Originally posted by wittangamo
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 believe this as well, until advertising comes into the equation there is not much leverage to be used by either side. And I think this is why Sinclair is trying to set a precedent now, because as soon as advertising starts the whole dynamic of these negotiations will change.

Preference was ALWAYS for "ease of reception". Had nothing to with COFDM (DVB-T), politics or anything else. We want our OTA viewers to have a reliable (H)DTV signal, nothing less...

Still the case!

Originally posted by keenan


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?

So is the 5th Gen supposed to be closer to being the "silver bullet"?

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
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.

The point was OTA is not the future, even D* has decided to invest so much to bring HD LIL, probably because they made the same conclusion that people don't want OTA in general.

OTA will fare even worse when DBS and cable bring out more advanced HDTV, home networking, DVR, music and other services. OTA simply can not compete in that area because it is "free".

So Sinlcair trying to use this OTA freeDTV as a bargain chip may not work as well as they think. I readily admit I will switch from cable to DBS or SBC or back, whoever can offer me better value in service, but since my local Sinclair station is not likely to subsidize me with a low cost HDDVR, I probably will not go back to OTA.

Originally posted by MisterDTV
Preference was ALWAYS for "ease of reception". Had nothing to with COFDM (DVB-T), politics or anything else. We want our OTA viewers to have a reliable (H)DTV signal, nothing less...

Still the case!

By the time the reliable DTV reception can be had at a very low cost, DBS and cable providers will have so much advances in offering (HD)TV viewing experience that will render any improvement in OTA services irrelevant.

Had nothing to with COFDM (DVB-T), politics or anything else. We want our OTA viewers to have a reliable (H)DTV signal, nothing less...

I'm guessing your swampland sales didn't go so well. Not buying this one at all.

Where's our at or near full power? Where's our DTV upconverter? No reliable signal in this Sinclair market. Sorry.

Originally posted by keenan
So is the 5th Gen supposed to be closer to being the "silver bullet"?

Those in the know say yes. I have yet to to see one, but maybe our esteemed Sinclair representative has and he might like to comment since LG has now said they will put the 5th gen chips in the integrated sets first and STBs next year.

In the meantime, Samsung supposedly has a 5th gen chip of their own and they are about to release those as soon as they get enough of them so they aren't run over by the people waiting for them.

guys , the thread is getting back to OTA vs Cable again, this is about SINCLAIR and CABLE not OTA -- it hardly has anything to do with OTA

Lol, but OTA vs. Cable is more interesting

But seriously, (added for clarity) from my point of view (close add) one problem is, that these issues are entertwined. The easier OTA is to receive the more reasonable Sinclair's stance is. If OTA is nearly impossible, Sinclair's stance is less reasonable.

I'm still looking at it as HD affiliates vs. cable companies since we all know that whatever Sinclair gets, everybody will get.

Originally posted by CPanther95
I'm still looking at it as HD affiliates vs. cable companies since we all know that whatever Sinclair gets, everybody will get.

I get all my network OTA so I don't care! :D

I pay $15 for basic cable that I don't use, just for the priviledge of paying $40 for Broadband. :mad:

That's the way it was here in Tracy, I got basic Cable because the overall bill was cheaper than just Broadband (you got a $15 discount if you were a CATV subscriber). I finally decided to go with DSL, and justify it by telling myself that for most Internet stuff the difference between my connection being at 1.5 Mbps and 4 Mbps is really nominal (since everyone else only operates so fast). It helps that probably about 50% of the people in my neighborhood have Sats. Less competition in the pipeline ;) .Total bill ends up being $30-35 cheaper.

Originally posted by CPanther95
I pay $15 for basic cable that I don't use, just for the priviledge of paying $40 for Broadband. :mad:

I'd go DSL if your not even using the cable programing, you already have a phone line right? Or are you still using smoke signals..:p

Originally posted by foxeng
Those in the know say yes. I have yet to to see one, but maybe our esteemed Sinclair representative has and he might like to comment since LG has now said they will put the 5th gen chips in the integrated sets first and STBs next year.

In the meantime, Samsung supposedly has a 5th gen chip of their own and they are about to release those as soon as they get enough of them so they aren't run over by the people waiting for them.

Yes, hopefully he will update us, it would seem that waiting until next year on STBs would put a crimp in Sinclair's promotion of OTA...

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
I finally decided to go with DSL, and justify it by telling myself that for most Internet stuff the difference between my connection being at 1.5 Mbps and 4 Mbps is really nominal (since everyone else only operates so fast).

About the only use for that speed would be to download video, and I personally, don't participate in such activity..

Originally posted by foxeng
I get all my network OTA so I don't care! :D

You need some salt to rub in our wounds as well? :D

Originally posted by keenan
You need some salt to rub in our wounds as well? :D

Just saying that I don't have to worry about what Sinclair and my cableco do. I watch my networks for free!

Originally posted by keenan
I'd go DSL if your not even using the cable programing, you already have a phone line right? Or are you still using smoke signals..:p

They own the phone company also :mad:

Originally posted by keenan
About the only use for that speed would be to download video, and I personally, don't participate in such activity..

Uh, uh , uh I don't understand! What activity are you referring to? ;) Do you mean videos that have, I don't know, say Taylor Rain or Britney Blue........... I don't participate in such activity either, I just thought that, Ah, nevermind.

I agree with you about the video point Keenan, and that's why I really felt no loss about switching over to DSL.

Cpanther-that's quite a deal the local utility monopoly has going there...where is this? Charlotte? Yikes!

Comcast HD viewers who are spoiled by HDDVRs will not give up Comcast for a single Sinclair HD station, so Comcast does not have much to fear at this time, but they do fear if they give in to Sinlair, they will have to pay everyone, therefore have a significant impact on their balance sheet.

Let's see 21 million subs, four networks each at $0.50 per sub, that is potentially 42 million more a month they will have to pay, for no more additional added benefit or for any competitive reason at all. Why would they do that?

Originally posted by MisterDTV
Preference was ALWAYS for "ease of reception". Had nothing to with COFDM (DVB-T), politics or anything else. We want our OTA viewers to have a reliable (H)DTV signal, nothing less...

Still the case! Uh, yeah. Right. I'm sure that's what some good troopers at Sinclair believe. But what I recall hearing was that all the delays in going digital with the whining about COFDM being better than 8VSB was nothing more than an excuse and a stall tactic. They really just wanted digital TV to go away.

Face it, Sinclair was dragged kicking and screaming into the digital broadcasting age. How ironic that they now pose as an advocate for the technology and friend of the consumer.

Doesn't wash with me.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Let's see 21 million subs, four networks each at $0.50 per sub, that is potentially 42 million more a month they will have to pay, for no more additional added benefit or for any competitive reason at all. Why would they do that?

They wouldn't when you phrase it like that, but what if they faced the loss of 10% of their subs who flock to DBS when HD LIL's are available? 2 Million lost subs @ $50 a month = $100 Million a month in lost revenue.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
I agree with you about the video point Keenan, and that's why I really felt no loss about switching over to DSL.

Cpanther-that's quite a deal the local utility monopoly has going there...where is this? Charlotte? Yikes!

It's not that un-common in many smaller areas, there was a poster awhile back in Missouri that was having all kinds of issues with the local monoply, telephone-cable co-and the local TV station all owned by the same folks. :eek:

It's a "smaller area", but they still have about 100,000 customers in the 2 counties they cover. So I'm not alone in my misery.

Originally posted by CPanther95
They wouldn't when you phrase it like that, but what if they faced the loss of 10% of their subs who flock to DBS when HD LIL's are available? 2 Million lost subs @ $50 a month = $100 Million a month in lost revenue.

You are betting on first of D* LIL will come in time to save you, then assume D* will pay you another $0.50 per sub. If D* will be so willing to take the plunge, then maybe Comcast will respond, until then why bother? Cable is known to follow the lead you know:)

Originally posted by CPanther95
It's a "smaller area", but they still have about 100,000 customers in the 2 counties they cover. So I'm not alone in my misery.

Getting OT here, but just because your local phone company doesn't do DSL there are plenty of providers in you area that do, over the phone company lines.

http://www.dslreports.com/dosearch
broadband » ISP Directory

Originally posted by keenan
Getting OT here, but just because your local phone company doesn't do DSL there are plenty of providers in you area that do, over the phone company lines.

http://www.dslreports.com/dosearch
broadband » ISP Directory

Thanks, but none I've found that serve my area.

Back to the topic at hand.

