDTV, this is why, I felt and feel (and I reckon it's kind of cold-hearted but still) that people are being whiny about the difficulty of installing a $20 antenna. (I didn't say idiot or stupid, I rarely find anyone I'd call and idiot or stupid, and find most people are quite intelligent and interesting, but I did say whiny because it does seem that way to me.) It's something people do quite often in their homes, run CAT-5 cables to offices, putting in Sprinkler systems etc. And a lot of people do this, on their own. I did, and I'm no engineer far from it.

Look, Cable TV is in a lot of cases a really good deal, I don't have anything against Cable. For a significant number of people it will probably be the best deal, my experience is that it's usually quite better than DBS, and the HSI is really top notch (more than DSL, but you pay for the quality).

BUT to want to ability to Time-shift, increase your programming choices, basically limit Broadcaster's ability to make a profit and then demand that the broadcaster give away the enticement (the programming) for one to watch their product (the advertising) seems greedy.

i am not going to pay $150 for a STB + $20 for an antenna and forefit DVR abilities for 1 channel i cant get through cable. So just charge me an extra buck a mo comcast and give it to sinclair

Originally posted by hondo21
For the reasons above, cable TV makes the most sense for me at this time. To get just a single HD channel through a different means (OTA), with the ability to record/time-shift it, would be a significant hassle and additional expense.


So I guess Mark Cuban is to blame for you not receiving the HDNets, since it would be a significant hassle for you to get D* just for that one channel?

Nobody is entitled to every channel out there, and as compelling as your 6 reasons for choosing cable are - that really has nothing to do with your local affiliate. When Comcast has competition from HD LILs, people will just make the same kind of personal decisions you did - and one of those criteria will be D* has FOX HD and HDNet while Comcast has INHDs and no FOX HD. People can choose whichever provider they want, but once you choose, that doesn't mean your service provider must supply every channel you want.

Nobody is entitled to every channel out there
But OTA stations do have to cover their licensed market. This is something up for question with Sinclair's stations in my locale and a determined fact for the the Fox O&O station. We have been told Fox will address the issue this year, as for Sinclair...

There are two issues:
1) Sinclair is not providing OTA customers with a sufficiently powered signal and/or HD/upconvert
2) Sinclair is not providing Cable/Sat customers any signal

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
[B]Just some more thoughts to throw out there...I don't dispute that some people would have to purchase a $2-300 tuner to receive decode ATSC transmissions. My own personal opinion is that when an individual chooses to purchase an HD monitor and not an HDTV they take the risk incumbent upon it. Believe it or not, you didn't "save" $300 by buying the cheaper set, instead you bought something else...basically a big screen computer moniter with a max resolution of 1920 X 1080 (or something else depending). That's a fine decision and for someone who knows they're going to what Cable or DBS service that's fine, but it does limit your options. That was your choice, and really, I don't think should be factored into the cost of putting up an antenna. The individual decided to forgo the benefit that OTA provides (an alternative to Cable and DBS).
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever??? It is a silly contrived argument of semantics, and does nothing to change the fact that I have to buy 3 ota tuners to receive 1 channel on my 3 hdtvs.

As to those who are in locations where they cannot receive OTA, I think this actually quite overblown. I have become relatively convinced through reading the boards, other sites (like hdtvprimer, etc), my own experience in the flat SJ Valley, and other places, that some people are exaggerating the difficulty in receiving and decoding ATSC transmissions. Do these places and cases exist? YES, are they nearly as ubiquitious as some claim, I doubt it very highly. Someone pointed out that few places are as flat as the San Joaquin Valley, yes, the San Joaquin valley is flat, but so is much of the US, and most people live within a few miles of broadcast towers. The San Joaquin Valley is not so much unusually flat as the SF Bay Area is unusually hilly, and, if you drive through much of the SF Bay Area (especially in East Bay communities West of the caldecutt) you can see that OTA reception is not that difficult or even just look at the S.F. OTA thread.

Not just hills, but the tall trees have always caused me problems.

And just to examine, Hondo, your post is a good example of why I think that Sinclair is not unreasonable. You insist on the ability to time-shift (and skip commercials) from Comcast. That's value, that Sinclair is losing to Comcast. Comcast receives at no price, the programming signal with advertising that allows Sinclair to generate revenue. Comcast then turns around and sells to you, that programming, and the ability to skip the advertising that Sinclair depends on for revenue. For Sinclair to shift business models as a result of this changing dynamic, especially prevalent among HD viewers, seems like a very prudent business decision.
But its okay to timeshift their ota signal with HD Tivo, or any of the SD tivos/dvrs/etc? Not very valid argument.

Originally posted by Joseph S

There are two issues:
1) Sinclair is not providing OTA customers with a sufficiently powered signal and/or HD/upconvert
2) Sinclair is not providing Cable/Sat customers any signal

1) They eventually will have to go full power to maintain their license(sometime before the analog cutoff)

2) What market? I don't know of any Sinclair station that is not carried by cable - and none not carried by DBS in areas where they carry LILs.

As CP and J Buckham have pointed none of you are entitled to a channel. There are pluses and minuses to each provider. It just so happens that your provider will not provide you with the Sinclair station. That is your provider's choice and there is nothing you can do about that. Whining about Sinclair won't solve the problem. Just live with the fact that for right now you will not be watching the Sinclair station on your provider of choice.

Originally posted by afail
i am not going to pay $150 for a STB + $20 for an antenna and forefit DVR abilities for 1 channel i cant get through cable. So just charge me an extra buck a mo comcast and give it to sinclair

There is a significant problem with simply agreeing that the cable company can charge an extra buck a month for Fox HD on Sinclair: it wouldn't work. Because of the convoluted carriage agreements and regulations that govern cable companies and local stations, if a cable company caves in to Sinclair's demands to be paid for its HD signal, then all the local stations that are now allowing the cable company to carry their HD signals at no charge will be entitled to be paid for them. That's the real reason the cable companies are refusing to cave in to Sinclair's demands. Thus, we are talking about a lot more than "an extra buck a mo."

Yes, there is an analog signal for cable, but they are not providing the MIA OTA digital signal to those who also have Cable/Sat or those who only have Cable/Sat service.

Originally posted by Joseph S
Yes, there is an analog signal for cable, but they are not providing the MIA OTA digital signal to those who also have Cable/Sat or those who only have Cable/Sat service.

They could always offer a digital SD signal to cable. Save the HD digital signal for OTA and DBS companies.

Does anybody think this game can go on forever? As the HDTV transition looms will the networks allow their programming to be held hostage by affailiates? Sinclair is trying to make a grab while they can and the cable companies know if they hold out the networks will do what is necessary to get the programming in front of viewers eyes.

They could always offer a digital SD signal to cable. Save the HD digital signal for OTA and DBS companies.

They could do a lot of things, based on what I've seen they'll do nothing for as long as they can get away with it. What they're doing now to OTA and Cable/Sat customers is screwing them every way they turn. That doesn't lead one to be on their side in any negotiation. It also didn't help that they're last or close to last to the HD party everywhere because they filed extension after extension throughout the country.

It will all work itself out when D* has the capacity to compete. That will happen long before the Network applies any pressure to it's affiliates to get an HD signal out there. It's currently a loss of only a couple percentage points of televisions in the holdout markets.

Originally posted by Joseph S
They could do a lot of things, based on what I've seen they'll do nothing for as long as they can get away with it. What they're doing now to OTA and Cable/Sat customers is screwing them every way they turn. That doesn't lead one to be on their side in any negotiation. It also didn't help that they're last or close to last to the HD party everywhere because they filed extension after extension throughout the country.

I'm not thrilled with the fact that they're the ones spearheading this considering they were not HD-friendly (probably more accurately anti-HD) until this past year.

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the local affiliates as a whole. Don't look at the station who you've been fighting to get HD from for the past 5 years - look at the station who stuck their neck out 3 or 4 years ago to bring HD to you when the only government requirement was to supply DTV (and still is). The same stations who spent a pretty penny to deliver HD when even some major players in the industry were trying to sell EDTV as "just as good".

It's those local affiliates, along with us early adopters, who have pushed this transition (and kept it unofficially an HDTV not DTV transition) in spite of what their accountants would tell them (and our wives would tell us) was the smart thing to do. It's almost entirely the programming commitment from the networks and the financial investment by hundreds of local affiliates that are allowing other cable networks to leverage higher payments for new HD channels.

From the perspective of a proponent of HDTV, the local affiliate has earned the right to make a profit off that investment that's above and beyond the governmental requirement. If that means $3.00 a month goes to the local affiliates out of the $50-$60 a month going to cable, great. That's better than the "agreement in principle" which focused on adding additional sub-channels. IMO.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
And WHO made that choice when they bought their TV? The purchaser chose Volutantarily to be at the mercy of their programming provider; don't blame Sinclair that he got chinsy when it came to buying their TV! The purchaser chose to buy an incomplete product, Sinclair didn't force it on the purchaser. Like I said, the purchaser chose to be at the mercy of the Cable/Sat provider, big surprise, that you're getting screwed by them, them not being willing to shell out $.50 on your behalf so you can enjoy that programming.

fyi, probably none of home theater projectors come with tuners, much less HD tuners, so dont forget about us in your rant. Sinclair is the epitome of an unscrupulous company, and i'm glad comcast is sticking up for the consumers for a change.

Originally posted by Ou8thisSN
i'm glad comcast is sticking up for the consumers for a change.

I'm not so sure that their motives are that altruistic.

CPanther95, your description of the "good affiliates" is ironic. Those are the same ones who are NOT demanding payment from cable companies for carriage of their digital (HD) signals, even though as you point out a case could be made that they deserve it.

No, instead it is the greedy, footdragging, extension-filing, low-power is good enough until the network forces us to increase it, johnny-come-lately SINCLAIR and a few others of their ilk who are demanding payment. First they spit on the whole idea of a digital transition and now they proudly tout "Free HDTV over-the-air" as if they invented it. Such hypocrites.

As to the suggestion that it was my "choice" not to have an HD tuner in my HDTV monitor, that doesn't hold water. I don't know how long you've been paying attention to HDTVs, but my Elite 610 is 4 years old -- HDTVs rarely had integrated tuners back then. Pioneer did have a lousy optional ridiculously priced (something like $1K) first-generation OTA tuner module. There is no way I would have paid for that thing, knowing that improved stand-alone ATSC receivers would be coming along (actually they were already out). I didn't have any HD content at all until 1.5 years ago because there wasn't enough offered.

I appreciate the concern about DVRs and loss of ad revenue. But that is not unique to Sinclair and they alone don't deserve any special treatment because of it. I'm time-shifting and skipping through commercials on all the other stations -- you know, the ones that have allowed their stations to be on cable without demanding payment. It's Sinclair that sticks out like a sore thumb as being different. Maybe they are the noble champion of the broadcast industry, but not from where I sit.

Originally posted by hondo21
CPanther95, your description of the "good affiliates" is ironic. Those are the same ones who are NOT demanding payment from cable companies for carriage of their digital (HD) signals, even though as you point out a case could be made that they deserve it.

Believe me, if Sinclair is successful, all affiliates - including the "good ones" will benefit from it. Likewise, if someone else was spearheading this effort, Sinclair would ultimately benefit.

That's why you have to look at this from the big picture, and not from the viewpoint that it is isolated to one group.

Let's get really serious and look at the big picture, as CPanther95 suggests.
Exactly how much would a Fox affiliate be worth to an MSO or DBS carrier without American Idol, The NFL, the World Series and NASCAR?
How much a month would be expected for a CBS affiliate were it not for the CSIs, Without A Trace, the NCAA Tournament and the NFL?
What would ABC be worth without MNF, Desperate Housewives, and Lost?
And without the Law&Orders and the Olympics, how much could a local NBC affiliate extract from a cable or satellite provider?
Don't get me wrong: local stations can be very good citizens. Some still provide wonderful coverage of their communities. And those have value beyond their network affiliations.
But as true local ownership has died in the past couple of decades, those truly local stations have dwindled to a very few.
So let us look again at that big picture: the overwhelming value to a cable or satellite provider from a local station is that station's ability to provide network prime time and sports programming.
Once the networks figure out how to deliver that programming directly to the viewer, (and, of course, get the money for it) the local stations are toast.
Does anyone honestly think that with the proliferation of new technology that it will be very long until that direct-to-viewer day comes for the networks?

What good is any channel without all their best programming? :rolleyes:

Does it matter if the cable company pays $0.50 to FOX or the local affiliate that owns the rights to that programming? Most people would rather have their local affiliate than an out of market affiliate or a network feed that goes dark for 21 hours a day.

Originally posted by fredfa
Once the networks figure out how to deliver that programming directly to the viewer, (and, of course, get the money for it) the local stations are toast.

Huh? How about the local news, weather, sports, commercials, etc.?

I don't know Fredfa, the capability has been there for quite a while to just have direct to viewer capabilities for the Networks, if they wanted it, but they don't seem to have much interest in that. Why is that? Maybe the Networks feel that broadcasters provide a safety valve in the system. You can't kill the big 4 because there isn't a few cable companies out there who can decide, well we won't carry you unless you pay us. I mean seriously, does a big 4 Net want to find itself at the mercy of a Cable Monopoly, with the check of a whopping two Sat competitors? Honestly, I doubt it.

Also, the Networks got the name networks by being networks, I know a tautology, but an important one. These networks got their start by being a network of broadcasters. There's something to that, and perhaps the nets recognize that they have some obligation to broadcasting.

All that as it is, maybe so that most of the local affiliate's value is with the network programming, but what's the relevance? The local affiliate is providing the network with the distrubution of the network programming and the network finds that as valuable as what it bargained for from the broadcaster. The local may not provide much value to you, but if they provide the value to the net, and the net sells its IP for the DMA to a particular broadcaster than the broadcaster has every right to seek compensation from those who seek to resell the broadcaster's signal.

Direct-to-viewer would not be a new technology the networks could do that if they wanted, as of yet however they don't. And they probably have a good reason.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
Direct-to-viewer would not be a new technology the networks could do that if they wanted, as of yet however they don't. And they probably have a good reason.

The reason is probably b/c the nets can get more money by charging local station groups. The money that local station groups pay to the nets increase each year and if there is sports programming involved their is most likely a increase built in for that. Look at the nets that have the NFL games. B/c the NFL increases their contract fees every three to five years the nets have to absorb the costs. As a result the nets have had to increase the fees that station groups pay them just to cover part of the NFL fee increases. Direct to viewer probably wouldn't bring in the money that the nets make from the station groups.

Bottom line is that it's all about the money and as per episode fee rates and sports contracts continue to rise, there will be a need for the nets to reach into pockets that are deep enough to cover those things. I don't direct to viewer fees would be able to cover such items.