The Zenith/LG 5th GEN is the real thing based on the work I did directly with them. (I even co-authored a IEEE paper detaing the improvements! Zenith/LG/Sinclair (http://www.ieee.org/organizations/society/bt/symp/fullprogram.html#FPM) )

We are disappointed that the first units are to be integrated...we see a big STB market. Time will tell...

Originally posted by foxeng
Those in the know say yes. I have yet to to see one, but maybe our esteemed Sinclair representative has and he might like to comment since LG has now said they will put the 5th gen chips in the integrated sets first and STBs next year.

In the meantime, Samsung supposedly has a 5th gen chip of their own and they are about to release those as soon as they get enough of them so they aren't run over by the people waiting for them.

Originally posted by MisterDTV
We are disappointed that the first units are to be integrated...we see a big STB market. Time will tell...

I personally was not happy to hear that news. But a Sat Guys posting is saying that the new MPEG4 receivers for D* will have digital OTA tuners WITH the 5th gen chip in it. I do hope THAT is true!

I am delighted to see Mr DTV is still a contributor here.
He is a valuable addition to the site.

so does anyone know whats up with the negotiations to get this signal back on Comcast?

There's been a settlement with Comcast:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050316/phw022_3.html

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050316/phw022_3.html

BALTIMORE, March 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SBGI - News) is pleased to announce that it has reached a binding retransmission consent agreement providing for the cable carriage by Comcast cable systems of all Sinclair stations located in markets served by Comcast. The multi-year agreement relates to the analog and digital signals of the Sinclair stations.
ADVERTISEMENT


Carriage of the digital signals of Sinclair's ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliated stations will begin in the coming weeks, and carriage of the digital signals of Sinclair's WB and UPN affiliated stations will begin later this year. Comcast has historically carried the analog signals of all the Sinclair stations located in Comcast markets and such carriage will continue under the new agreement.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., one of the largest and most diversified television broadcasting companies, currently owns and operates, programs or provides sales services to 62 television stations in 39 markets. Sinclair's television group reaches approximately 24% of U.S. television households and includes ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, WB, and UPN affiliates.

Threads Merged.

Anybody know if Comcast coughed up the 50 cents/sub Sinclair was looking for?

That's the $.50 question isn't it! We all want to know!

My $.50 bet says, NO.

Is this really going to be a few weeks? Especially for the fox stations that were on for a bit.

Anyone at home notice if any of the sinclair fox stations are on the air again yet?

Originally posted by beaudot
Is this really going to be a few weeks? Especially for the fox stations that were on for a bit.

Anyone at home notice if any of the sinclair fox stations are on the air again yet?

FOX45 in Baltimore is supposed to be back on tonight at 7.

Correction: FOX45 HD is on NOW!

Sinclair, Comcast in accord on HDTV
National agreement ends dispute over airing HD on cable
By Andrea K. Walker Baltimore Sun Staff March 17, 2005
Sinclair Broadcast Group, the Hunt Valley broadcaster that is one of the nation's largest independent owners of television stations, has settled a long-running dispute with Comcast Corp. that will allow viewers of Sinclair stations to watch programs in high-definition.

The disagreement reached a critical point in January when Comcast subscribers in Baltimore and in Baltimore County complained that they wouldn't be able to watch the Super Bowl in high-definition because Sinclair wouldn't allow the cable company to carry the digital signal for its Fox affiliate.

Sinclair wanted to charge the cable provider to carry its digital signal. Comcast refused to pay.

Two days before the Super Bowl, the sides reached an agreement in principle that allowed viewers to see the game in high-definition, a technology that provides a much clearer picture than regular television.
That short-term solution has become a long-term agreement, Sinclair announced yesterday.

Disputes between cable companies and broadcasters over transmission fees are not uncommon, although broadcasters risk losing advertising revenue if they seek to withhold signals from cable companies. And broadcasters rarely win such disputes.

Twenty Sinclair markets will be affected by the agreement with Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, although few viewers have the high-definition sets. Fewer than 5,000 of the nearly 500,000 cable subscribers in Baltimore and Baltimore County have HDTV. Neither company would reveal details of the agreement, including whether Comcast agreed to pay the monthly fee of 50 cents per subscriber per month that Sinclair wanted.
"It has always been our position that we have to feel as if we receive something in exchange," said Barry Faber, Sinclair's general counsel and vice president. "And that is true in this case."

Faber said Sinclair got broad multicasting rights - carriage of multiple digital signals - under the deal with Comcast. That would allow Sinclair to create an all-news channel, a weather channel or other types of programmed station.

Sinclair's Fox affiliate in Baltimore, WBFF/Channel 45, was to begin airing in high-definition digital last evening, said Kirstie Durr, a spokeswoman for Comcast. Its WNUV/Channel 54 in Baltimore is expected to air in high-definition this year, as are the company's ABC, CBS, NBC, WB and UPN stations across the country, Sinclair said.

"After working through the specifics of the agreement, we think everything came to terms from both sides and we were able to sign the deal," Durr said.

Sinclair, whose 62 stations reach nearly a quarter of the nation's television viewers, hopes that the agreement with Comcast will help as it negotiates with other cable companies about carrying its digital signal, officials said.

The company has said it needs to charge a fee to pay for the cost of upgrading its stations for digital programming. Broadcasters also argue that cable companies make money off HDTV by charging viewers extra for the digital cable they need to watch it.

Cable providers counter that broadcasters didn't have to pay for the added spectrum rights from the government to create digital signals and that they are asking cable companies to pay for programming that is free to viewers.

"It should be helpful in that it shows we are willing to agree to something in which the largest cable company in the country is also willing to agree with," Faber said. "If this is palpable to Comcast, it should also be palpable to Time Warner, Cox or any of the other cable companies."

I don't know what to read in to that. Although, I'd bet they didn't get $.50, but it does look like they may have gotten something(like $.10)...maybe.

I would actually bet they got nothing like that at all and nothing inconsistent with what the other broadcasters received.

GoIrish

Neither company would reveal details of the agreement, including whether Comcast agreed to pay the monthly fee of 50 cents per subscriber per month that Sinclair wanted.
"It has always been our position that we have to feel as if we receive something in exchange," said Barry Faber, Sinclair's general counsel and vice president. "And that is true in this case."

Suggests that Sinclair got only multi-casting rights...

The company has said it needs to charge a fee to pay for the cost of upgrading its stations for digital programming. Broadcasters also argue that cable companies make money off HDTV by charging viewers extra for the digital cable they need to watch it.

Cable providers counter that broadcasters didn't have to pay for the added spectrum rights from the government to create digital signals and that they are asking cable companies to pay for programming that is free to viewers.

"It should be helpful in that it shows we are willing to agree to something in which the largest cable company in the country is also willing to agree with," Faber said. "If this is palpable to Comcast, it should also be palpable to Time Warner, Cox or any of the other cable companies."

Suggests that Sinclair got some cash carriage...if they think this will help them reach an agreement with smaller cable companies.

Like I said I don't know what to read into the statement, but it does there was some kind of compromise.

I doubt that Comcast agreed to pay.

On the other hand, I never undestood the value of multicasting. How many weather and news channels is a person going to watch? (In any case, a Sinclair-owned all-news channel could be "interesting".)

welll when is the deal supposed to be effective? the HD channel still isnt working in nashville tn

We finally have the Sinclair CBS HD station on Comcast this morning. Read from the above Sinclair got Comcast agreed to multicasting a few more Sinlair news or weather channels in exchange for the HD rights, nothing more, nothing less. They felt they got something, that says all.

Now I can finally DVR Two and Half Men in HD and I may start watching CSI again.

Multicasting kills HD quality. PBS in my area is guilty of it...and the HD quality is terrible.

Originally posted by shuttermaker
Multicasting kills HD quality. PBS in my area is guilty of it...and the HD quality is terrible.

The above multicasting agreement does not necessary mean Sinclair will multicast subchannels OTA. It can just be that Sinclair may start some cable news or weather channels and Comcast must carry them as part of the agreement, much like the Viacom and Disney agreements with Comcast.

It sounds like Sinclair got multicasting carriage and not cash. I would rather they get cash.

-Reagan

Ok, so now I want to know when they'll talk to Time Warner.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
We finally have the Sinclair CBS HD station on Comcast this morning. Read from the above Sinclair got Comcast agreed to multicasting a few more Sinlair news or weather channels in exchange for the HD rights, nothing more, nothing less. They felt they got something, that says all.

Now I can finally DVR Two and Half Men in HD and I may start watching CSI again.

When does Sinclair finally vacate the premises up there? It's already been sold hasn't it? Remember, we don't allow Sinclair stations in California...:p

I agree.:)

Originally posted by keenan
When does Sinclair finally vacate the premises up there? It's already been sold hasn't it? Remember, we don't allow Sinclair stations in California...:p

No one seems to know at the moment. I was hoping it would be before June or so (I believe the sale was announced Nov/Dec). Just glad that we won't get the Sinclair multi-cast stations, and will get high quality HD from CBS...

here in pittsburgh, the CSR's arent even aware an agreement has been reached and have no idea when the signal is going to be turned back on. I hope its done Monday so I can change my DVR to grab American Idol off the HD feed

Anyone have a clue when Comcast will start showing Sinclair's HD programming. I was hoping to watch the Nascar race here in Pittsburgh but it didn't happen. When the Superbowl was in question, as soon as the story came out that there was a tenative agreement the station was on. Now, 3 days later no information is available. It seems as if both companys would want to get the programming to the viewers as soon as possible.

Originally posted by SteveTheWolf
Anyone have a clue when Comcast will start showing Sinclair's HD programming.

That would seem to depend upon market. Here in Sacramento, CA we got the
Sinclair owned CBS affiliate last Thursday.

Troy

Originally posted by Troy J B
That would seem to depend upon market. Here in Sacramento, CA we got the
Sinclair owned CBS affiliate last Thursday.

Troy

This was because there was a rush to get it switched on for the NCAA tourney...

We should know Monday when the other ones are coming back on...it shouldn't be too tough a switch since the framework was put in place for the superbowl

Originally posted by afail
here in pittsburgh, the CSR's arent even aware an agreement has been reached and have no idea when the signal is going to be turned back on. I hope its done Monday so I can change my DVR to grab American Idol off the HD feed Ditto here, but substitute 24 for American Idol.

As of last night it was still the blue screens with Comcast saying Sinclair demanded the channel be taken off, we would never do this to you, yada-yada. Didn't check before leaving for work this a.m., but I'd sure like to see it back on before this evening's shows.

I don't see what the holdup is. Flip the switch already. Channel 213 and the Fox HD program guide is already there. Probably the one guy who knows what to do is on vacation. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by hondo21
Ditto here, but substitute 24 for American Idol.

As of last night it was still the blue screens with Comcast saying Sinclair demanded the channel be taken off, we would never do this to you, yada-yada. Didn't check before leaving for work this a.m., but I'd sure like to see it back on before this evening's shows.

I sent an email to Comcast this morning asking when WPGH-DT Pittsburgh was going to be turned back on. I thought I would share what they sent me.

Thank you for contacting Comcast.
We appreciate the opportunity to address your issues and concerns with WPGH-DT.
Even though Sinclair made the announcement, they have not yet completed the necessary FCC paperwork to give Pittsburgh Comcast the OK to broadcast this signal. We hope to be providing this to you soon!
Thank you for your patience in this matter.
If there is anything else we can assist you with, please contact us. Thank you for choosing Comcast.
Sincerely,
Valerie
Comcast Customer Care Specialist

I wonder how much longer it will be....

Our Fox station (Richmond,VA) was back hours after this announcement last week.

Hmm. Sounds like a flimsy excuse to me. Strange how they didn't need "FCC paperwork" to be done when it first came on prior to the Super Bowl. As others have noted, it was on then almost immediately after the "agreement in principle" was reached. I can't see why this should be any different than then. Why can't the channel go live while the paperwork is being finished? And exactly what does the FCC have to do with the channel being on cable?

i have put in a call to marketing for Pittsburgh to see whats up -- everyone i talk to in customer service, even supervisors is totally unaware of this agreement... i wouldnt be surprised if no one in pittsburgh knew they could broadcast this signal again, its comcast afterall

Originally posted by afail
i have put in a call to marketing for Pittsburgh to see whats up -- everyone i talk to in customer service, even supervisors is totally unaware of this agreement... i wouldnt be surprised if no one in pittsburgh knew they could broadcast this signal again, its comcast afterall

Was there another HD channel added between the time the Fox feed went off and now? Much of Pittsburgh is on a 550MHz system is it not? I thought I read that DiscoveryHD was added recently...if so they may be out of room to add Fox back without juggling something else off the system....this is exactly what Comcast had to do to add our local Fox affiliate just before the Super Bowl, we lost SHO-HD...

Just a thought..

Originally posted by keenan
Was there another HD channel added between the time the Fox feed went off and now? Much of Pittsburgh is on a 550MHz system is it not? I thought I read that DiscoveryHD was added recently...if so they may be out of room to add Fox back without juggling something else off the system....this is exactly what Comcast had to do to add our local Fox affiliate just before the Super Bowl, we lost SHO-HD...

Just a thought..

its a good thought, however we were able to support it just fine...only a few suburbs in the north and south sections are 550 and I believe they lost SHO for FOX

I emailed Comcast this evening just out of curiosity to see what kind of response I might get. This is the reply,

I understand you would like further information regarding the addition of
WPGH HD to your Comcast channel lineup.

Please allow me to apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Unfortunately, we have not been provided with any information on the
Contract with Sinclair. At this time we are unaware of WPGH HD being added
to the lineup.

Even though Baltimore and Richmond have reached a agreement with Sinclair to
carry WPGH HD, that would not include the Pittsburgh, West Virginia or
Cleveland area.

We will make every attempt possible to notify you when this channel becomes
available to you.

Our goal is to provide a wide choice of quality cable networks and local
broadcast channels reflecting the diverse programming interests of our
customers. In addition to requests from customers, the following factors
play a part in our decision making process:

· FCC regulations, such as requirements to carry all local broadcast
channels
· Requirement by local broadcasters to carry their affiliated cable networks
· The number of access channels required by local government
· Customer satisfaction with networks carried in other systems
· Customer satisfaction with similar networks
· Importance of the network to our diverse community
· Level of interest across a percentage of our customer base
· Per-subscriber programming fees charged by the network versus the value
added to the line-up

What this all means is that we take all requests for new networks very
seriously, and that we carefully consider the overall impact of adding each
network. While we cannot honor every request, we do take each request into
consideration in planning future changes to the line-up.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any more questions. You may
respond directly to this email.

Sincerely,

I replied to their email and sent a copy of the Sinclair press release just in case they hadn't read it but the email I got back from a different CSR basically said the same thing they don't know of any such ageement. I quess we'll get FOX HD in Pittsburgh sometime. I'd like to what other replies people here may get from Comcast.

As of 6:30 AM, ch. 213 has been removed off the Pittsburgh system. I can only hope this is because they are switching from the blue message to the real feed

I once again emailed Comcast tonight about WPGH HD in Pittsburgh and asked about channel 213 now bei\ng gone. Here is the CSR's answer,

At 3:17 pm this afternoon, we were notified of the agreement between Comcast
and Sinclair. Prior to this time, we have no information on a signed
agreement with Sinclair. We apologize for the inconvenience this has caused
you.

Later today or tomorrow, WPGH HD will be aired on channel 213

WPGH will be on by the end of the week...according to a contact in their marketing department

Originally posted by hondo21
Hmm. Sounds like a flimsy excuse to me. Strange how they didn't need "FCC paperwork" to be done when it first came on prior to the Super Bowl. Please tell us how you know whatever requirements were necessary weren't taken care of prior to the Super Bowl.

Originally posted by Ken H
Please tell us how you know whatever requirements were necessary weren't taken care of prior to the Super Bowl.

Obviously I don't "know" anything about what has happened or is happening in this agreement. Nor do you. Perhaps you can point out what in my post indicated that I did. I used words like "strange" and "seems like." Clearly voicing opinions, hardly claiming to know.

My point is that Comcast put the channel on almost instantly upon the public announcement of an "agreement in principle" before the Super Bowl. That was without having a formal agreement signed. So now they announce a formal signed agreement but can't do the same thing? Maybe there is some legitimate reason for it, but it doesn't make sense to me. Especially in light of the fact that the channels have been turned back on in other cities.

Seems to me that whatever they put in place with the FCC (assuming such a thing is even necessary at all) for the interim agreement should still be valid now, while they finish any final paperwork. Ergo, sounds like a flimsy excuse to me and I thought I'd comment as such in this discussion.