Until relatively recently, the networks couldn't really deliver programming more or less directly to the viewer.
Until recently, they could only own a few stations (the max was seven).
Until recently, the NAB almost never lost a battle on Capitol Hill.
Until recently, there were no such things as DVRs which make skipping commercials easy.
Until relatively recently, the networks shared about 80% of the viewing audience (now it is in the 40s).
Now even cable programmers call themselves "networks" (e.g. Cable News Network).
Things have changed pretty fast in the past decade or two.
My point is that the networks look longingly at the ESPN model: charge for advertising AND for subscribers (even those who never watch!).
The convergence of technology, economics, and politics may all may make direct delivery happen sooner rather than later.
After all, why let MSOs make all that VOD money when the nets can deliver the programming themselves and take a major share of the profits?

Of course, part of the reason that ESPN succeeds in charging so much, (which hurts some of my earlier arguments) is because the Cable Cos are indirectly paying for ABC.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
Thanks CPanther,

Lol...I don't think my comments are stupid or uniformed ;-), people who don't want to go the OTA route, which for one channel for something like 85% of the population would be really pretty easy

85%? Please provide your source. If, as I suspect, you don't have one, you could tabulate the posts on this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=381623&highlight=antenna
to see how many invested in just a $20 antenna, with no R6 cable, mounting hardware, installation, rotor, amplifier...

I know this will probably never happen in a zillion year due to the NAB/FCC/<insert acronym here>, but wouldn't it be nice if a cable/sat system could just buy programming directly from the networks and become their own affailites? Excepting PBS, for the other 21 hours in the day the local affiliates bring to the table what exactly? Do we really need newscasts on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, WB, and UPN? How many hours a day do we need filled with Simpsons and Seinfeld reruns? Why you a zillion identical court and talk shows exist? And where exactly is the public service in paid programming?

Why do we need the middle man?

Well, the info is on AVS, just go to the official List of All DTV stations in HDTV/DD 5.1

Households Served-

96,758,550 - ABC - 88%
96,577,800 - CBS - 88%
92,900,810 - FOX - 85%
93,879,900 - NBC - 86%
84,895,280 - PBS - 77%
50,973,430 - UPN - 47%
61,741,170 - WB - 56%

Even the Satellite people concede here http://www.digitaltransitioncoalition.com/digital/media/pr092004.pdf, that according to their, now unavailable contour maps, only 21.4% of households are unserved by FOX DTV broadcasts, For CBS it's as low as 13.3%, according to their contour maps then, 78.6% of households can receive FOX OTA, without extraordinary measures. Granted this isn't as easy as a $20 antenna, but it's still fairly inexpensive, fine $50 antenna CM 4228, and maybe maybe a CM 7777 pre-amp. My point is, its not nearly as difficult as it's made out to be by some.

Local news weather and sports.
OK.
A growing number of markets have begun discontinuing local sports in their newscasts.
First of all, only about one in seven viewers cares, and the majority of those viewers already know how the local team has done. (By the way, the other 6/7s of the audience is prone to channel surf during sports segments.)
Local weather is easily obtainable through the net, radio or localized weather channel inserts available via cable and/or dbs.
Local news: the ratings have plummeted in recent years as stations more and more rely on gore and sensationalism (or, in Sinclair's case, pre-packaged "local" news from Maryland).
In fact, the core 18-49 demo has seen a two-thirds drop-off in local news watching in the past 15 years.

Keep in mind though, for those stats, we assume total households in a DMA if that DMA has an HD affiliate. Actual reception is unknown. If the station has decent power, they should easily cover well over half in the DMA, but I doubt any cover 100% of their DMA's households.

As for unserved households, try living an an apartment building in NY, Philly, Boston, Chicago, Detroit or any number of major cities and using an antenna.
Or major parts of San Francisco (hills) or LA (hills) or San Diego (hills).
The problems with antennas are what led to the proliferation of MSOs (and later DBS providers) in the first place!

Cpanther, I'm aware, that's why I put in the link to the Satellite industry's paper on unserved households (A balanced estimate as the Sat industry is trying to reflect lower numbers thus necessating the Digital White Area provisions), and even their numbers suggest that for each particular major network, penetration is >75%. Their maps (which they used to have posted at a website that now appears dead) are based on the FCC's Grade B signal rating.

Fredfa, I agree that poor reception is what proliferated MSO and DBS, but I think ATSC transmission ameliorates largely those concerns, as a result, it makes sense that broadcasters are now attempting to "push back."

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
. Granted this isn't as easy as a $20 antenna, but it's still fairly inexpensive, fine $50 antenna CM 4228, and maybe maybe a CM 7777 pre-amp. My point is, its not nearly as difficult as it's made out to be by some.

Well, of course we need a definition of "households served", but we agree it's not a $20 antenna, but could be pre-amp, amp, cable, installation, rotor...for consumers who have not had to deal with an antenna for 20+ years. Oh, and also, Sinclair's stations are so underpowered in many markets that even that may not do the job.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80


Fredfa, I agree that poor reception is what proliferated MSO and DBS, but I think ATSC transmission ameliorates largely those concerns, as a result, it makes sense that broadcasters are now attempting to "push back."

How? Besides, it's too little, too late. OTA TV reception will always be a small number when compared to cable and sat. And where there is large numbers, there is large money...

FWIW I never said, that 85% could get a station with a $20 antenna, just that a lot of people were whining about something that most could solve easily by using a $20 antenna in one post, and in a different post that about 85% of households can get a single station relatively easily.

It may seem like semantics, but those two points while related, were not referring to the same thing. I don't have the number but I suspect that >50% of households could get a single station with a $20 antenna and probably more than just one station. And that another say 30% could get OTA relatively easily, but yes it would get more expensive.

Keenan, I've written in this thread before about how I think ATSC changes the broadcast dynamic. Even we see here at AVS, do you think 10 years ago there was nearly the interest in antennas as there is today? I seriously doubt it. How is it ever too little too late? Having an HD Signal relatively easy to receive seem like a strong enticement to get an antenna.

j_buckingham80, I have you ever lived where there is a hill or a highrise between you and the antenna? The coverage contours are much more generous than reality.

Our local Sinclair owned FOX affiliate in Charleston, SC transmitts a whopping 3.6kW@154'

OTA is almost futile and not worth the time or expense.

j_buckingham80

Since you live in Tracy CA, I gather you get Sinclairs CBS HD from KOVR in Sacramento. Just a little bit history. KOVR was one of the last major network affiliates in Sacto to go HD OTA, after local TV viewers petitioned FCC in a letter writing campaign, when they passed deadlines three times. After that the local KOVR management decided against Sinclair then corporate policy (back then Sinclair was still against 8VSB) and added CBS HD for our local folks.

KOVR was THE ONLY Sinclair affiliates in the nation to have HD and that status lasted a very long time before any other Sinclair stations got kicked into carrying HD.

The fact that KOVR is in HD and in full power is a rare phenomenon when it comes to Sinclair. Many Sinclair stations are still in low power or not doing HD. They have only recently given up the argument against 8VSB and started to go HD.

Now KOVR HD is the only one of the four networks that is still not allowed on Comcast. So don't come here and lecture us how the Comcast customers are unreasonable in expecting KOVR HD to be carried on Comcast, why because had you lived through the early days and know how hard it was to pressure KOVR to go HD OTA, so could you appreciate the feeling of the Comcast HD viewers today. And consider yourself extremely lucky that you do get KOVR CBS HD OTA because it is truly a rare occurrence and it would not have happened had local early HD viewers' not made the exceptional efforts and our KOVR local management made an exceptional response as well.

Otherwise you might not have the luxury to brag about your $20 antenna receiving KOVR HD OTA today.

Sinclair pulls Comcast’s HDTV plug
By Jeremy Heidt, jheidt@nashvillecitypaper.com
February 25, 2005

Comcast’s high-definition viewers in Nashville lost the local Fox station’s signal Wednesday night after negotiations between broadcasters broke down.

“There was a failure in good faith negotiations, and we wanted the status to reflect that fact,” said Mark Aitken, director of advanced technology for Sinclair Broadcasting Group. Sinclair is the parent of Nashville’s WZTV Channel 17.

Comcast officials in Atlanta confirmed that HDTV signals for Sinclair stations were yanked off the cable network in six markets nationwide, including Nashville; Baltimore; Pittsburgh; Richmond, Va.; Charleston, S.C.; and Paducah, Ky.

The plug was pulled during the 6-7 p.m. time frame, said Reg Griffin, Comcast’s spokesman in Atlanta.

“We hope to negotiate the return of the channel, but I won’t speculate on when that might happen,” Griffin said. “We’re glad our viewers got to see the Super Bowl, the Daytona 500 and a few episodes of American Idol.”

Comcast had been broadcasting WZTV’s HDTV signal, which remains available through over-the-air antennas, since Feb. 4 on its digital channel 183.

The temporary carriage agreement was only supposed to last a few weeks until a final agreement could be reached, said Sinclair’s general counsel, Barry Faber.

“We did that because of the timing with the Super Bowl and we felt an agreement was within reach,” added Faber, Sinclair’s chief negotiator.

He said the two sides are continuing to talk, though snowstorms in both Philadelphia and Baltimore would likely delay action on Sinclair’s latest proposal to Comcast until today.

Hmmm, after all Sinclair's years of stalling tactics on HD in the first place, it is kind of difficult to keep a straight face when it talks about anything, negotiations or not, as being in "good faith".
And on the other side is Comcast -- that makes it kind of hard to pick a dog in this fight.
But if Congress would simply allow (not mandate) but allow direct network HD reception via either satellite or cable, such impasses would disappear.
Immediately.

But if Congress would simply allow (not mandate) but allow direct network HD reception via either satellite or cable, such impasses would disappear.
Immediately.

What would it take for that to happen? I thought the real reason stations have exclusive control over network content in an area is just because the networks are willing to sign exclusive contracts with them. If so, the change would really just be a contract change when it came up for renewal, not necessarily a legislative act. I wonder how long the networks will be willing to sign those exclusive contracts now that most viewing is on cable and satellite anyway.

And almost all HDTV content is coming from the network level, not local. So when it comes to HDTV channels I'm not sure what the locals really have to bargain with since there is so little local HD value added content.

- Tom

guys we should keep this topic about sinclair reaching agreements with the cable companies, not about why OTA is so wonderful

Originally posted by afail
guys we should keep this topic about sinclair reaching agreements with the cable companies, not about why OTA is so wonderful

True.

We all know what the "FreeHDTV" program is really all about. We can assume that power levels and OTA coverage are things that will be handled by the FCC in order for stations to retain the rights to use that bandwidth.

The issue here is should cable companies be able to sell those signals without paying a fee to the company that owns the rights to those signals.

I know at times on here people have probably got the impression that I'm a booster for Sinclair or something. I'm not, I don't have any particular care for Sinclair as it is. But I do value the broadcasters and broadcasting.

Cable and Sat could force, eventually, broadcasting out of business, especially if a lot of current market forces keep moving as they are, or at least have been before the advent of DTV. I believe that such a development would be bad for competition, lead to susbstantially more expensive Cable and Sat arrangements and the like. I also think, it's really not that hard to get OTA reception for a lot of people, Yes, for some it's really difficult, but for a lot, a good number just need a half decent antenna.

What Sinclair has or has not done in the past doesn't seem really relevant in the discussion as to what "obligation" they have to people with respect to their property rights. I understand that Sinclair was a laterish adopter when it came to HD, I don't really care about that, after all, it's a lot more expensive to be an earlier adopter than later, and there's no doubt that tranisitioning to HD is very pricey. Maybe, a lot of people here bought HD sets in 2001, but I bet their were very pricey with limited availability of HD programming. Look at how many consumers have waited to even today and later, why fault Sinclair for doing something that most would do with their pocketbook.

As to their current negotiations, they own the network feed for their DMA as long as the contract is in effect. Will networks continue to renew these contracts? I don't know, but if they do affiliate broadcasters will begin to push more and more for cash carriage arrangements. It's just a part of the way the game is going to be played from here on out I think. I do think it's crummy (edited for Content) of Sinclair to want to charge Comcast for their signal in places where they're broadcasting on Low Power. While it's crummy, it is their right. And I'll gladly agree with those who things that's crummy. At the same time, especially in places where reception is pretty easy, (Sinclair has no affiliates in S.F., and from their map seems to be a decent number of places that a relatively flat), and their broadcasting at full power, I'm not going to fault Sinclair for trying to make some revenue from Comcast while Comcast is turning around and selling that signal.

Nobody said Sinclair has no right to ask for compensation, only that if it is reasonable consider the whole picture. The fact that most people take issue with Sinclair, despite their bad taste left with cable, is very telling.

One employee in your company came to work late all the time, citing numerous difficulties in life (which everyone else has) he must deal with, then after repeated pressure from the boss he finally started to come on time, but in turn wanted a raise just for the change, even though his productivity still lags behind most others.

Now he does have the right to make a request, this is a free country, and he might even get his way, but don't expect people to rally behind him.

Is the problem that it is Sinclair? Would people's honest opinion in the debate be different if it were an HD "pioneer" group looking for cash compensation for the HD feed?

I've always been looking at this from the viewpoint of the 700 HD stations & 700 potential HD stations - not from the relatively insignificant 62 Sinclair stations.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Nobody said Sinclair has no right to ask for compensation, only that if it is reasonable consider the whole picture. The fact that most people take issue with Sinclair, despite their bad taste left with cable, is very telling.

One employee in your company came to work late all the time, citing numerous difficulties in life (which everyone else has) he must deal with, then after repeated pressure from the boss he finally started to come on time, but in turn wanted a raise just for the change, even though his productivity still lags behind most others.

Now he does have the right to make a request, this is a free country, and he might even get his way, but don't expect people to rally behind him.

... Even if they all hate the boss.

Originally posted by CPanther95
Is the problem that it is Sinclair? Would people's honest opinion in the debate be different if it were an HD "pioneer" group looking for cash compensation for the HD feed?

I've always been looking at this from the viewpoint of the 700 HD stations & 700 potential HD stations - not from the relatively insignificant 62 Sinclair stations.

The problem with this position, it seems to me, is that most of those 700 HD stations make their signals available to cable companies at no charge. That is the fact of the marketplace as it is, not as some may wish it to be. Thus, Sinclair has been unable to get cable companies to pay it for its signals because cable companies know that if they agree to pay the 62 Sinclair stations for their HD signals they are going to have to pay for all 700. Cable companies can be pretty dumb but I don't believe they are dumb enough to do that.

Originally posted by keenan
Sinclair pulls Comcast’s HDTV plug
By Jeremy Heidt, jheidt@nashvillecitypaper.com
February 25, 2005

Comcast’s high-definition viewers in Nashville lost the local Fox station’s signal Wednesday night after negotiations between broadcasters broke down.

“There was a failure in good faith negotiations, and we wanted the status to reflect that fact,” said Mark Aitken, director of advanced technology for Sinclair Broadcasting Group. Sinclair is the parent of Nashville’s WZTV Channel 17.
.... Interesting that Mark is quoted in the news story and he is the one who started this (now very long) thread. I wonder when/if he will pop back in here to give us some sense of what has transpired. Not that he'll be allowed to tell us what's *really* going on anyway.