So, are you saying you believe every word a Comcast CSR says, to the letter? Somehow I don't think you're that naive. Are you saying it's improper to reason on and question their response in a forum such as this? Apparently, your post and its condescending tone must rather be to belittle what I said in my post. So please ... why don't you tell us why you feel a need to go out of your way to do that?

Originally posted by hondo21
Obviously I don't "know" anything about what has happened or is happening in this agreement. Nor do you. Perhaps you can point out what in my post indicated that I did. I used words like "strange" and "seems like." Clearly voicing opinions, hardly claiming to know.You very clearly said "Strange how they didn't need "FCC paperwork" to be done when it first came on prior to the Super Bowl.


So now they announce a formal signed agreement but can't do the same thing? Maybe there is some legitimate reason for it, but it doesn't make sense to me.What makes you think it should make sense to you? Are you in the TV business? Face it, lots of things don't make sense a lot of the time with HDTV, to the layperson.

All I'm saying is that you don't know if there was a prior agreement or not, let alone why the issue is now. Of course I don't believe what the CSR said; I don't know what the issue is, but it could just as well be legitimate as not, which you obviously don't believe.

Sorry. Should have said "strange how they didn't seem to need FCC approval ..." Guess I need to be more precise in my language when posting opinions, lest I get taken to task.

which you obviously don't believe.And that's all I was ever trying to state - my immediate reaction and opinion on the Comcast response. So why is expressing an opinion on a discussion forum wrong? If you know I'm wrong then correct me. If not, then your post is just an opinion too, and just as open to criticism.

What I'd like to see is somebody who does know what the requirements are in this situation give us some insight. What specific FCC approvals, if any, are required to allow retransmission on a cable system? What factors would the FCC take into consideration when reviewing such a deal or request? Do they have to formally approve it for "interim" agreements? Is there a time period they are allowed to broadcast informally, after which a formal agreement is required? --- I don't know about any of this.

But mainly what I want is just for the Fox HD to be turned back on. I'm sure it will be soon. Just a little disappointed it couldn't be done sooner, like before 24 last night.

Where is MisterDTV when you need him. He started it:)

WPGH-DT back on the air on Comcast Pittsburgh, sometime before 10 p.m. Good to go.

Did anyone see Skyreport that said Sinclair signed a retransmit agreement with Directv for locals and also said they would be on board for locals in HD??

http://www.skyreport.com/

Very bottom of the page today.

Yes, I saw thought last night and thought it was interesting. I have no idea what is entailed for sat carriage, but to have an agreement with Sinclair already for HD locals would seem to give an indication of how serious DirecTV is about providing LiL-HD. With a company that fought tooth and nail with the cablecos my un-educated guess is that DirecTV is probably is paying more for this carriage than the cablecos are. Sort of makes you wonder how future DirecTV bills are going to look as far as price.

Unlike cablecos, DBS companies already pay cash for LIL's (SD) - there was never really any doubt that the DBS companies would easily obtain broadcast rights for HD LILs. That's why the cablecos had to come to some sort of arrangement before DBS companies started offering HD LILs - or they would have been at a significant competitive disadvantage.

Well, the bottom line for DirecTV customers is that it seems the LiL-HD is moving right along, which is good. One does have to wonder about the resulting cost to the sub though. In a market like mine, SF, with a potential 7-8 channels in HD it could add up to a fair amount of money. Based on what I have seen from DirecTV in the past though, if there is any increase in cost it will probably be minimal. Hopefully...

I wouldn't be surprised if the roughly $0.27 per sub that DBS pays for SD was enough to get the rights to the HD as well. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if HD LIL's were included in the $5.99 "Locals Package" with no additional charge. If there is an additional charge, it won't be directly from carriage fees.

You're probably right. I am so angry with Comcast I can't wait for DirecTV to get the ball rolling with their new birds.

Still off-topic..:p But DirecTV will be having an investor conference call on May 11. Not quite sure how to access it, hopefully from their site somehow.

http://phoenix.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=694318&highlight=
DIRECTV News Release

Hey guys can we rename this thread to EMMIS Communications carnage. At least Sinclaire has broken there boycott of cable. Here in Green Bay WI, the local WLUK FOX is owned by the EMMIS Communications bastard's. No Green Bay Packer's in HD. Also in Green Bay no fox sports, World series baseball, Nascar, Or Supper bowl this year. At least Sinclair is talking. TW has thrown in the towels trying to get these clowns to move.

Sinclair's agreement with Comcast clearly did not include a per-sub charge for their HD carriage. From this D* agreement, it appeared there will be no additional per-sub charge to D* for carrying Sinclair's HD LIL on D* either.

So much for the Sinclair's determination that their millions and millions of HD investment should be shared by other carriers.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Sinclair's agreement with Comcast clearly did not include a per-sub charge for their HD carriage. From this D* agreement, it appeared there will be no additional per-sub charge to D* for carrying Sinclair's HD LIL on D* either.

No need - D*'s already paying cash.

Originally posted by CPanther95
No need - D*'s already paying cash.

Not HD LIL no. We are talking recouping the added investment sinclair was forced to make for HD broadcasts. Apparently so far no one had bought into the idea of footing part of that bill.

D* will pay for either SD or HD. I'm sure Sinclair is happy to get $0.25 to $0.30 per sub - even if that's for both signals combined.

Any news or thread like this regarding Sinclair's negotiations with Cox Cable or Time Warner? Now that Sinclair's on Comcast, you would think that Cox and TW are not far behind.

Originally posted by CPanther95
D* will pay for either SD or HD. I'm sure Sinclair is happy to get $0.25 to $0.30 per sub - even if that's for both signals combined.

I don't understand. If D* will not pay any extras for carrying Sinclair's HD LILs, why do you insist D* will be paying for the Sinclair HD LILs?

The agreement did not appear to have increased SD carriage fees, and by Sinclair's own words, they did not appear to get more for HD LILs.

The people that I know seem to be saying that D* is now paying 60 cents per local channel subscriber for both the SD and HD LIL feed. That means for example that all Tampa Bay Area customers that receive WTTA as part of their 5.99/month locals package will soon get both the SD and HD feeds of WTTA as part of their locals channel package at no extra cost and the no extra cost has been made official. So for every customer that orders the local channels package at 5.99/month just remember that 60 cents of that 6 dollars per month is going to Sinclair so you can get their SD and soon their HD feed.

I would say a little over half of your 6 dollars per month will go to pay the broadcasters for your SD and HD feeds while the rest goes into I would guess some type of pool for retention costs or to pay for launching of new satellites or replacing hardware or something like that. Plus a little is left for pure profit.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
I don't understand. If D* will not pay any extras for carrying Sinclair's HD LILs, why do you insist D* will be paying for the Sinclair HD LILs?

The agreement did not appear to have increased SD carriage fees, and by Sinclair's own words, they did not appear to get more for HD LILs.

Because they are already paying the local stations for carriage. Whether or not they pay extra for HD isn't the point (although Longhorn says he hears they are) they are getting the fee from D* even if someone only subs to SD LILs.

Originally posted by CPanther95
Because they are already paying the local stations for carriage. Whether or not they pay extra for HD isn't the point (although Longhorn says he hears they are) they are getting the fee from D* even if someone only subs to SD LILs.

If Longhorn can prove D* will be paying more than what they have been paying from the old contract because of future HD LIL, I will agree Sinclair has succeeded in getting D* to pay part of their HDTV investment, otherwise my view stands.

You're pretty naive if you think that Sinclair is concerned with cash coming in specifically to be earmarked for "paying part of their HD investment". Sinclair is a business and cash is cash - they don't care if they are getting it for their SD signal or for the HD signal.

Sinclair and all other local affiliates have already succeeded in getting DBS companies to pay cash for the right to rebroadcast their signal. That's old news - very old news. Any extra they can get for HD is just gravy.

Originally posted by CPanther95
You're pretty naive if you think that Sinclair is concerned with cash coming in specifically to be earmarked for "paying part of their HD investment". Sinclair is a business and cash is cash - they don't care if they are getting it for their SD signal or for the HD signal.

Sinclair and all other local affiliates have already succeeded in getting DBS companies to pay cash for the right to rebroadcast their signal. That's old news - very old news. Any extra they can get for HD is just gravy.

Sinclair clearly stated in their open letter to the viewers that they believe they should be compensated for the millions invested in their HD upgrades. My view was in respect to this argument and this argument alone. I don't care if cable/DBS was paying or not paying for their SD signals, because it is irrelavent to the Sinclair's argument that they should be compensated for their HD investment.