I had hoped this thread would soon die due to irrelevance after the agreement in principle and our congratulations to both Comcast and Sinclair. You had to figure a deal with Adelphia and other cable companies would quickly follow and everyone would be happy. Sadly, it rages on....

Originally posted by gwsat
Cable companies can be pretty dumb but I don't believe they are dumb enough to do that.

That's not the issue. We all know cable doesn't want to pay a penny if they don't have to. The question is should they pay those 700 stations for their HD feed, or should they be able to sell them for free.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gwsat
Cable companies can be pretty dumb but I don't believe they are dumb enough to do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by CPanther95
That's not the issue. We all know cable doesn't want to pay a penny if they don't have to. The question is should they pay those 700 stations for their HD feed, or should they be able to sell them for free.

I think they should have them free because otherwise the payments the cable companies would have to make would come out of their subscribers' pockets. As a cable subscriber myself, I am sensitive to that sort of thing. :)

Originally posted by CPanther95
That's not the issue. We all know cable doesn't want to pay a penny if they don't have to. The question is should they pay those 700 stations for their HD feed, or should they be able to sell them for free.

Even if everyone believes they should pay, and they end up not having to pay at all for whatever the reason, then the market conditions would dictate what is working what is not.

To an average Comcast end user however, if all he knows is he can get every other HD channels except Sinclair's, it is hard to fault Comcast for that, if you use some common sense. And let's not throw OTA in this mix because it is not all that relavent. Apparently many people do not want or can not use OTA, that is why we have cable or DBS.

This is a Sinclair vs. cable (Comcast) issue, not Sinclair vs. Radio Shack, so let's stick to the point.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Apparently many people do not want or can not use OTA, that is why we have cable or DBS.

This is a Sinclair vs. cable (Comcast) issue, not Sinclair vs. Radio Shack, so let's stick to the point.

You can continue to debate Sinclair vs. Comcast, but since we all know that what ever happens here will impact all affiliates, I'm still looking at it as an affiliate vs. cable issue.

I agree that OTA is not really relevant, but I don't agree that just because "people do not want or can not use OTA", that cable and DBS should automatically get those signals free of charge, or for whatever they deem as "fair" instead of negotiating for those rights. It should also be noted that DBS companies do pay retransmission fees to the local broadcaster, so someone also needs to justify why cable should have preferential terms over satellite.

I completely agree with CPanther on this issue. I'm not a Sinclair apologist - when they do something right, I thank them for it; when they do something wrong, I call them out. That said, there is nothing morally wrong with their desire to be compensated for cable carriage. The low power situation is another story, but that's not the case in Nashville.

-Reagan

Since I get all my HD locals OTA, the low power issue would piss me off. Cable subs who have no intention of putting up an antenna aren't really affected - but I'd be pissed if a station was low power & focused exclusively on retransmission fees and neglecting their OTA responsibility.

OTOH, once they meet their public responsibility to supply free OTA signals (at full power) - they should be able to negotiate a fair cash compensation plan for any middleman that wants to re-supply their signal for profit.

Originally posted by CPanther95
You can continue to debate Sinclair vs. Comcast, but since we all know that what ever happens here will impact all affiliates, I'm still looking at it as an affiliate vs. cable issue.


Actually, in the case of Comcast, it's a Sinclair viewer versus Sinclair issue. Comcast to date, does not charge extra for those HD signals. There is no separate tier or package that needs to be purchased to get HD from the local stations/affiliates. The only charge is for the HD/digital converter box.

So the bottom line is, if Sinclair wants to charge above and beyond what all the rest of the stations have worked out with Comcast, then the customer, the Sinclair viewer will end up paying for that above and beyond expense. In reality, Comcast may absorb the Sinclair expense and continue with their no-charge HD local. But, if Sinclair sets a precedent by getting above the norm, then eventually all the stations will want the same deal, and that, will increase the cost to the viewer.

It's fine to defend Sinclair's right to do whatever they want, but when it comes down to you, the individual, the one who is going to pay for it, I doubt there would be many of us that would be so altruistic as to pay that cost and be happy about it because we agree with the position Sinclair has taken. It's sort of like supporting homeless shelters as being a good idea, but don't put one in my neighborhood.

If you have a QAM tuner, you can setup an account with Comcast and get HD locals free with no cost at all? Or do they charge you for SD locals, and throw in HD locals for free?

Are you really sure Keenan? I mean doesn't the question come down to more or less, Would you pay $.50 for CBS or FOX, or whatever the affiliate is? I doubt that few would balk at that price. FWIW, Comcast does charge you for those HD Signals now, they're (at least some jurisdictions) just included in that $12.72 + $5 HD Box rental that you're paying. Just because it doesn't come as a line item on your bill doesn't mean that you're not paying Comcast now.

One thing too, it's not like you're not paying for the local affiliates already, sure it looks free, but it's not. Right surely we see that a lot of the channels on cable are just ways to charge Cable cos for the Broadcast networks. Sure it's more indirect, but would more forthrightness in Cable pricing really be a bad thing? Part of the problem may be too, Fox (I can't remember where I saw it, might have been this thread or another) has started letting affiliates know that they should negotiate for cash carriage. Why? probably because Fox has created as many cable channels as they want and now want the difference paid in Cash to the affiliate (and eventually to Fox in some amount). ABC/Disney is now creating ESPNU, which sure will have value to some, but there's now what 4 ESPN channels? The subscriber does get the channel yes, but the subscriber is also paying for the broadcast channel as well, it's just indirectly. Maybe some nets are getting to the point where they feel like "do we really need a scenery channel?"

All of this yes, may increase the cost to the basic cable viewer, it may or may not increase the cost to the 100 channel subscriber. In any event to hold Sinclair's ability to negotiate to the way negotiations worked out in the early 90s doesn't make sense. These contracts were never signed as lifetime agreements for a reason. Probably a number of local affiliates want Sinclair to succeed, but their in their contracts for now, so they can't do much but wait. I also have a feeling the Disney O&O's probably could care less, and why, well because they probably feel as though they're already getting paid.

If you have a QAM tuner you can get "basic limited" service from Comcast that includes the unscrambled digital locals in HD. In my area it's about $12 per month. Right now that includes every local affiliate -- except Sinclair's Fox station, which was included until Sinclair pulled the plug this week.

Comcast doesn't want you to know this deal exists, they prefer to sign you up for one of the higher-cost digital packages that includes STB rental. And if fact, very few people opt for it because they want the cable networks that don't come with the cheapest option.

It IS a good deal, however, for the few people who have a QAM tuner and want a cable subscriber discount on broadband internet service and/or a low-cost alternative to OTA in addition to satellite service.

Can fox have any say in this? At some point HD ratings are going to count for something, and fox cares about national ratings. Can they just revoke their affiliates and ask someone else to step up that will give their signal to the cable companies? Should we be blaming fox for all this?

Seems to me if Sinclair is trying to sell their signal instead of giving it away, they are breaking the spirit of the exclusitivity the fcc is giving them and allow us to choose between them or paying for a national or distant feed from the satellite and cable companies.

I'm Canadian and have only lived in the US a few years, so pardon my misunderstanding of how affiliates work if I am missing something.

Well, the FCC doesn't grant exclusivity except to the 6 Mhz of airspace that the broadcaster has. Fox (or the National Net) grants in its affiliate contracts exclusivity to the affiliate. As long as Fox is happy (or even as it appears seeks) the local affiliate to ask for cash carry Fox probably isn't going to ask the affiliate to stop. It's the Networks who've granted exclusivity as to their programming to their affiliates. The FCC allows broadcasters to choose whether to elect Must-Carry (the cable co must carry the local broadcaster at no cost to the broadcaters) or Retransmission Consent (the broadcaster can negotiate for carriage, [pay us $.10 for our programming or as more likely carry ESPN for $3.00 per sub]).

Originally posted by wittangamo
If you have a QAM tuner you can get "basic limited" service from Comcast that includes the unscrambled digital locals in HD. In my area it's about $12 per month. Right now that includes every local affiliate -- except Sinclair's Fox station, which was included until Sinclair pulled the plug this week.

Comcast doesn't want you to know this deal exists, they prefer to sign you up for one of the higher-cost digital packages that includes STB rental. And if fact, very few people opt for it because they want the cable networks that don't come with the cheapest option.

It IS a good deal, however, for the few people who have a QAM tuner and want a cable subscriber discount on broadband internet service and/or a low-cost alternative to OTA in addition to satellite service.

To CPanther95 and j_buckingham80, see wittangamo's response above. In my area a basic sub cost $16.13, and that's all you need to get the 30 basic channels and the local HD from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and PBS. If you have a QAM tuner you don't even need the $5 a month converter box. In fact I think DiscoveryHD can be received with just a QAM tuner.

So, you can see that there is not a lot of room in that pricing to start paying stations for their digital signals.

Originally posted by CPanther95
You can continue to debate Sinclair vs. Comcast, but since we all know that what ever happens here will impact all affiliates, I'm still looking at it as an affiliate vs. cable issue.

I don't think that's really a fair argument, however. A large number of affiliates have agreed to carriage by Comcast, using whatever tools and agreements for that carriage. Sinclair appears to believe that their product is worth more than the others. (IMHO, Sinclair's channel here in Sac pales in comparison to the other affils in quality content, news quality, etc., everything but the CBS network programming)

I do see that they are taking on the "fight" for a lot of other broadcasters as well, but that is their choice, not the choice of other broadcasters. As jacmyoung pointed out, when all of your other channels are on cable, but the Sinclair station is missing, it says something about the broadcaster, not the cableco.

Originally posted by wittangamo
If you have a QAM tuner you can get "basic limited" service from Comcast that includes the unscrambled digital locals in HD. In my area it's about $12 per month. Right now that includes every local affiliate -- except Sinclair's Fox station, which was included until Sinclair pulled the plug this week.

Comcast doesn't want you to know this deal exists, they prefer to sign you up for one of the higher-cost digital packages that includes STB rental. And if fact, very few people opt for it because they want the cable networks that don't come with the cheapest option.

It IS a good deal, however, for the few people who have a QAM tuner and want a cable subscriber discount on broadband internet service and/or a low-cost alternative to OTA in addition to satellite service.

Sounds like a good deal for Comcast also. A bunch of "free" channels for only $12 a month.

Originally posted by beaudot
Can fox have any say in this? At some point HD ratings are going to count for something, and fox cares about national ratings. Can they just revoke their affiliates and ask someone else to step up that will give their signal to the cable companies? Should we be blaming fox for all this?

When the network contract is up, Fox can decide to look for a different affiliate, but in many markets, would there be another station that would want them, and is it at a channel position that would be advantageous for them? Fox wouldn't likely want to leave channel 5 in favor of channel 50 on the dial.

For the most part, the networks leave carriage agreements to their local affiliates.

Here's an Emmis station going through the same thing. When contracts begin to expire and more of these stations disappear from cable, subs won't be able to single out a "rouge" broadcaster.

http://www.km3hd.com/

Originally posted by CPanther95
Sounds like a good deal for Comcast also. A bunch of "free" channels for only $12 a month.

Whoa, Cowboy!! :p

The idea is that those HD channels will eventually replace the analog local channels provided in every basic sub as the HD feed will most likely become the primary feed, at least from network affiliates. So to say they are free is really a misnomer, right now yes, but when analog goes dead, no.

Some of you argue that since DBS pays local stations a fee to carry the signal, there is the precedent set. Except DBS does charge a package fee for the locals.

Cable does not charge an extra for the HD locals. Yes they do charge a basic tier for your locals, but not the additional HD feeds. I personally like to see they start to charge for an HD package, that way they may be able to justify the fee for the HD locals, but at the same time become less competitive.

But they have chosen a different path, much like the premium channels HBO, SHO and the like, that if you pay for the SD packages, you get the HD ones as a bonus, without additional charge.

If more affiliates get their way and start to charge for local HDs, cable will have to pass the costs on to the subs one way or the other. I wonder what will people think all of a sudden the HD subs not only have to get the basic tier (like DBS subs) but also pay a $15 HD tier to get all the HD locals (like DBS subs may be faced with)?

If you think from cable's perspective, they have every reason to continue their policy, because otherwise if they must charge an extra HD package, they will be much less competitive in the HD field, so it is natural that they'd rather see a few stations not carried, than give in.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Some of you argue that since DBS pays local stations a fee to carry the signal, there is the precedent set. Except DBS does charge a package fee for the locals.

Apparently for about half as much as cable is charging.

When the HD stream becomes the only/primary stream these battles may still be going on. Heck, nothing prevents a broadcaster from providing chinsy Cable co with an SD stream and the paying Sat Co with the HD stream. And then throwing both on the OTA stream. Likely? I don't know...impossible? Far from it.

why does everyone think the other local HD stations are not receiving compensation for their HD signals? Comcast IS paying for those HD stations and yes, you are paying Comcast to pay them, its just not itemized on your bill.. Cox just signed a deal with Comcast and regardless of what anyone says, Cox is receiving compensation for their signal. Sinclair wants MORE then what the others are getting, that is the problem, and I fault them for this because the other networks set the precident on what fair compensation is.

I think this PDF file was posted earlier, but this excerpt from it is simply hilarious, now they are trying to tell the cablecos how to run their business..what a presumptuous, arrogant and self-serving statement, unbelievable...don't overlook the part about what Sinclair thinks the consumers believe...

"4. Payments to Sinclair Should Not Increase Your Cable Bill.

Contrary to claims by the
cable companies, paying Sinclair should not lead to material increases in your cable bill. In the
first place, Sinclair is looking for no more than 50 cents per subscriber, per month, a very small
percentage of the average cable bill. In addition, we believe that consumers already believe the
fees they pay cable companies are in part to receive local signals. Cable companies simply need
to reallocate the fees you pay them away from the cable channels with low viewership to the
broadcast stations which have compelling programming and high viewership."

http://www.sbgi.net/
Sinclair Broadcast Group

http://www.sbgi.net/misc/cable_resale_local_tv.pdf
cable_resale_local_tv.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Originally posted by afail
why does everyone think the other local HD stations are not receiving compensation for their HD signals? Comcast IS paying for those HD stations and yes, you are paying Comcast to pay them, its just not itemized on your bill.. Cox just signed a deal with Comcast and regardless of what anyone says, Cox is receiving compensation for their signal. Sinclair wants MORE then what the others are getting, that is the problem, and I fault them for this because the other networks set the precident on what fair compensation is.

True, the problem is Sinclair wants hard cash, whereas agreements the other stations have made generally involve purchasing on-air ad time.

Why is Sinclair telling viewers that it's getting shafted by Comcast wrong or a bad thing. Sinclair is merely trying to communicate that that higher viewership channels should get fees and that the Cable co could easily redirect those fees from relatively unwatched Cable Channels.

Sinclair is telling viewers that by paying Sinclair something Cable cos have no need to charge the cable sub more. Seems totally fair. Companies communicate to each other all the time how they think they should "operate" their business...pay us more and the other guy less. Profound...

So the cablco should re-negotiate all the contracts it has with all the other program providers to insure that Sinclair gets the money it wants at the same time being able to tell the viewer that it shouldn't cost them in higher cable rates?

Give me a break...

Originally posted by afail
why does everyone think the other local HD stations are not receiving compensation for their HD signals? Comcast IS paying for those HD stations and yes, you are paying Comcast to pay them, its just not itemized on your bill.. Cox just signed a deal with Comcast and regardless of what anyone says, Cox is receiving compensation for their signal. Sinclair wants MORE then what the others are getting, that is the problem, and I fault them for this because the other networks set the precident on what fair compensation is.

I have seen nothing in the hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of posts on this subject here in recent months, which would indicate that cable companies have been paying any local network affiliates for their HD signals. I have seen many posts from those whose knowledge of the industry I respect who say that cable companies are NOT paying local network affiliates for their HD signals.

It is important not to confuse cable and satellite programmers, such as ESPN, Discovery, INHD, etc., with local network affiliates. They are different entities whose business models bear little similarity to each other. Cox, Comcast, and other cable companies DO pay for ESPN's, etc., signals, both SD and HD. So far as I know, though, they do not pay for either SD or HD signals generated by local network affiliates. Of course if afail could give us a credible reference that would demonstrate that I am wrong in this assumption, I would be willing to change my mind

Stations are compensated, just not generally in cash. That's the reason very few, if any, of the major network affiliates demand "must-carry" for their station and instead negotiate a more lucrative agreement.

Keenan, the point is the Cable Co could easily eat a $.50/sub charge (if it wanted to) for the probably 6 mos. remaining on some of their cable channel agreements. This various agreements with Cable Channels will come up for negotiation at some time, some are probably renegotiating now, other 6 mos down the road others a year. But to suggest that Sinclair is out of line to say that maybe Comcast should be willing to pay Channel X less and us more does not seem fair to me. Because Comcast agreed to lock in rates for other channels is not Sinclair's problem, that, is Comcast's problem.

It is out of line, it is extremely arrogant of Sinclair to put forth the idea that their signal is more important or more valuable than anybody else's. Even if it were true, to base a negotiation using that tactic, "hey, just screw the other guy, so you can pay us what we want", is just beyond comprehension to me.

It's tantamount to Sinclair telling Comcast how to run it's business.

It is out of line, it is extremely arrogant of Sinclair to put forth the idea that their signal is more important or more valuable than anybody else's. Even if it were true, to base a negotiation using that tactic, "hey, just screw the other guy, so you can pay us what we want", is just beyond comprehension to me.

As arrogant and out of line as you telling Sinclair how to run their business? That asking for $.50 /sub on some of the most watchest television channels is too much? Is it any less arrogant to suggest that Sinclair's signal is worth nothing? Effectively LESS than every other cable channel? To base an argument on just screw Sinclair so you charge us less? That not beyond comprehension to me, I just think it's unfair. It's tantamount to Keenan telling Sinclair how to run its business.

Isn't that what ESPN does?

ESPN Nets get over $3.00 per month per sub with roughly a 7% increase annually ($0.21)

DBS pays the local stations about $0.27 per sub for the SD feed and sell the group for $6.00 to the customer. Whether the HD feed will cost more is unknown.

Cable pays no cash for the SD feed and sells the group of channels for about $12.00 to the customer.

How much would be "fair"?

ESPN Nets get over $3.00 per month per sub with roughly a 7% increase annually ($0.21)

I don't watch it and would like my $3.00 back. :(

(yeah, I know, that's another thread)

- Tom

Originally posted by CPanther95
ESPN Nets get over $3.00 per month per sub with roughly a 7% increase annually ($0.21)

DBS pays the local stations about $0.27 per sub for the SD feed and sell the group for $6.00 to the customer. Whether the HD feed will cost more is unknown.

Cable pays no cash for the SD feed and sells the group of channels for about $12.00 to the customer.

How much would be "fair"?

I already said that kind of question gets you nowhere as long as one can get away with it not paying.

Put up some sports channels to compete with ESPN, maybe some day Sinclair can also charge $3.00. But if they stay in the networks business, and all other networks charges nothing, guess what they can't charge either.

So maybe Sinclair should go ask all the other affiliates to join them in a boycott first if they want cable to cave in soon.

Folks, it ain’t just Sinclair…..

Dish Exploits Cox’s Pain
By Linda Moss Multichannel.com 2/28/2005
With no end in sight for a bitter retransmission-consent dispute, EchoStar Communications Corp. last week exploited the situation by offering a local TV station in the Abilene-Sweetwater, Texas, DMA that Cox Communications Inc. was forced to drop earlier this year. The Dish Network provider will be offering NBC affiliate KRBC, a Mission Broadcasting Inc. station managed by the Nexstar Broadcasting Group Inc., along with the other major local broadcast stations in Abilene.
Cox and Cable One Inc. are in the midst of a retransmission-consent battle with Nexstar, with both operators forced to drop several TV stations when their old deals expired Dec. 31.

In announcing it was offering local signals in Abilene, EchoStar said: “Television viewers in the Abilene-Sweetwater area who want to watch NBC have two choices — rabbit ears or the crystal clear, all-digital quality of Dish Network at a price still lower than cable.”

There was another development in the ongoing dispute, with Bossier City and Bossier Parish, La., now suing Cox for dropping NBC affiliate KTAL-TV. Those municipal governments allege Cox is in violation of its franchise agreement for not carrying Shreveport, La.-based KTAL, owned by Nexstar.

Local officials maintain the cable operator’s 1977 and 1978 franchise agreements with the city and parish, respectively, mandate that it carry all of the “Big Three” broadcast networks — ABC, NBC and CBS.

“It’s not that we really have any concern with Cox’s disagreements with the parent company of NBC, or, at least, the local distributor of the NBC channel,” Bossier Parish attorney Patrick Jackson said last week. “It’s just a matter of requiring them to follow the franchise agreements that they signed.”

Cox spokesman David Grabert said it was unfortunate that Bossier officials filed the suit, and it would have been more fruitful for the city and parish to instead have urged Nexstar to come to the bargaining table.
Cox’s retransmission-consent pact for KTAL-TV expired Feb. 1, and the operator stopped carrying the station at that time, impacting 33,000 subscribers in that Louisiana market.

“When the folks lost their NBC channel, we received a number of phone calls,” Jackson said.

“I mean many, many phone calls. And we received a few calls just to the opposite, 'Please don’t get involved in this, we don’t want our cable rates to go up.’ ”

Nexstar is asking for a 30-cent-per-month, per-subscriber license fee from both MSOs for its stations.
Cox has filed a complaint against Nexstar with the Federal Communications Commission, claiming the broadcaster isn’t negotiating in good faith. Nexstar filed an answer, maintaining that it is.

Last week, Cox filed a 28-page rebuttal to Nexstar’s answer with the FCC, charging that Nexstar favors “sensationalist mudslinging over private discussion.”

This is just the beginning. If Sinclair is dumb enough to settle for anything less than cash, they'll be on the sidelines with a crappy contract as all these others negotiate cash payments.

Didn't Sinclair withdraw from the NAB? Does that have anything to do with why they seem to be out there on their own?

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
As arrogant and out of line as you telling Sinclair how to run their business? That asking for $.50 /sub on some of the most watchest television channels is too much? Is it any less arrogant to suggest that Sinclair's signal is worth nothing? Effectively LESS than every other cable channel? To base an argument on just screw Sinclair so you charge us less? That not beyond comprehension to me, I just think it's unfair. It's tantamount to Keenan telling Sinclair how to run its business.

You're missing the point. Comcast is not telling Sinclar how to run their business. Sinclair wants money, Comcast said no, end of story. Comcast isn't telling Sinclair where they can save enough money by paying their on-air talent less, or maybe buy less expensive cameras, use margarine instead of butter, so that Sinclair wont need to charge Comcast to carry Sinclair's signal. This is what Sinclair is saying to Comcast by telling Comcast to pay less for other channels from other providers so that Comcast will have enough to pay what Sinclair wants. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

I am not debating the "worth" of Sinclair's signal, that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I object to is Sinclair trying insinuate that other providers signals are worth less and try to use that as a negotiation point for Sinclair's own profit.

Originally posted by CPanther95
This is just the beginning. If Sinclair is dumb enough to settle for anything less than cash, they'll be on the sidelines with a crappy contract as all these others negotiate cash payments.

Didn't Sinclair withdraw from the NAB? Does that have anything to do with why they seem to be out there on their own?

Part of the problem is Sinclair was one of those outfits that supported the relaxation of media ownership, allowing much larger and fewer players in the game. Now they are finding out what it's like to play ball with those larger media conglomerates.

> So maybe Sinclair should go ask all the other affiliates to join them in a boycott first if they want cable to cave in soon.

That would violate antitrust laws. If broadcasters could legally do this, I am sure that they would -- most cable systems would struggle bigtime to maintain their subscriber base without the "big four" network affiliates.

It seems to me to be a mistake to accuse either the cable companies or Sinclair of immorality. Instead, as Michael Corleone put it, "It's not personal, it's strictly business." Now, that doesn't make Sinclair's decision to insist on getting paid for something it gives to the public for free smart. But it's not crooked, either.

"Free" would be without commercial interruption.

Am I correct in that despite all the bigger principles involved here, we are really talking about $0.50 per local HD network per HD subscriber? I understand that if Comcast agrees to pay Sinclair, they must pay for all the local network HD retransmissions. If Comcast were to pass this expense directly to the HD subscriber by increasing the cost of the HD tier, most would see an increase of $2-$3 a month?

If this is correct, how many here would have a problem paying this amount to get our Fox HD, get a cut to the local affiliates to support past and future HD investment (and hopefully spur more HD programming), and end all this controversy?

Heres my $36.00 for the next year...make it happen !

One thing I did not even realize until MisterDTV reminded me in another thread is, since we installed a Comcast 6412 two months ago, I have added another 6412 recently, and removed our E* and OTA connections, even though our local CBS station (a Sinclair station) HD singal is still not on Comcast. The end result is we pretty much stopped watching CBS shows and don't seem to miss them that much.

Cable's low cost HDDVR is such a good value to the cable HD viewers that I found it hard to even go back to my OTA HD receiver since it is not a DVR.

The point is now that almost everyone of the cable HD viewers can have easy access to the HDDVRs, they will not likely to give up cable and start to use OTA or DBS just to get the Sinclair HD stations, because it is very hard to go back to live TV once you are spoiled by a DVR. And to my knowledge the least expensive OTA HDDVR today is the E* 921 at $500.

So if Sinclair expects to use OTA "free DTV" to lure cable HD viewers away, they might want to consider offering free OTA HDDVRs first, not just a $20 OTA antenna, it is simply not enough.

You're in the minority jacmyoung. Most people would not so easily give up the AFC's NFL games, CSI's and Survivor just because of no DVR.

Originally posted by shuttermaker
Heres my $36.00 for the next year...make it happen !

If it does not happen, what will you do?

In older threads and in news coverage of the negotiations, it was reported that Sinclair is asking 50 cents per month per subscriber for ALL Comcast subs, not just HD. (That's the setup for the satcos, and Sinclair is aware of Comcast's digital simulcasting plans. It's getting harder to separate the HD subs from the rest of the pack.)

If you look at Sinclair's position statement at the beginning of this thread, they are careful to make the distinction that they are only withholding their digital signal from cable. They make no such distinction when referring to per subscriber cash payments.

I see no reason why cable shouldn't compete on a level playing field with DBS.

Originally posted by CPanther95
You're in the minority jacmyoung. Most people would not so easily give up the AFC's NFL games, CSI's and Survivor just because of no DVR.

No I am not giving up the occasional shows, I did not take down my OTA antenna just for that reason. As for CSI, I don't miss it as much as I thought, and I don't mind DVR the SD version on Comcast if I had to.

The point is the cable HDDVR users are not likely to swtich to OTA or DBS because they miss the Sinclair HD signals, meaning Comcast has no fear of losing HD subs because of this negotiation impasse.

This is all I am saying, nothign about what is fair and unfair, just in a business deal, one must be realistic about what you can and cannot get, and weigh the benefit and cost accordingly.

Originally posted by CPanther95
I see no reason why cable shouldn't compete on a level playing field with DBS.

Again, this has nothing to do with what you consider is fair and what's not. If Comcast starts to lose HD subs left and right to OTA and DBS because they miss the Sinclair HD signals, you will find them quick to pay Sinclair the $0.50 to stop the churn, until then...

Agreed. Which is why these broadcast companies should wait them out. When DBS comes to town with HD LILs, cable companies will change their tune quickly. There's no reason to bend now.

Here's an idea for Comcast to call Sinclair's bluff. Get an integrated OTA receiver built into the HD-DVR box. Then they wouldn't have to pay Sinclair for anything. Ok, so it'll cost more than $0.50/box to do this, but maybe it'll make Sinclair cave quicker.

DBS provides OTA tuners in all their boxes, and there's still an abundance of subcribers to LILs. DBS then only pays the local stations for the number of subs that subscribe to the LILs.

Cable doesn't want to absorb the cost for OTA tuners, they do not want the cost of retransmission fees - they simply want to get the channels for free so they can sell them for maximum profit. That's a great arrangement as long as it can last, but don't expect the broadcasters to put up with that for too long.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
If it does not happen, what will you do?


I think it will happen. If it doesnt...I will watch less of what Sinclair has to offer. Sinclairs not losing anything except popularity points. And they didnt have many points to begin with.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
So if Sinclair expects to use OTA "free DTV" to lure cable HD viewers away, they might want to consider offering free OTA HDDVRs first, not just a $20 OTA antenna, it is simply not enough.

I don't believe Sinclair is trying to lure cable HD viewers to go with HD OTA. Not having INHD1&2, ESPNHD and DISCHD (and maybe more later) is a non-starter. I think they are trying to stop new viewers from getting cable in the first place. Those people are not aware of the non-broadcast channels they will be missing and so can be influenced to try OTA instead.

Also, many new HDTVs have the OTA tuner while most established cable viewers don't have them.

Rich N.

Originally posted by CPanther95
Agreed. Which is why these broadcast companies should wait them out. When DBS comes to town with HD LILs, cable companies will change their tune quickly. There's no reason to bend now.

I agree if DirecTV before the year end started to provide a $10 to $20/mo HDDVR lease program, add HD LILs for no additional charge than current $5.99 SD LILs, things will be different. But bet on all that to happen is risky. First you must assume the HD LIL will come to your town, then figure out how to convince D* to pay an extra $0.50 when D* does not plan to charge an extra to their HD subs (not that different than the issue with Comcast).

How many Sinclair markets D* plan to roll out HD LIL? It will certainly be fun to see what will be like if they can holdup that long.

Of course if D* started to charge an extra $9.99 for the HD LILs then all bets are off. Comcast can easily follow by changing their policy and start charging for an HD local pack, and all broadcasters will applaud Sinclair for its courage, and all HD viewers will be glad to folk out another $10/mo. and be happy the fight is over.