Sinclair is definately concerned about the fact that they still can not convince cable companies to start to pay for their HD signals.

DBS cash spends as well as any other cash - I'm sure if they did not feel adequately compensated, they would have not agreed so quickly to terms considering only one of their stations will likely be carried by D* within the next 12 months.

SD fees are 100% relevant - do you really believe if cable companies said "We'll start to pay cash for SD signals, but you aren't allowed to call it compensation for your investment in HD" Sinclair would care at all? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by CPanther95
DBS cash spends as well as any other cash - I'm sure if they did not feel adequately compensated, they would have not agreed so quickly to terms considering only one of their stations will likely be carried by D* within the next 12 months.

SD fees are 100% relevant - do you really believe if cable companies said "We'll start to pay cash for SD signals, but you aren't allowed to call it compensation for your investment in HD" Sinclair would care at all? :rolleyes:

I'd bet even if D* had said they wanted to reduce the per-sub fee Sinclair might still have agreed to the contract extension, as their only hope now to pressure other cable companies to agree to the fee is to show some leverage by DBS carrying their HD signals.

The SD fees will be relevant had Sinclair argued that the reason cable should start to pay a fee was because both SD and HD cost Sinclair money and cable should contribute to both their SD and HD investments.

As it stands their word to cable is to compensate us for our HD investment, else we will not give you our HD signals, and I haven't seen any sign anyone had bought into that particular argument. That was my point. I did not attempt to imply anything else so please don't insist that I did.

Just so all of you know D* doesn't benefit from must-carry for the analog feeds like cable does so they have to pay to carry SD locals which is why we all pay 5.99/month to get locals because satellites cost money and its stupid for D* to spend all that money on satellites but be cheap on getting the channels when they have room in their 5.99/month package to do so.

Also my contacts have said that Sinclair wanted another 5 cents per sub for their SD feeds based on inflation as every other company does while Sinclair was only asking 20 cents per sub for their HD feeds which will stay the same as more markets rollout over the years. To give you an idea I remember Sinclair making a statement that cable should pay 50 cents per sub for their HD feeds in that market and what wasn't said in that article is that all subs would pay that fee not just HD subs on cable. Now the bottom line is that all cable companies are paying for their carried HD feeds but they are in the form of kickbacks such as if you give us a break on your other stuff we will carry everything you offer or the most likely is they would give kick backs in say advertising or something like that. Because D* can't do those things they pretty much pay for it upfront but don't think for one second that BHN or any other cable company doesn't pay for it because they sure as hell do.

Don't confuse public relations statements with the real bottom line. Affiliates want cash payments for re-transmission. DBS companies already do this, so an agreement for HD re-transmission was a foregone conclusion. Cable does not do this, so they used HD to make their case.

If the DBS companies decided to stop paying cash for the SD feeds, an agreement on HD carriage would not have been reached so easily. You can assume otherwise, but you'd be wrong.

Originally posted by LonghornXP
Just so all of you know D* doesn't benefit from must-carry for the analog feeds like cable does so they have to pay to carry SD locals which is why we all pay 5.99/month to get locals because satellites cost money and its stupid for D* to spend all that money on satellites but be cheap on getting the channels when they have room in their 5.99/month package to do so.

Also my contacts have said that Sinclair wanted another 5 cents per sub for their SD feeds based on inflation as every other company does while Sinclair was only asking 20 cents per sub for their HD feeds which will stay the same as more markets rollout over the years. To give you an idea I remember Sinclair making a statement that cable should pay 50 cents per sub for their HD feeds in that market and what wasn't said in that article is that all subs would pay that fee not just HD subs on cable. Now the bottom line is that all cable companies are paying for their carried HD feeds but they are in the form of kickbacks such as if you give us a break on your other stuff we will carry everything you offer or the most likely is they would give kick backs in say advertising or something like that. Because D* can't do those things they pretty much pay for it upfront but don't think for one second that BHN or any other cable company doesn't pay for it because they sure as hell do.

Cable comanies have had the kind of agreement before Sinclair had HD signals. Comcast also has the kind of "commercial trade" or multicasting deals with the broadcasters, as well as with Sinclair. This is not what we are arguing for. When Sinclair asked for a set fee paid directly by cable on a per-sub basis, with the reason that they had to invest dearly in HDTV, cable did not buy into that. The multi-year agreement between Comcast and Sinclair proved that they did not get the sur-sub fee they asked for.

You did bring an interesting point to the table, since there is no must-carry for DBS, and DBS probably also does not have the kind "commercial trade" or multicasting deals similar to cable, they are more than willing to pay their carriage fees.

You only demonstrated that cable and DBS have different carriage models, just because DBS is paying a per-sub fee, does not mean cable should do the same.

While you have stated what Sinlair had asked for from D*, you still have not provided proof that D* has agreed to to fee increase or addtional charges for HD LIL in their contract extension.

If D* agreed to pay $0.20 per-sub to carry Sinclair's future HD LIL, it certainly set a precedent for all broadcasters to follow, by asking more fees for HD LIL from D*. How much will that impact the cable deals is still difficult to determine as you said yourself cable may allow other forms of compesations in place of a set per-sub fee.

But if D* has agreed to the fee increase or added HD fees, their LIL programming cost will almost double. I find it hard to believe the $5.99/mo. LIL fee will stay the same.

Originally posted by CPanther95
Don't confuse public relations statements with the real bottom line. Affiliates want cash payments for re-transmission. DBS companies already do this, so an agreement for HD re-transmission was a foregone conclusion. Cable does not do this, so they used HD to make their case.

If the DBS companies decided to stop paying cash for the SD feeds, an agreement on HD carriage would not have been reached so easily. You can assume otherwise, but you'd be wrong.

The problem is you kept arguing agaisnt something I did not say or assume. Even if you assume Longhorn's info is true, you still must agree one CAN separate SD from HD, because Sinclair indeed is doing just so. While I don't see the need to dispute your belief that SD and HD must be a single cash issue, I don't see how you can refuse to let me look at the HD issue on its own. If Sinclair can why can't I?

Why am I held to a higher standard and not allowed to have my own "public relations statement" but only Sinclair can?

You can make whatever public relations statement you want, and it will have as much value as Sinclair's. I look at Sinclair's statement (from a business standpoint) as a result of the following (in order):

1. Want more profit
2. Need to get cash
3. Make up reasons to justify getting that cash.

If someone can address #2, they don't really care about whether it really addresses #3.

Originally posted by CPanther95
You can make whatever public relations statement you want, and it will have as much value as Sinclair's. I look at Sinclair's statement (from a business standpoint) as a result of the following (in order):

1. Want more profit
2. Need to get cash
3. Make up reasons to justify getting that cash.

If someone can address #2, they don't really care about whether it really addresses #3.

Likewise, from a business standpoint:

1. Want more profit
2. Need to get cash in exchange for HD carriage but can't
3. Will take advertising or multi-channel arrangements instead of cash.

I don't see anything wrong with your numbers, just don't know what do you see wrong with mine and refuse to get off my back:)

I'm not on your back, you just seem to be arguing two different opposing things.

"2. Need to get cash in exchange for HD carriage but can't"

applies to the cable companies not to the DBS companies - because they are already getting cash from DBS. That's also why your #3. doesn't come into play with DBS. All I'm talking about is the recent deal with DBS companies which was never really in doubt.

Originally posted by CPanther95
I'm not on your back, you just seem to be arguing two different opposing things.

"2. Need to get cash in exchange for HD carriage but can't"

applies to the cable companies not to the DBS companies - because they are already getting cash from DBS. That's also why your #3. doesn't come into play with DBS. All I'm talking about is the recent deal with DBS companies which was never really in doubt.

Then all I was saying was if D* simply kept the old financial terms of the old contract, then D* did not see the need to compensate Sinclair for their added HDTV investment either.

How do you consider the above statement wrong?

If a tenant had been paying $500/mo. rent for the last 5 years, during the lease renewal, the landlord asked to raise the rent to $750/mo. because he just spent $50,000 to add two more rooms for the tenant, but the tenant refused and the new lease is still $500/mo.

Can you go to the landlord with a straight face and tell him: "Look he is still paying the rent so you did win."

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Then all I was saying was if D* simply kept the old financial terms of the old contract, then D* did not see the need to compensate Sinclair for their added HDTV investment either.

But if we believe Longhorn, DTV didn't keep the old financial terms. In that case it would appear that Sinclair is being compensated for the hd/sd channels.