Originally posted by raidbuck
I don't believe Sinclair is trying to lure cable HD viewers to go with HD OTA. Not having INHD1&2, ESPNHD and DISCHD (and maybe more later) is a non-starter. I think they are trying to stop new viewers from getting cable in the first place. Those people are not aware of the non-broadcast channels they will be missing and so can be influenced to try OTA instead.

Also, many new HDTVs have the OTA tuner while most established cable viewers don't have them.

Rich N.

What kind of "new viewers" are you talking about? Those that don't watch TV at all? You are either already OTA, cable or DBS, or a combination of them. If you are talking about OTA-only viewers, they are in such a minority today it really does not matter much, besides, they are the least likely to move up to HDTV anyway.

I'm sorry I was confusing. What I meant was I thought the people Sinclair would have the best chance of getting to use OTA were existing OTA SD viewers, so they would be new to HD and don't know what else they'd be missing, albeit for a price.

If you already have cable the incremental cost of just the HD STB (around $5 per month) isn't that much and might not spur you to drop cable for OTA.

I could certainly be wrong though. I have read of people on the forums who dropped cable and went to OTA, and most of the traffic on the Balt-Was HDTV forum is for OTA, not cable, issues. It's maybe just my bias since we watch the national HD (Disc,INHD1&2) more than all other channels combined (not counting my "solo" sports watching).

Rich N.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
I agree if DirecTV before the year end started to provide a $10 to $20/mo HDDVR lease program, add HD LILs for no additional charge than current $5.99 SD LILs, things will be different. But bet on all that to happen is risky. First you must assume the HD LIL will come to your town, then figure out how to convince D* to pay an extra $0.50 when D* does not plan to charge an extra to their HD subs (not that different than the issue with Comcast).

DBS doesn't have to pay "an extra $0.50" they already pay a retransmission fee of about $0.27 per sub and that may be enough. We know Sinclair is asking $0.50 and cable is offering $0.00, we also know that Emmis is trying to get $0.30 and cable is offering $0.00.

Whatever price is settled on, it will likely be only a few pennies more than what D* & E* are already paying. With the margins in the LIL package and HDTV Packs, DBS can easily offer HD LIL's at no additional charge.

Originally posted by raidbuck
I don't believe Sinclair is trying to lure cable HD viewers to go with HD OTA.

Rich N.

No they are not. Sinclair uses that as a negotiating ploy to influence cable subs to go along with Sinclairs point of view. If they somehow convinced all cable subs to go with OTA HD then Sinclair wouldn't be getting 0.01 per sub much less 0.50 per sub and that would invalidate their whole reasoning that HD is a product to be sold. What are they going to do, not provide the OTA HD signal because they feel it's a product to be sold? Right.

Bottom line is Sinclair wants to charge one group of people money for something they provide free to another group. Once HD is tracked for ad revenue it will be the advertisers that have the greatest influence on the Sinclair/Comcast issue. And at that point, Sinclair will need Comcast far more than Comcast will need Sinclair.

The "myfreehdtv" promotion is 95% about negotiation (with about 5% education as byproduct).

But we're not talking about "trying to charge one group for something they provide free to another group" - all we're talking about is changing the way cable pays them. Currently broadcasters "give away free" OTA as part of their obligation to the government for the spectrum they get at a discount - for the public good. DBS pays cash, and cable "pays" through ad buys and channel carriage. And they should pay. Why should one company be able to take a property that another company paid rights for, and resell it for a profit?

If you went to Best Buy to pick up the latest copy of AOL and they were charging $1.00 for the CD instead of giving it to you, don't you think AOL should reserve the right to start selling those copies to BB, instead of continuing to give them free of charge?

....and just because mega corporations like Viacom or Disney can bundle in Comedy Central, VH1, ESPN News, etc. and then force carriage of MTV Toons, Disney Erotica, or whatever other half-baked channel they come up with (and get cash carriage fees) - or they'll withhold rights to their O&O's - doesn't mean that broadcasters without alternate channels to peddle forfeit all rights to get reimbursed for the product they own.

If Sinclair were trying to charge $20 / mo. per subscriber we would all probably agree they were asking too much. And if Sinclair were offering it for free then we would likely have no objection.

So, like the old joke about the girls character, we are really only arguing about price now. And that's a market issue where we really don't have the data to be able to say.

I sort of wish we had a la carte pricing just so these things could be decided simply by counting how many people subscribed to various channels at the various possible asking prices. But I guess that's another thread. ;)

- Tom

Originally posted by CPanther95
The "myfreehdtv" promotion is 95% about negotiation (with about 5% education as byproduct).
I'd have to give a higher percentage to "education" than a lot of us are willing to admit.

With all of these ads for HD on cable and satellite, not to mention misinformed store clerks pushing these things and hiding the OTA converters, Sinclair probably felt the need to remind people that you can get this signal for free over the air, just like analog. Plus, it's DIGITAL OTA, which is a major improvement over what you got on analog.

trying to charge one group for something they provide free

They're trying to charge for what we give them for free. Why don't they turn in the license to the FCC if they want to have independent pay-per-view stations?

Originally posted by Joseph S
They're trying to charge for what we give them for free. Why don't they turn in the license to the FCC if they want to have independent pay-per-view stations?

The only obligation they have in return for their license is to provide a free OTA signal. That license does not obligate them to sit back silently while the cable company profits from their product. When you subscribe to cable, you are paying for the local channels whether, or not, the cable company pays the stations.

Originally posted by CPanther95

Why should one company be able to take a property that another company paid rights for, and resell it for a profit?

If you went to Best Buy to pick up the latest copy of AOL and they were charging $1.00 for the CD instead of giving it to you, don't you think AOL should reserve the right to start selling those copies to BB, instead of continuing to give them free of charge?


I understand what you are saying and without having the minute details of how Comcast structures it's costs when setting up their programming tiers it's impossible to say exactly how much Comcast "charges" their customers for HD. I don't now what other cablecos do, but what is known is that Comcast does not charge their customers anything beyond the basic hook-up for HD network/affiliate channels. There is no seperate charge for HD.



....and just because mega corporations like Viacom or Disney can bundle in Comedy Central, VH1, ESPN News, etc. and then force carriage of MTV Toons, Disney Erotica, or whatever other half-baked channel they come up with (and get cash carriage fees) - or they'll withhold rights to their O&O's - doesn't mean that broadcasters without alternate channels to peddle forfeit all rights to get reimbursed for the product they own.

Sinclair has the right to charge whatever they want for their signals. Keep in mind that by doing so we will be headed down the path of Pay-HDTV. Is Sinclair going to charge their OTA customers for that HD signal, or will they only provide a SD signal OTA? And only provide a HD signal to those who will pay for it? Is this what we really want? I don't think so, and I'm not saying Comcast is a white knight but at least they are trying to keep the cost down.

Originally posted by Joseph S
They're trying to charge for what we give them for free. Why don't they turn in the license to the FCC if they want to have independent pay-per-view stations?

When did your local cable company start giving you the local stations for free? You pay the cableco for something you can get for free. Who is being taken now?

Originally posted by keenan
I don't now what other cablecos do, but what is known is that Comcast does not charge their customers anything beyond the basic hook-up for HD network/affiliate channels. There is no seperate charge for HD.

It really doesn't matter how they break down their charges, the reason they want the local channels is to lure customers to their service. Since they charge for that service, they are profiting from being able to offer the local channels.

No, I pay the cableco a monthly fee for convenient access to the HD channels over a wire already coming into my home, including the ability to record said channels and time-shift them. All with no upfront cost. I also get high-speed internet over the same wire. I don't have an unsightly antenna on my roof (although personally that wouldn't be a big deal to me if I did). Although everybody would like more for less cost, I don't think I'm being "taken."

Now, like Sinclair's propaganda campaign, others here continue to claim they can get the HD OTA "for free" -- they conveniently ignore or minimize the fact that obtaining the same functionality via OTA often requires a significant up-front investment of money and/or work. I guess once you've spent that money you tend to forget about it. Last I checked nobody is giving away the required equipment (OTA antennas/HD receivers/HD-DVRs). And there are often installation issues.

Originally posted by hondo21
Now, like Sinclair's propaganda campaign, others here continue to claim they can get the HD OTA "for free" -- they conveniently ignore or minimize the fact that obtaining the same functionality via OTA often requires a significant up-front investment of money and/or work. I guess once you've spent that money you tend to forget about it. Last I checked nobody is giving away the required equipment (OTA antennas/HD receivers/HD-DVRs). And there are often installation issues.
... just as I had to buy a TV set and an antenna to get "free" analog TV, pay the power company to provide electricity for it, and (optionally) a VCR to time-shift it. The stations, however, have yet to send me a bill, even after more than three decades of viewing.

Originally posted by keenan
I don't now what other cablecos do, but what is known is that Comcast does not charge their customers anything beyond the basic hook-up for HD network/affiliate channels. There is no seperate charge for HD.

Comcast charges you for the SD feeds and just doesn't charge extra for the HD feeds. Same as DBS, but DBS charges only about half as much. Plus cable requires you to pay for them first, before you can subscribe to anything else.

Originally posted by CPanther95
Comcast charges you for the SD feeds and just doesn't charge extra for the HD feeds. Same as DBS, but DBS charges only about half as much. Plus cable requires you to pay for them first, before you can subscribe to anything else.

Right, so if/when the HD channel from Sinclair becomes their primary feed are you going to want to pay more than you are for the SD feed?

IOW, when the HD/digital channel replaces the SD/analog channel(hopefully sometime in our lifetime :p ) are you prepared to be charged more on your cable bill just because it's in HD/digital?

Yes, you have to pay for a basic sub but all locals are included, it's a FCC mandate. All Comcast wants to do replace the SD locals you already pay for with the post-digital-conversion HD/digital local channel.

The only obligation they have in return for their license is to provide a free OTA signal.

When Sinclair does this, maybe then they could try and justify their case. A 9v battery doesn't cover areas where everyone else is approaching full power on the same towers.

Originally posted by keenan
Right, so if/when the HD channel from Sinclair becomes their primary feed are you going to want to pay more than you are for the SD feed?

IOW, when the HD/digital channel replaces the SD/analog channel(hopefully sometime in our lifetime :p ) are you prepared to be charged more on your cable bill just because it's in HD/digital?

Yes, you have to pay for a basic sub but all locals are included, it's a FCC mandate. All Comcast wants to do replace the SD locals you already pay for with the post-digital-conversion HD/digital local channel.

So, Comcast is charging you $12 a month for local SD channels that are "free" - and if the local broadcasters want a fraction of that - and cable charges even more - that's the broadcasters' fault :confused:

I'd love to know how much of this anti-broadcaster/pro-cable sentiment would change if you guys were in a smaller market that had no ABC or CBS in HD and this proposal was offered to justify the expense of upgrading to HD - and the alternative was 20 years of digital SDTV in your market.

Originally posted by Joseph S
When Sinclair does this, maybe then they could try and justify their case. A 9v battery doesn't cover areas where everyone else is approaching full power on the same towers.

Stations operating at low power are required to at least cover their city of license. That doesn't mean everybody inside that area can receive their signal but a specified percentage. Are you within that coverage area? If you aren't then you are experiencing the downside of the rural life.

Originally posted by hondo21
Now, like Sinclair's propaganda campaign, others here continue to claim they can get the HD OTA "for free" -- they conveniently ignore or minimize the fact that obtaining the same functionality via OTA often requires a significant up-front investment of money and/or work. I guess once you've spent that money you tend to forget about it. Last I checked nobody is giving away the required equipment (OTA antennas/HD receivers/HD-DVRs). And there are often installation issues.

You can rent your house or buy or house. In the end, you will spend more money renting than buying over the same time period. I guess once you get in the habit of paying every month, you forget you are paying that extra. Within 18 months, any upfront outlay for the antenna is paid off and I can pocket that extra money that you will still be paying the cable company. Same thing for a DVR. I can build an OTA DVR cheaper in the long run than I can keep renting one from the cable company no matter how many upgrades they give me. PQ on OTA isn't an issue with digital anymore so the cable company lost me with that excuse.

I will take the upfront cost of an antenna and DVR and I will let you take the monthly cost and nothing to show for it. (Which is exactly what the cable company wants you to do, pay them money and you have nothing to show for it in the end.)

You are paying for something you are not getting and I am not paying for the thing you want and I have it. If you are happy with that situation, then I am thrilled.

What would really be nice to know is details of the arrangement between Knology and Sinclair. Knology continues to broadcast the HD signal from Sinclair.

Might give an indication of the monetary concessions that Sinclair is asking.

It has been reported that Sinclair wants .50 a sub.

OTA DVR is really interesting too, all you really need is one of those MyHD MDP-100 or 120...Those can sell on e-bay for as little as $140.00. Or if you want something new the HDTV Wonder's from ATI at about $180 or so, plug that in to your computer...Run a split from your antenna one to the TV, one to the Computer Card, (Maybe...maybe need some amplification along the way for the split) and bam $150 later...OTA DVR, with computer functionality. Not a bad way to go at all. Have a 5.1 motherboard or soundcard, run that into your reciever as Multi-channel, or a lot of those HDTV cards have DD out, and a DVI from your Vid card to TV and you're set. Talk about the way to go. And darn cheap...total outlay maybe $200. And no monthly charges. For me, it would run about $150 for the card, $5 for the splitter, $20 for the RG-6. I don't need the HD DVR though yet, so I just split to my old Analog VCR and record if I need to record, but it's rare that I need to record. Now if I want to record HD I just use Firewire which is a fun way to go too.

There's a reason I maintain that OTA could very well take off down the road. I'm already seeing it where I live, and we are all seeing it on these boards. Some people love the extra programming. And that's fine, more power to you. To some of us, the extra programming just isn't compelling, and at $20/month for just lifeline, it still isn't worth it, and of course the Cable co will do everything possible to let you thing that the $20/mo HD doesn't exist.

And I do think it makes sense for broadcasters to drive people back to OTA if it's viable (read PQ). It enhances their political power (more OTA viewers mean greater strength in Congress) which increases the likelihood that their interest in the spectrum will be preserved, it makes it so that broadcaster occupy a higher percentage of total programming on the viewer's television (higher ad rates), and an OTA stream can fit about a single HD and SD stream fairly easy (paid programming). (I know this is dangerous to suggest around here, but I really can't tell a difference as long as it's just one and kept to 3-4 Mbps or less.) If the broadcaster can find some value to generate from that stream...More power to the broadcaster. So, I guess in sum, Sinclair isn't crazy to try to get people to go back to OTA at least in some degree, especially if the Cable Co isn't going to help foot the local broadcaster's bill. (Either by agreeing to multicasting (Much less desirable) or through a $/sub).

Antennas are the new status symbol ;)

Just take a drive around some of the nicer housing developments in your area and see how many antennas are popping up.