Originally posted by AFH
But if we believe Longhorn, DTV didn't keep the old financial terms. In that case it would appear that Sinclair is being compensated for the hd/sd channels.

Absolutely! In that case Sinclair did win by asking D* to pay $0.20 to compensate for their HD signal, separate from the SD one.

I just don't know why I have to conisder SD and HD a single issue when Sinclair themselves, in negotiations with both cable and DBS (D*) treated them separately.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
If a tenant had been paying $500/mo. rent for the last 5 years, during the lease renewal, the landlord asked to raise the rent to $750/mo. because he just spent $50,000 to add two more rooms for the tenant, but the tenant refused and the new lease is still $500/mo.

Can you go to the landlord with a straight face and tell him: "Look he is still paying the rent so you did win."

This is more like a landlord that has rent controlled units paying $200 a month and the other units paying $500 a month. He wants to renovate and charge the rent controlled units an extra $200 a month - presumably to help offset the investment - but doesn't charge the people paying full rent any more. Why?, because they are already paying a fair amount for their units.

I think the problem here is you're convinced that there must be a "winner" and a "loser" If D* pays the exact same they win, if they pay a penny more, they lose. Or they can pay more, but it must be labeled as strictly for SD and a result of inflation. If they say it is for anything to do with HD - they automatically "lose". If that's how you want to look at it, that's fine. As long as the affiliates are getting the cash, they probably wouldn't even mind calling themselves "losers".

Originally posted by CPanther95
I think the problem here is you're convinced that there must be a "winner" and a "loser"

Very well put, I've been reading all these posts and that's the same thing that occured to me. Who really cares if someone wins or loses, all I care about is what DirecTV charges me.

<sarcasm>But Sinclair is evil! And they must lose lose lose! </sarcasm>

Ultimately, Sinclair would probably rather D* charge their customers the same or less for HD, they actually get cash from D*, the more subs that go to D* from Comcast the more Sinclair benefits.

Just to clarify Sinclair didn't do seperate deals for HD and SD but just one deal that included both but I was saying what my contacts said the old price was compared to the new so I and only I was saying that I if you put HD aside that a five cent increase would be standard based on inflation so I added that number to the old number and the difference between that sum and the new price they are paying and said that was for HD. So the deal was for about 60 cents per sub for everything but also take into account that Sinclair has many different stations such as Fox, CBS as well as WB and UPN so I would assume that CBS say would warrant more money than UPN but they just decided on one figure per sub whether they have a WB or CBS Sinclair station.

Plus don't act like Sinclair is the first to ask money for the HD feeds because last time I checked ESPN HD is in an HD Tier on Dish, DirecTV, Time Warner Cable, Knology and Bright House Networks. I do understand that ESPN isn't a local OTA station but the bottom line is they are getting paid almost the same amount but again they bundled all their ESPN channels into one single per sub price of what almost 3 bucks per month so I think these providers just looked at what they paid before ESPN went HD and added inflation and they took the difference in price and charged a higher price to HD Package subscribers. I promise you that InHD 1 & 2 and HD Net 1 & 2 don't reach even 2.50 of those various HD packages.

The bottom line is this isn't something new and Sinclair isn't the first to ask for more and get more and we also can't compare apples to oranges because DBS companies work in very different ways than cable companies when it comes to getting both SD and HD locals and here are the differences.

When it comes to cable say I have Time Warner Cable what people don't understand is that Time Warner Cable Corp isn't making our deals for our HD locals. Our local cable provider is actually making that deal.

With DBS their deals are national deals which means when a deal is done for Sinclair it includes all Sinclair stations accross the country not just a local market. Also be aware that again DBS doesn't benefit from must carry of SD stations which means they pretty much have to pay for both SD and HD signals.

Now also be aware that D* can't do local advertising on any of their channels so cable companies often would say to Viacom for example that we will give your so much free advertisment space on your other channels such as what MTV and such as payment for allowing us to have your HD feed. The fact is most companies get more money via free advertisments than HD carriage fees and both sides win on this.

Again we come to the fact that both sides have very different business models because they differ in key ways. But again don't think your local cable company isn't paying say Viacom so you can see ABC HD because they are paying but just in a different way than D* pays.

Originally posted by CPanther95
I think the problem here is you're convinced that there must be a "winner" and a "loser" If D* pays the exact same they win, if they pay a penny more, they lose. Or they can pay more, but it must be labeled as strictly for SD and a result of inflation. If they say it is for anything to do with HD - they automatically "lose". If that's how you want to look at it, that's fine. As long as the affiliates are getting the cash, they probably wouldn't even mind calling themselves "losers".

The only one who I consider win or lose would be Sinclair since they were the one who made an issue out of their HDTV investment in the first place. Everyone else made more HDTV investments and much earlier than Sinclair but did not make that an issue. If D* decides to pay $0.20 for Sinclair's HD signal I don't necessary consider D* a loser, D* subs maybe because D* will pass on the cost sooner or later.

I never considered Comcast a winner, rather Comcast subs because they don't have to pay extra for the Sinclair HD on Comcast.

As far as your rent control analogy it should go like this, if the landlord can't charge extra for his rental unit renovation because of rent control, then he has no beef against the tenant not paying more for the rent. Stop complaining about cable and move on if that was what you were trying to say.

Originally posted by keenan
Very well put, I've been reading all these posts and that's the same thing that occured to me. Who really cares if someone wins or loses, all I care about is what DirecTV charges me.

That's right if you don't believe business will pass the cost on to you in one way or another I have a bridge to sell you.

Longhorn, I have never misunderstood any of the points you were trying to clarify. What I do have and always had is a beef with Sinclair, of the fact that they were the one historically did everything they could to resist HDTV transition, when reluctantly forced to do so, they insisted, unlike most other broadcasters, that they should be compensated for the HDTV expenses, and as a result deprived many HD viewers the pleasure of watching their networks HD shows.

As HD advocates, I can not understand what you are all defending Sinclair for.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
That's right if you don't believe business will pass the cost on to you in one way or another I have a bridge to sell you.

Is it across the American River? :p

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Longhorn, I have never misunderstood any of the points you were trying to clarify. What I do have and always had is a beef with Sinclair, of the fact that they were the one historically did everything they could to resist HDTV transition, when reluctantly forced to do so, they insisted, unlike most other broadcasters, that they should be compensated for the HDTV expenses, and as a result deprived many HD viewers the pleasure of watching their networks HD shows.

As HD advocates, I can not understand what you are all defending Sinclair for.

I agree with Sinclair being slow and going against HDTV for as long as they did but your posts were more about a company paying for their HD channels which has nothing todo with Sinclairs past history and as many have pointed out is nothing new. I think we all agree that Sinclair hasn't been the best company when it comes to HDTV but you making two seperate subjects into one and this thread is the result of the different people replying to two different topics depending on which one of them is more important to them. But either way you have brought up some very good points.

I 100% agree with jacmyoung and anyone who doesn't think companies will pass on extra costs to the customers doesn't understand how american companies work because we are the worst at passing on costs to customers even though all other countries do this to some degree. People actually think that Time Warner Cable for example is giving them Discovery HD, TNT HD and their local HD channels for free but the truth of the matter is that their latest price increases are paying for those new channels and free for digital cable customers doesn't mean free.

Sorry for interrupting the discussion I need to vent.
Here in Green bay EMMIS Communications will not give me the privilege of paying for their channel through Time warner cable. They kept saying they are trying to start the USDTV system. Time Warner in Green bay has approached EMMIS Communications about settling. EMMIS Communications wont negotiate. At With the lastest EMMIS Communications press release they said they are having trouble getting any other O&O station to come along. DaH!!! Turn the signal on now with cable and take it off when they have something else to offer.

Thanks I feel better now. Die USDTV !!!

Originally posted by LonghornXP
anyone who doesn't think companies will pass on extra costs to the customers doesn't understand how american companies work

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the costs wouldn't be passed on - of course they will. Some of us would rather pay a nominal fee for a high quality HD channel than encourage any deal that favors multi-casting over treating the primary HD channel as a premium service.

We have a locally owned cable company that can't retransmit the Fox HD signal from Nashville. OTA is not an option cause I'm 90 miles out, and it would require a 100 ft antenna.

I'm backing our cable company for their stance of not paying for the right to broadcast it. At $23/month, I'd guess our cable rates are the cheapest in the US. I'd like for it to stay that way, with or without Fox HD. I'm guessing we won't get Fox HD until the analog signals are cut off. Then I hope my cable co tells Sinclair, they will retransmit the Fox HD signal for the small fee of $.50 per sub.

Glad that NBC will be telecasting the NASCAR races beginning in July which I can get in HD.

Any updated info. on this front? I believe I've heard that many of Sinclair's contracts expire 12/31/05, so I'm wondering what's going to happen after that. I'm still suffering along in OKC with no Fox or WB on our Cox Cable, unable to utilize their HD/DVR for those shows. :mad:

No ABC HD here in Greensboro, NC via Time Warner :/ Have all the other major HD networks, but not the Sinclair owned ABC in the Triad area. Freakin' sucks to be able to watch NFL all day Sunday in HD then watch Monday night football in SD because of a greedy Sinclair.

...is that the cable companies are required to carry the local broadcast stations if they want to show the affiliated network programming. This prevents the cable companies from using ABC, NBC, CBS, ie major market superstations, and thereby shutting out the local broadcast affiliates. The broadcast and cable companies are not allowed to charge each other either. This was done to ensure that local programming, local news, local public service - all those things that broadcasters say they will do for the privilege of getting a license - are not lost if cable is the signal delivery method.

This requirement does not extend to DTV if an analog signal is available too, but it seems to me that Sinclair is looking to double dip in that cable must carry the local affiliate for free, and Sinclair wants coinage out of subscribers for the DTV signal. It also seems odd that if Sinclair is willing to allow "Free over the air reception of DTV" that they would then have some/any added expense by allowing that same signal to go out on cable. Certainly not enough that would justify charging the cable subscribers a fee.

just my two cents, thanks, jt

What I hate is how they are still fighting going digital HD in many places. My local Fox went Hd because of how easy they made it to do so, but sinclair also owns our WB station and I have been told from there eng. department to not expect there WB to ever go Hd. They broadcast a signal now that you have to be with in 2 miles of there tower to even get ther digital SD signal. I have the 4228 antenna on a 25 foot mast and don't even get a blip from it.

The way it seems to me, depending on the interpretation (or rewriting, which may be needed to cover multicasting) of "must-carry" rules, when the switch is officially flipped, the cablecos will get to retransmit the primary (to be officially the digital) signal free, which is why they won't play Sinclair's game now because they think they'll get it free in the future. Sinclair, on the other hand wants to get a fee structure in place before they have to allow it freely, where a long term agreement might override the "must-carry" (free) rules after transition to digital as the official broadcast.

Our Sinclair CBS station is SD only, no subchannels, at about 20% power, just enough to create multipath distortion but not enough to overcome it.

The way it seems to me, depending on the interpretation (or rewriting, which may be needed to cover multicasting) of "must-carry" rules, when the switch is officially flipped, the cablecos will get to retransmit the primary (to be officially the digital) signal free, which is why they won't play Sinclair's game now because they think they'll get it free in the future. Sinclair, on the other hand wants to get a fee structure in place before they have to allow it freely, where a long term agreement might override the "must-carry" (free) rules after transition to digital as the official broadcast.

That's not how it is written or applied. Most Sinclair stations do not invoke must-carry and likely will not in the future. They are currently getting a fee (usually non-cash) for their SD feed from cable and a cash fee from DBS. They are looking for cash for their HD feed instead of the barter-type deal they currently have.

Cable is the one dragging their heels - knowing full well that once DBS begins to offer HDLILs in their market (and more than willing to pay a nominal cash carriage fee) - they will be forced to pay the same to remain competitive. DBS has been paying on average over $0.25 per net (SD) for years. An extra $0.15 - $0.25 per HD net doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

Personally, I'd rather have a $0.50 premium per HD network fee with some bandwidth minimums attached - than the multi-casting trend that is fast approaching as an alternate means of generating some cash.

BTW, "greedy" Sinclair is not the only broadcast group looking to implement a cash fee for HD. There are a number of groups negotiating the same thing - and comments from Viacom/CBS regarding their stations starting to look in the same direction.

Don't expect the transition hard date to change matters much. There's nothing preventing them from continuing to offer a separate SD & HD feed once they go all digital.

I couldn't agree with you more, CPanther95.

Why should MSOs get away with paying $2.50+ for ESPN (not counting sub fees -- or basic tier positioning for -- for ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, ESPNU and ESPN desportes) and nothing for local stations that provide network programs which get far higher ratings than ESPN ever will?

Dish and DirecTV have been paying sub fees for years. It is time cable companies stop screaming about rising costs (which they have allowed by silently acquiescing to monstrous price hikes from numerous providers) and start paying for the programming viewers want to see.

If that means many programmers who don't reach large audiences have to start lowering their sub fees -- or even going on some a la carte tier -- so be it.

Why should MSOs get away with paying $2.50+ for ESPN (not counting sub fees -- or basic tier positioning for -- for ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, ESPNU and ESPN desportes) and nothing for local stations that provide network programs which get far higher ratings than ESPN ever will?

Because local stations are available for free?

To viewers for free - not to be rebroadcasted by a third party for profit without compensation.

To viewers for free - not to be rebroadcasted by a third party for profit without compensation.

Well, that is contrary to how this has been handled between cable companies and broadcasters for the last 30 years.

I for one hope they drop any broadcaster before they make a cash payment that I ultimately have to pay for. A .25 cent fee for one broadcaster is $1.50 total per month for all broadcasters in most markets. This would also mean that in bridge areas between DMA's cable companies would most likely drop repetitive ABC's, Fox's, etc possibly reducing our choices for sports such as college and pro football games each week.

It's been free for all these years because being on cable truly extended the broadcasters advertising reach and made their spots more valuable to their advertisers. Nothing about this value has changed, just their greed.

If you want to pay broadcasters for their signal, write them a check directly each month yourself. I'm happy the way it is.

GoIrish

Well, that is contrary to how this has been handled between cable companies and broadcasters for the last 30 years.

They already pay, just through bundling or advertising - not cash.

If you want to pay broadcasters for their signal, write them a check directly each month yourself. I'm happy the way it is.

I get mine free OTA, so I don't need to send them a check. I do pay $4.99 to D* for my SD locals and a small portion of that goes to the local networks. I pay my cable company $12 a month for just local channels and they don't pass any cash onto them for that programming. They also require an upgrade to a $60+ package just to get HD locals - and still pay no cash to the local stations for their HD feeds.

I don't look at it much different than if some individual wanted to get that free material (maybe a season of 24) and distribute it for a fee to whoever will pay. Once you sell that material for profit, you need permission from, and compensation to, the owner of that material.

If cable doesn't feel it is worth it, they are free to pass (as some are now doing). The DBS companies haven't had a problem paying for programming, so we'll all have an alternative available.

Its kind of wierd that in paducah you can get FOX HD through Comcast cable. I guess they made a deal with them, but I dont know what made this situation diferent from other comcast/sinclair situations

Its kind of wierd that in paducah you can get FOX HD through Comcast cable. I guess they made a deal with them, but I dont know what made this situation diferent from other comcast/sinclair situations

I think all Sinclair stations are available to Comcast, just not other cable companies.

In Baltimore Comcast has had Sinclair-owned WBFF (FOX) since February and Sinclair-operated WNUV (WB) since August.

FWIW, in the biggest market Sinclair is in, I had a conversation with their Engineer this past week. They are currently running between 2%-3% of their licensed power.

He did tell me that WB was on them to increase power or else.

Apparently they had the higher power tubes in place, but had to pull them out and send them to other Sinclair stations around the country that were affiliates of the Big 4 as those requirements for DTV are still more strict at this time.

After the Viacom/CBS split first of the year, it would not surprise me to see CBS O & O's digital signals start to disappear on cable systems. Moonvies has already stated the independent CBS will be looking for CASH carriage of the digital signal. Cable can do without the patchwork of network affiliations that Sinclair has. But you start taking a major network off of cable systems in the top 25 markets, something ALWAYS gives and it has historically been cable that cries "uncle" first.

I'm midway between Nashville, and Louisville. Sinclair owns the Fox in Nashville, and wanted a subscriber fee from our cable co. Louisville has offered theirs for free, but they aren't running full power yet, and can't be picked up reliably. Cable Co did say there was a meeting or negoation period with Sinclari coming up soon they were invited to.

I'd guess our cable co will wait on Louisville's Fox to increase their power and carry their feed.

Unless you are in no one's DMA, that won't be an option.