Hmm, maybe I should take the Antenna out of my attic then! ;)

Originally posted by foxeng
You can rent your house or buy or house. In the end, you will spend more money renting than buying over the same time period. I guess once you get in the habit of paying every month, you forget you are paying that extra. Within 18 months, any upfront outlay for the antenna is paid off and I can pocket that extra money that you will still be paying the cable company. Same thing for a DVR. I can build an OTA DVR cheaper in the long run than I can keep renting one from the cable company no matter how many upgrades they give me. PQ on OTA isn't an issue with digital anymore so the cable company lost me with that excuse.

I will take the upfront cost of an antenna and DVR and I will let you take the monthly cost and nothing to show for it. (Which is exactly what the cable company wants you to do, pay them money and you have nothing to show for it in the end.)

You are paying for something you are not getting and I am not paying for the thing you want and I have it. If you are happy with that situation, then I am thrilled. Thanks for your concern and your sarcasm.
So, explain to me again how you're getting it for FREE. Because every definition I've ever read of the word FREE means AT NO COST. I cannot get OTA HD at no cost. Yes, the signal is put into the air FREE, but you have to buy the equipment to receive it. Maybe you should start using the word FREE with an asterisk.

So now your argument turns from the loose and inappropriate use of the word FREE in this context to a lease vs. buy, pay upfront vs. over time debate. Okay, fine.

I will not deny that there are merits to buying. I own my home. I buy cars, don't lease them because I tend to keep them pretty long. But with fast-moving technology such as HD receivers/DVRs I personally don't want to, and don't have the immediate funds to, sink hundreds of dollars into equipment that will soon be outdated. In 2 or 3 years I would want to be sinking more hundreds into something else. Maybe in the end it would still be cheaper than leasing, but I can't be sure about that.

At some point if the technology change ever settles down (maybe never) I may make a different decision, but for me paying for cable w/HD for the past 1.5 years and leasing the DVR box for the past 3 months has been a good investment without the big initial expense and the prospect of equipment I won't want anymore in 2 years. As to "building a DVR" I assume you mean a PC solution. That's fine if you have the time and ability to do it. I personally value my own time more than it is worth for me to pursue all that right now. I don't want to spend all my time tinkering with the gadgets and software to make this all work.

So, getting back to the overall Sinclair debate. I now have a convenient way to obtain and record many HD channels* for what I consider a manageable monthly fee. Except one, Fox HD, because Sinclair is fighting this noble battle standing up for the rights of broadcasters everywhere (yeah, that's why they're doing it). Sorry, but from my admittedly selfish perspective, I really don't care about all of that. Remember the old Sesame Street song, "One of these things is not like the others?" To me, that's Sinclair. All my other local HD channels are available on cable. Fox HD isn't because they think they should be different. I don't agree. I think they should be happy to give their signal away to whomever wants it so they get more eyes looking at their programming and advertising (yes, even with a DVR I still do see *some* commercials :) ) Of course, it doesn't matter what I think. They can do as they please. And I can hate them for it and call them nasty names.

* Please don't bring up HDNET not being on Comcast, I've never seen it and therefore don't miss it -- that's no comparison to missing out on Fox HD for me.

I guess to be free, you'd like the local broadcaster to supply your television as well :rolleyes:

It's the programming that is free. The same programming that isn't free via cable or satellite.

Originally posted by CPanther95
Antennas are the new status symbol ;)

Just take a drive around some of the nicer housing developments in your area and see how many antennas are popping up.
Exactly zero in the quite large area of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Can't pick up a thing.

Gee, foxeng, you say that I get nothing from cable after paying for it? I get unedited, uncut movies, lots of HD sports and no additional equipment for all my locals in HD except Fox. Plus I actually do get them. I don't know if I even could get all the channels via OTA anyway.

It is true that paying a monthly fee for local HD will eventually cost more than getting local HD OTA. Well, I look on DiscHD, INHD1&2 and ESPNHD as benefits for which I pay. I would guess most HD viewers also want these national channels (as one can tell looking at the desires of people on these boards for cable and satellites to increase the HD channel availability.

So it isn't just that OTA is cheaper over the long run, sure it is. But that's all you get without further investment. Plus not everyone can get OTA. That is always ignored by those who are promoting OTA.

Actually, I think in the long run Sinclair is crazy trying to get people OTA. They give that away free. Any kind of compensation they can get from cable companies (money?, subchannel access?) will be more than they get by having people use OTA. They have the right to do so. But just wait for a year or two. At that point HD viewership will be measured for advertising rates and Sinclair's reluctance will be over quite soon. In Harford County north of Baltimore they are watching DC's Fox affiliate WTTG in HD on Comcast. If WTTG got rating points from them that would be straight out of the Sinclair Fox45 (Baltimore) viewing area. Anyone can see the loss in that.

I wonder what will happen for those Baltimore D* subs when they get all local HD except for Fox45? Maybe they'll join in this discussion.

Rich N.

Stations operating at low power are required to at least cover their city of license. That doesn't mean everybody inside that area can receive their signal but a specified percentage. Are you within that coverage area?
Yes, I am. I can only get their stations barely by rotating the antenna to different spots for each. Based on my locale and the low 20-30% I receive for each, my guess is not far away they are getting 0%, within the city of coverage.

Just because stations are required to cover their city of license, nobody is enforcing it. The Fox owned affiliate is missing the one section of the city that actually got their old low power signal. That section now gets nothing due to the antenna pattern and relocation to the main tower. They're supposed to correct it, but I guarantee Sinclair ain't going to do jack until the FCC pulls the plug.

Originally posted by foxeng
When did your local cable company start giving you the local stations for free? You pay the cableco for something you can get for free. Who is being taken now?

It's only free if you can pull it in. The genesis of cable was that a sufficient number of viewers could not, and there was a business opportunity for someone to string cables and provide viewers with decent reception for their "local" channels. Comcast's charge here for "Basic Cable" is $7.10/mo, which includes not only locals but channels you'd have no hope of pulling in with an antenna*. Hardly seems like an outrageous charge for the infrastructure & maintenance.

*some of you need to supply some documentation with your claims

2 WGBY-57 (PBS)

3 WSHM-67 (CBS)

4 WGGB-40 (ABC)

5 WWLP-22 (NBC)

6 WTIC-61 (FOX)

7 New England Cable News

8 WTNH-8 (ABC)

9 Educational Access Channel

10 WVIT-30 (NBC)

11 WDMR-65 (IND)

12 Government Access Channel

13 WEDH-24 (PBS)

14 WSBK-38 (UPN)

15 Public Access Channel

16 WBQT-13 (WB)

70 HSN

77 CN8

Your point about changes in technology is a good one Hondo. I've been amazed at how fast things are moving already. That is one advantage of the PC solution is that it is comparably upgradeable. As to getting the signal "for free." Part of it's a matter of perspective, for my buying a HDTV meant buying a TV with an ATSC tuner. And I got the TV for about the same price as the Monitor without the Tuner, perhaps nominal would be a better word than free, but the difference between $20/month and $40 one-time is to me quite the difference. And for a lot Cable isn't just the $20/month (but quickly climbs up to triple digits.). Really, dline at the top of this page has a good way of desciping my (and probably foxeng's) perspective.

Originally posted by raidbuck
I wonder what will happen for those Baltimore D* subs when they get all local HD except for Fox45? Maybe they'll join in this discussion.

Rich N.
Most of those Baltimore D* subs use the OTA tuner provided in all D* HD receivers to pick up Baltimore and Washington stations free of charge. And within a couple years (well before there are any ratings ramifications) - they'll have the option to add HD LIL's via the DBS companies who are more than willing to pay a nominal fee to resell a local broadcasters signal.

Originally posted by hondo21
* Please don't bring up HDNET not being on Comcast, I've never seen it and therefore don't miss it -- that's no comparison to missing out on Fox HD for me.

As I type I have FOX HD OTA on right now and from a low power FOX at that 23 miles away and other than cost of the antenna which I paid for 3 years ago, it hasn't cost me ONE CENT to watch FOX in HD, ABC in HD, NBC in HD or CBS in HD. How much have you paid on cable in the last three years and not seen FOX HD? How much money has your cable company made off of you for the same program material you could be watching for free right now?

Why should your cable company be making money off of you when they do not pay ONE CENT to the station to provide (or in this case to NOT provide) that service to you. That is the Sinclair argument.

You brought it up. Eh, you were saying?

Originally posted by CPanther95
I guess to be free, you'd like the local broadcaster to supply your television as well :rolleyes:

It's the programming that is free. The same programming that isn't free via cable or satellite. Yeah, I would if you know how I can swing it. :)

Let's take it as a given that everyone seeking HD content has purchased an HD-capable TV, okay? :rolleyes: (there, see I can roll my eyes at people too, and I'm not even an admin).

Yes, I understand exactly what it is that is FREE. I was responding to the rampant assertion in this thread of the argument that OTA is completely FREE. People who argue against paying the cable company for HD programming that can be had "FREE" OTA but fail to acknowledge the lack of any upfront cost or commitment with cable, which some may find to be a significant advantage. Just because you don't happen to agree with that approach and have an obvious contempt for cable companies (admittedly not hard to understand - I'm not exactly their biggest fan for a lot of other reasons) doesn't sway everyone.

I have absolutely nothing invested in ensuring the well-being of specific local broadcasters, especially ones with as specious a track record and reputation as Sinclair. It's obvious that isn't the case for many of you here. Maybe Mark has some positions open at Sinclair that you could apply for.

Originally posted by aldujaparov
Comcast's charge here for "Basic Cable" is $7.10/mo....... Hardly seems like an outrageous charge for the infrastructure & maintenance.

....and what's a fair charge for the local broadcaster to demand for it's investment in "infrastructure & maintenance" to bring HDTV to your city - above and beyond the expense of going digital which was mandated?

Maybe someone can explain this to me as well, but I always thought the gain produced going from 500kw to 1MW is not nearly as much as the gain from 10kw to 100Kw. So even Low Power is not as big of deal as it is made out to be.

Originally posted by CPanther95
Comcast charges you for the SD feeds and just doesn't charge extra for the HD feeds. Same as DBS, but DBS charges only about half as much. Plus cable requires you to pay for them first, before you can subscribe to anything else.

Comcast asks me to pay $12.01, before I can subscribe to anything else, D* aksed me to pay $35 first, before I could subscribe to anything else, which was why I dropped D* over a year ago.

Again, it is too early to say whether D* will pay Sinclair $0.50 and turn around give it to the HD subs for free. They did not do so for the SD LIL, why would you believe they will do so for HD LIL? All we know so far is either D* nor E* pays the networks to rebroadcast distant network HD signals into the white areas even though they do charge the eligible HD subs. So DBS is no saint either.

It is hard to convince Comcast HD subs that Cocmast is at fault, when Comcast does not charge them extra for the HD locals. As long as this fact remains true, Comcast has no fear of losing its HD subs.

I can understand that maybe cable should consider paying a fee for the SD locals since they do charge $12.01 for the SD locals. Then Sinclair can certainly wait till the contracts expire, and do what Emmis is doing, pull its SD signals off Comcast if not paid and see what will happen.

Well, I've got nothing personal against Cable cos, I'm just cheap! And honestly, I've been quite impressed with some of what Comcast has been doing lately (supposedly the 6412s are to be coming out to Tracy soon which I think is pretty nice). Part of the Free OTA thing does come up with what's your baseline...HDTV or HD Monitor, that right there will be the biggest difference. For me HDTV was the baseline, but someone for which HD Monitor is the baseline is definately going to have a different perspective.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
Maybe someone can explain this to me as well, but I always thought the gain produced going from 500kw to 1MW is not nearly as much as the gain from 10kw to 100Kw. So even Low Power is not as big of deal as it is made out to be.

The cost to go from 10 kw ERP to 500 kw ERP is about $500,000. To go from 500 kw to 1mW ERP can be as much as $1.5 million dollars depending on what has to be done.

I know of several stations that went 10 kw for less than $300k.

Originally posted by CPanther95
So, Comcast is charging you $12 a month for local SD channels that are "free" - and if the local broadcasters want a fraction of that - and cable charges even more - that's the broadcasters' fault :confused:


"Comcast is charging you $12 a month for local SD channels that are "free"". And for that $12 a month I get the HD as well. They are already getting compensated for those signals. All Comcast wants to do is to replace the SD-primary feed with the soon to be HD-primary feed. At least it's the primary in most markets, whatever Sinclair plans to do maybe a different story, why they would want to send out a SD and a HD feed of the same programming is beyond me. Other than to charge a premium for it, meaning it will cost you more.




I'd love to know how much of this anti-broadcaster/pro-cable sentiment would change if you guys were in a smaller market that had no ABC or CBS in HD and this proposal was offered to justify the expense of upgrading to HD - and the alternative was 20 years of digital SDTV in your market.

I feel your pain, we just got Fox-HD on cable here in SF after a long protracted battle between Comcast and Cox Communications. Cox is in the somewhat unique situation of being a broadcaster and a cableco, so one part of the company took the Sinclair approach, while the other part of the company took the Comcast approach, the final result? Well, we have Fox-HD from the local Cox owned affiliate and with no increase in the cable bill. They most likely ended up agreeing to the sort of contract that most all other stations have already. Cox seems to feel that they can still conduct business, profitably, as a broadcaster by not charging a per-sub-fee for their HD signal, why can't Sinclair? Maybe Sinclair should look into a different line of business...

As far as not having your local station broadcast HD and having SDTV for 20 years, well, that's easy, market pressure and advertisers will end up being the deciding factor. If I'm an advertiser, and I know all the other stations in my area our broadcasting HD, and providing that HD to the local cableco, guess where I'm going to purchase that airtime?...

By bending to Sinclair's demand to get that 0.50 a sub you may have won the battle(you got your HD) but you are really losing the war as other broadcasters will want to follow suit with like deals. You have to decide what you really want in the end, 1)respect the right of the broadcaster to charge what they want and pay for it, or the more likely response, 2)I'm a consumer and I'm tired of paying already high cable bills. My money is on No. 2...

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Again, it is too early to say whether D* will pay Sinclair $0.50 and turn around give it to the HD subs for free. They did not do so for the SD LIL, why would you believe they will do so for HD LIL?

Why would they not do it for HD LIL? Best I remember, no one has said what the rate structure will be for HD LIL. Just like many cable companies, D* might charge for it. The precedence is already set.

Originally posted by foxeng

Why should your cable company be making money off of you when they do not pay ONE CENT to the station to provide (or in this case to NOT provide) that service to you. That is the Sinclair argument.


That's not really true now is it? There is some give and take between the station and the cableco in the form of advertising and such...

Originally posted by CPanther95
....and what's a fair charge for the local broadcaster to demand for it's investment in "infrastructure & maintenance" to bring HDTV to your city - above and beyond the expense of going digital which was mandated?

For all Sinclair's whining about infrastructure investment (documentation, remember: http://www.sbgi.net/misc/cable_resale_local_tv.pdf), they just doubled the dividend on their common stock, an apparent desperate, and so far unsuccessful, attempt to boost their languishing stock price. With ~45mm shareholders, that's $4.5mm/yr just gone, they're saying they have nothing better to do with the cash, such as boost the power in their underpowered stations, or even retire their high yield debt.

The best judge of their business model is their stock price...enough said.

Originally posted by foxeng
As I type I have FOX HD OTA on right now and from a low power FOX at that 23 miles away and other than cost of the antenna which I paid for 3 years ago, it hasn't cost me ONE CENT to watch FOX in HD, ABC in HD, NBC in HD or CBS in HD. How much have you paid on cable in the last three years and not seen FOX HD? How much money has your cable company made off of you for the same program material you could be watching for free right now?

Why should your cable company be making money off of you when they do not pay ONE CENT to the station to provide (or in this case to NOT provide) that service to you. That is the Sinclair argument.

You brought it up. Eh, you were saying?

I didn't get HD from Comcast solely for Fox HD. Obviously, because they didn't have it when I signed up. In fact, at the time the lousy Sinclair station here didn't even broadcast HD, or even "Faux Widescreen," just a low-power crappy 480i signal to comply with the law. Maybe if they had a better HD product OTA when I was deciding how to obtain HD content it would have persuaded me differently - but we're talking Sinclair here. Most of the others locals were already offered though. NBC (Cox) was recently added too, although that one isn't such a big deal to me.

Tell me, how is your ESPN-HD, DiscoveryHD, INHD, etc., coming in out there OTA? Eh, you were saying? Oh, you don't get those OTA?

See, while the local HD channels are important, I wanted more than just them. Meaning that if I went OTA to get the locals I would also need satellite HD for ESPN. Oh, but that would require a big initial outlay of $$, especially if I want the DVR. Which I do want, since I am rarely able to watch the programs I want to see when they are aired.

The day may indeed come where DirecTV or somebody else has the right package that will entice me to go Satellite/OTA. I am not opposed to the concept. They could start by offering an affordable DVR solution. But in the meantime paying the dirty cable company is my best solution. I really don't care if they don't pay one cent for the programming but charge me (a small amount) for it. They are giving me the means to see it. I really don't care if they pay Sinclair for it as long as they don't raise my rates any more. Problem is that would be bound to happen if they have to start paying all the stations.

Originally posted by aldujaparov
For all Sinclair's whining about infrastructure investment (documentation, remember: http://www.sbgi.net/misc/cable_resale_local_tv.pdf), they just doubled the dividend on their common stock, an apparent desperate, and so far unsuccessful, attempt to boost their languishing stock price. With ~45mm shareholders, that's $4.5mm/yr just gone, they're saying they have nothing better to do with the cash, such as boost the power in their underpowered stations, or even retire their high yield debt.

The best judge of their business model is their stock price...enough said.

So your answer is the 700 local broadcasters who have spent the money to voluntarily upgrade to HD have no right to offset that expense through companies who want to get that signal and sell it for a profit?

Because Sinclair paid a dividend, all broadcasters are just "making up" the fact that it costs money to upgrade from Digital to HDTV :confused:

Originally posted by aldujaparov
For all Sinclair's whining about infrastructure investment (documentation, remember: http://www.sbgi.net/misc/cable_resale_local_tv.pdf), they just doubled the dividend on their common stock, an apparent desperate, and so far unsuccessful, attempt to boost their languishing stock price. With ~45mm shareholders, that's $4.5mm/yr just gone, they're saying they have nothing better to do with the cash, such as boost the power in their underpowered stations, or even retire their high yield debt.

The best judge of their business model is their stock price...enough said.

But you didn't answer his question. The issue isn't stock prices. The issue is fair market value for their product and Sinclair feels they are not getting fair market value. How do you respond to that?

Originally posted by hondo21
But in the meantime paying the dirty cable company is my best solution.............as long as they don't raise my rates any more.

How's that been working out for ya? ;)

Originally posted by keenan
That's not really true now is it? There is some give and take between the station and the cableco in the form of advertising and such...

Stations have always been able to ask for compensation in many forms, including cash. In some markets, stations do get cash, others is trade of air time or compensation.

Originally posted by CPanther95
....and what's a fair charge for the local broadcaster to demand for it's investment in "infrastructure & maintenance" to bring HDTV to your city - above and beyond the expense of going digital which was mandated?

as I said before (I wonder what happened to it?), what their advertisers pay them

Originally posted by foxeng
As I type I have FOX HD OTA on right now and from a low power FOX at that 23 miles away and other than cost of the antenna which I paid for 3 years ago, it hasn't cost me ONE CENT to watch FOX in HD, ABC in HD, NBC in HD or CBS in HD.

I know some people who get FOX Greensboro OTA. They say it's free, and it's almost worth every penny. :D

Originally posted by aldujaparov
as I said before (I wonder what happened to it?), what their advertisers pay them

How about FX? That is a advertiser based business just like broadcasters and the cable companies PAY FOX to carry it. What is the difference between it and a OTA station? They both have advertisers, they both have infrastructure, cable wants to carry them both.

Originally posted by CPanther95
I know some people who get FOX Greensboro OTA. They say it's free, and it's almost worth every penny. :D

Same can be said for FOX Charlotte! ;)

Originally posted by aldujaparov
as I said before (I wonder what happened to it?), what their advertisers pay them

No posts were edited or deleted.

So, if Coke pays to put their logo on a jacket, I should be able to get those jackets for free and sell them?

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
Well, I've got nothing personal against Cable cos, I'm just cheap!

Just like I have nothing personal against broadcasters. And I'm not a cable fan either, just a guy who watches TV and has seen the cost go up and up, and now companies like Sinclair want to raise the price some more. My question is why for the last 50 yrs the broadcasters have seemed to conduct a business profitable enough to stay solvent, but now, they feel they need to charge for that signal in the manner Sinclair wants to.

My guess is that Sinclair never liked being forced into the ATSC standard in the first place and now they are trying to leverage the cablecos into covering the start-up costs and maintenance costs to provide something they never wanted to in the first place.

I really have no horse in this race, but the bottom line is that if Sinclair gets their way, EVERYONE of us will be paying more for our TV.

Originally posted by CPanther95
So your answer is the 700 local broadcasters who have spent the money to voluntarily upgrade to HD have no right to offset that expense through companies who want to get that signal and sell it for a profit?

Because Sinclair paid a dividend, all broadcasters are just "making up" the fact that it costs money to upgrade from Digital to HDTV :confused:

Please reread my statement; your response is nonsensical.

Originally posted by CPanther95
How's that been working out for ya? ;) Yeah, well constantly rising overall cable rates is one of those things I was referring to that I don't like about the cableco. But DBS raises their rates too, so if you want the ESPNs, etc., what are you going to do.

What I was referring to was I don't want them raising my rates even more as a result of caving in to Sinclair and starting the domino effect of paying all the locals for their HD signals. I know that would make a lot of you guys happy, to have the local broadcasters taking in all that loot from us sap cable subs, but if you somehow feel that is going to improve their programming or your OTA experience I think you're sadly mistaken. That money would likely go straight to the Sinclair political lobbying slush funds and the like. :)

Originally posted by foxeng
How about FX? That is a advertiser based business just like broadcasters and the cable companies PAY FOX to carry it. What is the difference between it and a OTA station?

The difference is that the FCC says if you want that license to broadcast OTA, it will be free. You can't stick up an antenna and get FX. :p

Originally posted by foxeng
As I type I have FOX HD OTA on right now and from a low power FOX at that 23 miles away and other than cost of the antenna which I paid for 3 years ago, it hasn't cost me ONE CENT to watch FOX in HD, ABC in HD, NBC in HD or CBS in HD. How much have you paid on cable in the last three years and not seen FOX HD? How much money has your cable company made off of you for the same program material you could be watching for free right now?

Why should your cable company be making money off of you when they do not pay ONE CENT to the station to provide (or in this case to NOT provide) that service to you. That is the Sinclair argument.

You brought it up. Eh, you were saying?

No one is forcing me to pay cable for TV viewing. In fact years ago I only had OTA, then HDTV came and I did not want to pay for a $500 OTA HD box, so I installed DBS (free E* 811), only recently switched to Comcast because they had HDDVR now for $10/mo.

Compared to $250 for an OTA HD box, or $1,000 for an OTA or DBS HDDVR, I'd gladly let Comcast rip me off on their HDDVR for $10/mo.

So let's not play the fairness card folks, it does not work here. Because in strict fariness, since twice as many people are watching FOX American Idol as those who watch ESPN, Sinclair should charge cable and DBS $6.00 to carry their FOX stations, but they only asked for $0.50. How would you explain why they short-changed themselves by so much? Please don't tell me they believe in serving the public good.

If today Comcast suddenly loses ESPN, they will lose subs to DBS by the thousands, but they don't lose much if FOX HD signals are not carried, not yet. Now if they lose FOX SD signals, that will be a different matter.

It means any given HD local signal does not have nearly as much value as its SD counterpart at this time, and no cable will be willing to pay for something of lessor value while they already have pretty mcuh the same thing for free. Start demending cable to pay for its SD OTA signals, now that at least fits the punishment to the crime.

Originally posted by aldujaparov
Please reread my statement; your response is nonsensical.

I thought your "statement" was responding to my question since you had quoted me. I've re-read it and still not sure what your point is, it certainly has nothing to do with the question posed.

Well....not everyone, (gulp) only the Cable customers who have been able to get something (the Broadcasters programming) cheaper than the current market forces allow (or so Sinclair suggests). I don't see it so much as Sinclair wanting to raise the price, as much as Sinclair wants to jump in on the gravy train...and who doesn't?

I guess my question is...Do people here, supporting the cable cos or not, really think the ATSC standard has changed nothing in the respective bargaining positions of Cable vs. Broadcasters? I tend to think it has precisely because broadcasters need cable less than they did with NTSC (again because of the crystal clear signal and some other issues).

Originally posted by raidbuck
Plus not everyone can get OTA. That is always ignored by those who are promoting OTA.

Rich N.

Couldn't agree more.

This needs to be tattooed on everyone's head when they talk about OTA.

Man, this thread is moving too fast for me, besides, the Oscars in HD is starting, provided to me by my local cable company at no extra cost beyond what I pay for the SD channels... :D :p

Originally posted by hondo21
That money would likely go straight to the Sinclair political lobbying slush funds and the like. :)

Yes, but as a Republican, that's all part of the evil master plan Bwa Ha Ha....j/k. I think Sinclair was foolish last campaign season, but whatever.

Originally posted by foxeng
But you didn't answer his question. The issue isn't stock prices. The issue is fair market value for their product and Sinclair feels they are not getting fair market value. How do you respond to that?

Whose question?

But to answer yours, I have no problem with Sinclair seeking their perceived fair market value for their product, so long as they disclose to their advertisers that they are withholding that product from 70% of their viewers.

And, as I said, their stock price is a measure of investors' view of their strategy.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
... Start demending cable to pay for its SD OTA signals, now that at least fits the punishment to the crime.
Yeah, let's see Sinclair do that when the contract is up. Demand that cable not retransmit ANY of their signals, analog or digital. Talk about suicide. At least for now, they absolutely need cable or they would die a quick death with hardly any viewers.

I wish they would be required to turn off the analog tomorrow and there was only digital. Then watch how fast they'd be slapping the "must-carry" card on the table.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80


I guess my question is...Do people here, supporting the cable cos or not, really think the ATSC standard has changed nothing in the respective bargaining positions of Cable vs. Broadcasters? I tend to think it has precisely because broadcasters need cable less than they did with NTSC (again because of the crystal clear signal and some other issues).

No it hasn't, those ATSC signals don't increase the size of the reception area, in fact, ATSC can be even more problematic than receiving NTSC analog.

They don't need cable any less than they did before. That dynamic has not changed, although Sinclair would like you to believe that it has.

Originally posted by keenan
No it hasn't, those ATSC signals don't increase the size of the reception area, in fact, ATSC can be even more problematic than receiving NTSC analog.

They don't need cable any less than they did before. That dynamic has not changed, although Sinclair would like you to believe that it has.

Fair enough, I guess it makes sense then why we stand on somewhat different sides in this discussion.

Plus not everyone can get OTA. That is always ignored by those who are promoting OTA.

One thing that I kind of think about this, as one who lives out in Tracy, and gets decent signals from Sacto, but has one heck of a commute, is that in some ways though you get what you pay for. People who want to live in the splendor of the hills, and the beauty of the Bay (Heck I would too, I just can't afford it!) are going to suffer from a harder time getting OTA. And here a little bit of my cruel streak comes out, but my compassion meter just has a hard time with it.

That doesn't justify the OTA solves everything issue, but I would hope that the Cable co and the broadcaster would be more amenible in places like the Bay Area were reception is more difficult, but that may be a pipe dream.

Originally posted by CPanther95
No posts were edited or deleted.

So, if Coke pays to put their logo on a jacket, I should be able to get those jackets for free and sell them?

We need to get off this "free" thing, Comcast does not expect to get the signal for free, there is always some sort of compensation involved, they just want to apply similar agreements as most all other broadcasters have done across the country.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80

That doesn't justify the OTA solves everything issue, but I would hope that the Cable co and the broadcaster would be more amenible in places like the Bay Area were reception is more difficult, but that may be a pipe dream.

You can bet on it. In areas like SF bay area the broadcaster knows dang well that without cable they have close to 80% less eyeballs than they do with cable. Having to depend on the 13% OTA viewers in SF these broadcasters would be in a real hurtin' shape when it came to advertising revenue.

So then, perhaps the issue does sort of resolve itself in hard to receive areas, while easier areas (like the Sacto-S.J. Valley) are going to have more carriage disputes.

Originally posted by keenan
We need to get off this "free" thing, Comcast does not expect to get the signal for free, there is always some sort of compensation involved, they just want to apply similar agreements as most all other broadcasters have done across the country.

EXACTLY! Comcast is paying every station for their HD. Its an issue of greed. Sinclair wants more then the standard rates already set.

The networks upgraded to ATSC because they were required by law. If they did not wish to make this upgrade, they had the option to sell their affiliate. No one is forcing them to be in business.

By offering the product OTA, they are making zero compensation currently. By keeping their signal off of cable, they are making zero compensation. By offering their signal over cable, which does not cost them anything, they WILL make compensation. Why should Comcast give them more then what the other big 3 affiliates in the market have agreed to once they made this same realization. What does Comcast have to lose? Comcast is NOT going to make any more money by offering the Sinclair HD signal to their customers, in fact they will lose money by having to compensate Sinclair as they do currently with the other networks, in addition the bandwidth they will have to pay for to transmit the signal to their customers. Comcast wants to provide this signal to their customers beacuse it is a good PR move, and it will keep their customer satisfaction ratings up.

Honestly, being in a Sinclair market and dealing with the annoyance of having no FOX HD, despite the bulk of the programming I watch actually being on FOX, I fully support Comcast because they are not "getting the siginal for FREE" and since the launch of their HD, they have not asked me to assist in paying for the HD (and it is not a hidden charge, because I would pay the same for cable with or without HD). I support Comcast because they essentially agreed to comply with Sinclairs request for increased compensation (and the HD "tier" would have remained the same cost, so Comcast would have taken a hit on their profits) UNTIL Sinclair demanded this compensation be based on TOTAL subscribers as oppesed to subscribers who actually use HD (based on a source within the organization).

The fact is, Sinclair gains everything from the increased exposure whereas the gains for Comcast are minimal. I challenge all who support Sinclair to prove me wrong on any of what I just said, because it is pretty clear cut.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
So then, perhaps the issue does sort of resolve itself in hard to receive areas, while easier areas (like the Sacto-S.J. Valley) are going to have more carriage disputes.

Could be, but generally if a broadcaster owns a group of stations those decisions, especially ones as fundamental as what Sinclair is asking for, hold true for all the stations in the group.

Another thing that really hasn't been mentioned is the fact that OTA network television has been losing viewers to cable networks left and right, a trend that has been continuing for years. OTA broadcasters need to be on those cable systems to be able to even compete against those cable-sat/only networks.

Originally posted by afail
The networks upgraded to ATSC because they were required by law. If they did not wish to make this upgrade, they had the option to sell their affiliate. No one is forcing them to be in business.

They are only required to broadcast a digital signal - not HDTV. And your attitude can just as easily apply to the cable companies. No one is forcing cable to be in business, or to pay anyone for a channel they do not want to carry. If the majority of cable subs don't care about local affilate HDTV, then they have nothing to worry about.

Those that want quality HD and are willing to pay for it, will go elsewhere. Those of you who would rather see a deal like the agreement "in principle" that offers sub-channel carriage in lieu of cash are supporting more channels at the expense of quality HDTV. A common attitude, but much less common on AVS' HDTV forums.

Originally posted by keenan
Another thing that really hasn't been mentioned is the fact that OTA network television has been losing viewers to cable networks left and right, a trend that has been continuing for years. OTA broadcasters need to be on those cable systems to be able to even compete against those cable-sat/only networks.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know how this season has been going for the Broadcast vs. Cable situation? Most of what I've seen has suggested that the Broadcast Nets have done much better this year, from shows like Lost and Desperate Housewives in addition to CSI and CSI:Miami. From some numbers it looks like the Nets are up almost 3-4 million viewers over last year and a 5 points of shares. I'm far from certain on this though, just looking at Fredfa's numbers and some older articles.

Brodcast nets have lost just a fraction of a percentage point of share so far this season -- better than they have been doing in recent years.
But they are still falling farther behind cable/dbs nets.

Originally posted by aldujaparov
But to answer yours, I have no problem with Sinclair seeking their perceived fair market value for their product, [B]so long as they disclose to their advertisers that they are withholding that product from 70% of their viewers.

I have NO DOUBT that their advertising clients know they are NOT on their HD feeds since they aren't paying for those feeds in the first place.

Originally posted by hondo21
Yeah, let's see Sinclair do that when the contract is up. Demand that cable not retransmit ANY of their signals, analog or digital. Talk about suicide. At least for now, they absolutely need cable or they would die a quick death with hardly any viewers.

That would be suicide for the cable companies. Local is their largest selling feature just like D* and E* are trying to make it their selling feature. Broadcasters can get viewers with antennas. It is hard for a cableco to get subs when they have nothing to offer.

If you think this little piddly outcry of the HD community is loud, you get the SD viewers who number almost 90 times more than HD viewers and cablecos could go out of business. Disney and TWC got into it in the late 90's, CBS/Viacom has been playing hard ball with Comcast and E* the last couple of years. FOX threatened TWC in the late 90's, and this is all SD, not HD and the cablecos, some with help from the government, all folded like a house of cards.

Right now both sides can stand around and beat their chests because the amount of money they are making off of the HD subs is a drop in the bucket.

Originally posted by keenan
No it hasn't, those ATSC signals don't increase the size of the reception area, in fact, ATSC can be even more problematic than receiving NTSC analog.

They don't need cable any less than they did before. That dynamic has not changed, although Sinclair would like you to believe that it has.

If the 5th generation chip does what it is suppose to do, it will not be anymore difficult for a OTA digital to be received than an OTA analog. The 5th generation chip is the reason Sinclair has started doing HD and why they have this stance with cable. Tests and reports from people who have seen the 5th generation chip all say the difference between the 4th and 5th generation is like the difference between SD and HD. Sinclair feels that they now have a viable weapon to use against cable and if the antenna sales are any indication, it looks like they may have it figured out.

When the 5th gen chips start shipping later this year, I think, you will see a vast improvement with OTA reception. Sinclair is banking on that.

Guess some of you OTA guys may have to spend some more $$ for a new ATSC tuner with that 5th generation chip then, so you can keep getting your FREE HD in the best possible way, or maybe pull in a few more distant stations.

I also think you overestimate the number of everyday folks out there who would go back to putting up antennas. There are so many people who are so used to cable that they will take whatever they get from it. They would complain about the loss of a station and threaten to drop cable, but my guess is a majority wouldn't do it. Not to mention the many apartment dwellers who have no choice in the matter.

If I couldn't get ANY of my locals I would certainly put up an antenna. But having just one of them missing likely wouldn't sway me to change my entire setup. It would be just like when I was a kid (we had only OTA) and we could never get that one station to come in good at all. You just live with it.

Someday, I may shoot for Fresno...Are they out of the Raider's Blackout area? But, that would provide for something above and beyond Cable can do. You can't escape your DMA with Cable.

People are used to Cable, but I don't think people are not as floundering as made out to be. People see the OTA reception now, and they ask questions, and while they have no interest in upgrading now (still with the analog televisions) the real question is, how will they behave when they move to DTV. Also, sats are quite ubiquitous generally, and Sat customers have an interest in at least attempting OTA, cut about $8 off their bill (and they already have the necessary tuner) so 3-4 mths, they've recouped their antenna cost.

Originally posted by fredfa
Brodcast nets have lost just a fraction of a percentage point of share so far this season -- better than they have been doing in recent years.
But they are still falling farther behind cable/dbs nets.

Broadcast nets may be losing share, but they have a way to go before they fall behind any cable net. No program on cable comes close to surpassing the ratings of the top broadcast shows.

Of course, spwace.
The point is that a decade ago thbe major networks commanded 80% iof the viewing audience.
Now that audience has shrunk dramatically, and the networks still see their share -- of the dwindlinhg audience -- shrinking year by year.

Originally posted by fredfa
The point is that a decade ago thbe major networks commanded 80% iof the viewing audience.

A decade ago you also didn't have the number of mind numbing choices either. To make a blanket statement that the networks are their own worst enemy is not completely true (even though they do find ways to continually shoot themselves in the foot). They have had some help with the 500 channel cable universe and the Internet. It takes two to tango.

Originally posted by CPanther95
So, if Coke pays to put their logo on a jacket, I should be able to get those jackets for free and sell them?

If Coke required me to drive to Atlanta to pick them up "for free," and you delivered them to my doorstep at a fair price, and I was willing to pay for the convenience, why not?

Coke makes money on soft drinks, not jackets. If they suddenly decided that they wanted a cut of your delivery charge, even though you were providing them with a lot of profit-enhancing exposure for their products at no cost, how would you feel then?

Sinclair and other broadcasters make money on advertising. They did so before cable TV ever existed. And when cable came around and offered the opportunity to extend their reach to new households, the broadcasters jumped at the chance to raise their ad rates to reflect the expanded market.

Local TV stations are profitable, and Sinclair owns a bunch of them. In my town, they provide the minimum required local programming -- including a tiny part-time news staff to keep costs down and profits up. Fox programming is their only draw, and they get a fair share of local advertising dollars.

As has been previously noted, the cablecos have been willing to offer non-cash compensation and the other locals were able to strike an acceptable bargain, including holdout Raycom which just released its digital CBS signal to Comcast last month with no cash changing hands.

I don't blame Sinclair for trying to negotiate a better deal, but I think it's a gross oversimplification to say that Comcast is selling something it's getting free. It's selling a service that brings a variety of signals to a subscriber's TV, including some that might be available OTA and others that are not.

Comcast has a right to set the price, and subs have a right to decide whether to pay it or choose another option.

Sinclair has a right to ask whatever it wants for cable carriage, and Comcast has the right to decide whether: 1.) the price is reasonable; and 2.) the impact on contracts with other broadcasters is manageable.

Right now there aren't that many Comcast subs who can really appreciate the difference between the analog and digital signals -- much less HD -- to really apply much pressure to either side. So both sides feel like they can play chicken a while longer without losing much.

I don't see any white hats or black hats in this corral, just a bunch of bandits in pinstripe suits taking pot-shots at each other and wounding a bunch of civilians in the process.

I have gone from an OTA viewer to DBS now to Comcast. I don't consider myself too lazy to put up an OTA or having no knowledge of OTA availabilities. In fact I have my OTA readily available but have not used it since I moved to Comcast. DBS or cable simply give me many more advanced options to spoil me with my new TV viewing habit, something OTA can not do.

This is probably true for most people, especially younger or more affulent populations. I drive by different parts of town, see OTAs only in old communities. DBS is widespread all over but I don't see any new OTA antennas popping up. Part of reasons why DBS is so popular is that people now get locals without OTA.

All these goes against the OTA hopefuls. The OTA technologies will fall further behind once DBS and cable or Telecoms start to offer networked entertainment solutions in homes. One of the things going against OTA is precisely what many of you bank on, being "free." Being free means there is little incentive for manufactures to provide advanced options to the OTA viewers since they are not likely to pay for those options.

And when DBS and cable continue to compete to bring us more advanced TV viewing experience, OTA crowd will be left further behind, and many of them will conclude they must ditch OTA and go pay-TV route.

To me it is not whether the networks rating must drop first, even if the networks ratings are to rise again against cable channels, OTA will continue to die off for the above reasons.

While OTA DTV may provide a better TV experience for the OTA viewers, the cost is still going to be the major barrier. If I am still an OTA viewer, being lured to the better pictures DTV can offer, and faced with the decision to choose between a $300 OTA box or $12.01 plus $5 a month, to get that better picture plus more HD cable channels, guess what is the more likely pass I would take.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
This is probably true for most people, especially younger or more affulent populations. I drive by different parts of town, see OTAs only in old communities. DBS is widespread all over but I don't see any new OTA antennas popping up. Part of reasons why DBS is so popular is that people now get locals without OTA.

Maybe in Sacramento, but in my area, OTA installs are increasing at a rate the installers tell me they can't handle and it is mostly people who have just bought $4000 plasma's and DLPs and home theaters. Along with those OTA antennas, they are also putting in both DBS and cable so these people have all of the choices for HD. These are your 30 and 40 somethings (people who have only known cable) with money and many in new affluent areas of my town.

As was pointed out in another thread, the hip thing to have outside of your house is a 3LNB D* dish and an OTA antenna. Signifies you have HD.

YMMV

Part of the reason I think Sinclair is fighting a losing battle for now is OTA is not cheaper than cable once people start looking into the options. What Sinclair is fighting with Comcast today concerns only those who want HD OTA networks, and as soon as these people start to look at the options, they will realize OTA HD is not cheap, and cable basic tier (a very low regulated monthly fee) plus a $5 box ain't so bad in comparison.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Part of the reason I think Sinclair is fighting a losing battle for now is OTA is not cheaper than cable once people start looking into the options. What Sinclair is fighting with Comcast today concerns only those who want HD OTA networks, and as soon as these people start to look at the options, they will realize OTA HD is not cheap, and cable basic tier (a very low regulated monthly fee) plus a $5 box ain't so bad in comparison.

Sinclair owns the ABC here in my market and so it is not available on cable and people are putting up antennas. Got to have them "Desperate Housewives" in that thar HD!

Originally posted by foxeng
Maybe in Sacramento, but in my area, OTA installs are increasing at a rate the installers tell me they can't handle and it is mostly people who have just bought $4000 plasma's and DLPs and home theaters. Along with those OTA antennas, they are also putting in both DBS and cable so these people have all of the choices for HD. These are your 30 and 40 somethings (people who have only known cable) with money and many in new affluent areas of my town.

As was pointed out in another thread, the hip thing to have outside of your house is a 3LNB D* dish and an OTA antenna. Signifies you have HD.

YMMV

Yes maybe in Sacto or any town where cable is as competitive as DBS in providing HD and DVR sevices, but for those areas where cable is way behind or don't even have HD, this Sinclair vs. Comcast debate does not really matter does it?

The people you mentioned above are no different than me though I am short of being defined as affulent. I had OTA, DBS and now cable, my house still has both OTA and DBS antennas but I only use Comcast now because it happens to have the best HDDVR value at this time.

HD isn't cheap to begin with -- yet -- but it's certainly getting less expensive.

However, I haven't paid a thing for my OTA HD since April of last year. Much, much cheaper than cable.

Originally posted by dline
HD isn't cheap to begin with -- yet -- but it's certainly getting less expensive.

However, I haven't paid a thing for my OTA HD since April of last year. Much, much cheaper than cable.

If you paid $300 for an OTA box last April, you are probably still 10 months from breaking even compared to going basic cable/HD box route. Of course if your cable does not have HD or low HD tier, then certainly cable is no bargain for you, but then this Sinclair vs. Comcast debate does not really concern you either.

Jacmyoung, but in some ways, you actually show that Sinclair is pushing people to other options. You have the OTA antenna (which it sounds like you use to get CBS now) and you have the D* dish. What this means is, Is that Comcast has you (as you point out) as a customer now, and that it could easily change. That's the thing that cable also has to watch out for. Comcast is cheap now, but what if HD TiVo's dropped in price to about $200 a year from now...Maybe not yours, but a lot of peoples practices might change.

Originally posted by foxeng
If the 5th generation chip does what it is suppose to do, it will not be anymore difficult for a OTA digital to be received than an OTA analog. The 5th generation chip is the reason Sinclair has started doing HD and why they have this stance with cable. Tests and reports from people who have seen the 5th generation chip all say the difference between the 4th and 5th generation is like the difference between SD and HD. Sinclair feels that they now have a viable weapon to use against cable and if the antenna sales are any indication, it looks like they may have it figured out.

When the 5th gen chips start shipping later this year, I think, you will see a vast improvement with OTA reception. Sinclair is banking on that.

Weren't the 5th Gen tuners supposed to be out by now, it's almost March. I broke down last october and got a 4th Gen LG unit because I didn't want to wait until the 5th Gen hit the market. Turns out I am just too far away and too much hilly terrain to get any sort of reliable signal, and this is after spending close to $1000 on antennas, rotors, pre-amps and tuners, plus climbing and topping a 70' redwood tree to mount the thing. So, there ain't nobody that can say I haven't tried to get OTA..:D I really doubt the 5th Gen tuners will make much difference in my case, and at this point, since I'm getting everything I want, I probably wont even try, although on some level it becomes the principle of the thing, and I don't like giving up. :p

IIRC, Sinclair has not been against digital/HDTV as others have mentioned here, in fact it was more of them being against the type, they preferred CODFM(sp?) as opposed to ATSC...no?