They cannot carry the FOX Network Programming of Louisville if they are in the Nashville DMA and vice versa. They can carry MOST EVERYTHING ELSE EXCEPT the Fox Programming - so it really depends on where you are actually located.

For example, in Palm Springs, the local cable carries the local NBC Affilate and KNBC out of Los Angeles. However, at 8pm when the Network Programming starts, they have to blank it out and run local infomercials on the channel. You have to use the Palm Springs Affiliate for NBC Programming. At 11PM when local news comes on, they open back up KNBC's signal.

If you are in a legitimate no man's land, everyone with D* would like to know your zip code to "move" their account there :). But based on what I see on this map, all Counties seem to be in someone's DMA as defined by the dark black lines:

http://img416.imageshack.us/img416/4099/tnkydma6nd.png (http://imageshack.us)

Edit: If you are in Bowling Green's DMA and there is no Fox affilate, I can see how that WOULD be an option and as I do not find a Bowling Green Fox station, I can only imagine that is what you must be talking about. However, if you were talking about a CBS or NBC or ABC station, as one exists in Bowling Green, carrying Louisville or Nashville would not be an option.

I got an email today from my local sinclair abc saying they were currently in negotiations with mediacom....is this news ? or have they always been in negotiations?

Check your local thread for more details, but typically "negotiations" are ongoing even when the two parties aren't communicating with each other because they've reached an impasse.

Just to shoot an arrow in Sinclair's argument that subscribers need to "buy through" a digital tier to access DTV/HDTV programming, it's simply not true, at least in Raleigh, NC. I get all the digital cable simulcasts of the parent analogue transmissions, AND all the DTV/HDTV channels on my ATSC/QAM equipped TV "IN THE CLEAR".

And regarding the cry baby argument that satellite providers pay cash for retransmission, I challenge Sinclair to offer their HDTV on a "tiered" basis on cable just as the satellite model works. They would never do that because they know better, but let's stop comparing apples and oranges, shall we????

Also, Sinclair claims to be meeting it's "free" obligations. Sinclair's "pea power" stations don't reach my house, and I can visually see the tower they are on.

I just don't understand why any business person would have so much contempt for the industry he is in and the consumer it serves. But then they don't even belong to the NAB. (Must be too liberal for them.)

A quote from MisterDTV, Sinclair's DTV spokesperson:

"I don't want to be so crude, but it's putting broadcasters out to hang in the breeze. The entire digital broadcasting market will be stillborn. There are not enough consumers available to drive a consumers market. It will be nothing more than a niche market, and broadcasters who live and die based upon advertising revenues will die."

Just to shoot an arrow in Sinclair's argument that subscribers need to "buy through" a digital tier to access DTV/HDTV programming, it's simply not true, at least in Raleigh, NC. I get all the digital cable simulcasts of the parent analogue transmissions, AND all the DTV/HDTV channels on my ATSC/QAM equipped TV "IN THE CLEAR".

My cable company requires a subscription to their digital tier in order to receive HD local channels.

CPanther95,

Does your TV have a built in digital QAM tuner, (most don't), or do you have your own digital set-top that includes a QAM tuner? If you have to rent reception equipment from your cable operator, then, of course, you can expect a charge.

What many people don't know is that the format that cable uses to transmit digital signals is not the same format that over the air signals use. Some, but not all, TVs can tune both. The FCC requirements are only for the over the air format.

My point is that if you have the properly equipped TV, you should be able to access your cable HDTV in the clear at no additional charge. At least that's what I'm reading.

Yes, they charge for the HD cable box (which I have no problem with) - but you can't even rent the box, in order to receive local HD channels, unless you subscribe to the digital cable tier.

But yet again, your access to HDTV channels is restricted because YOUR TV does not have the ability to access them directly. The cable company is NOT putting any conditional access codes on these channels. They are included as part of your standard cable service.

It's the same as in the early days of cable when the vast majority of TVs only tuned VHF/UHF channels, and a converter box was necessary to access cable channels. It is not the cable operators fault that the consumer does not own the necessary equipment to receive the channel, and has every right to charge whatever he wants for digital service, providing that he is NOT denying access to anyone who DOES have his own equipment.

My arguement with Sinclair is that they accuse cable operators of generating incremental revenue from HDTV broadcasters, and that is simply a deception, lie, half truth, whatever you want to call it. Sinclair has been brought kicking and screaming to (H)DTV as they call it. Broadcasters should be doing everything they can to proliferate DTV. Sinclair is doing everything it can to ****** it, including providing poor technical HDTV quality, or none at all on many of it's digital stations.

But yet again, your access to HDTV channels is restricted because YOUR TV does not have the ability to access them directly. The cable company is NOT putting any conditional access codes on these channels. They are included as part of your standard cable service.

That's a ridiculous way to summarize the situation. Most cable companies do not require a subscription to a digital tier in order for the priviledge of simply leasing a STB or a CableCard. Mine does - they are using the popularity of the local HD broadcasters in order to force you to subscribe to their higher priced service.

How many TVs out there can tune into a cable company's local HD channels with no hardware from the cable company?

A quote from MisterDTV, Sinclair's DTV spokesperson:

"...broadcasters who live and die based upon advertising revenues will die."

Interesting that a company with mostly "ratings challenged" stations wants to move away from the traditional advertising based business model, which depends on viewers, and move to a subscription based model (income continues whether people watch or not).

Most cable companies do not require a subscription to a digital tier in order for the priviledge of simply leasing a STB or a CableCard. Mine does - they are using the popularity of the local HD broadcasters in order to force you to subscribe to their higher priced service.
I have not researched around the country but everywhere I have heard of does require subscription to a digital tier to get the STB or CableCard. I would not be surprised if they started giving the box or card for free and charged only for the access, this would get around some legislative efforts to remove the box (for a fee) monopoly from the cablecos.

How many TVs out there can tune into a cable company's local HD channels with no hardware from the cable company?
Any cablecard equiped TV (even without a card inserted) will pick up unencrypted digital stations, as well as any device with a QAM tuner (I have a MyHD MDP-130 in my PC and get 7 digital cable stations). Cable companies typically do not encrypt the local broadcaster's HD feeds so they are "in the clear" to a QAM tuner. This is not universal or even required in most cases so YMMV.

I have not researched around the country but everywhere I have heard of does require subscription to a digital tier to get the STB or CableCard.
Comcast does not require a digital tier for a HD STB or CableCARD. You can have the HD locals with a Basic Sub($10-20) with a QAM capable display or a $5 HD STB.

Interesting that a company with mostly "ratings challenged" stations wants to move away from the traditional advertising based business model, which depends on viewers, and move to a subscription based model (income continues whether people watch or not).

Let's challenge Sinclair to a compromise. They want "cash for carriage" from cable just as they get from satellite. Satellite unbundles local stations and offers them as a "pay extra" option. Sinclair needs to allow cable operators to place its stations on the local cable system as an optional channel for $1/month, since they feel their programming is worth so much. They could split the revenue with the cable operator, and everybody would be happy.

Except they know better......because in the case of "ratings challenged" WB and UPN affilitates, my guess is that a majority of people would pass.

So do you believe your own B.S. Sinclair or not. Step up to the plate. My bet is we won't hear a response from a Sinclair spokesperson on this forum however. Rumor has it Sinclair threatened its employees from participating in these types of debates.

There's 2 issues here long-term:

1) DBS is moving away from separately bundled local channels. Before long, locals will simply be included in the various packages - and DBS is paying cash for carriage to the local stations.

2) All broadcast groups are heading in the cash direction. Sinclair wasn't the first, and many others including, CBS O&O's have already stated that they intend to get cash for carriage.

The cable companies can drag their feet as long as they want, but even they know that eventually they will have to pay - just like their competition - in order to carry these channels. You'll see them all begin to fold at the same pace that DBS rolls out their HD LILs. Broadcasters can afford to be much more patient.

CPanther95,

With all due respect, DBS for a variety of reasons cannot, and will not unbundle locals. I also disagree that ALL broadcast groups are headed for cash, a few, maybe. Lastly, wired two-way technology, i.e. cable IS the future. Satellite may have gotten the cable industry off their butt, which was needed for sure, but the potential bandwidth of cable and it's near ubiquitous delivery make satellite a clumbsy alternative. Have you seen the "Frank-O-Dish" required for local satellite HDTV? It's hideous and technically fragile.

Bandwidth, it's ALL about bandwidth. As cable migrates to fiber-to-the-home, satellite will not be able to keep up.

Broadcasters are the ones who's business model is in trouble. With the ability to download "Lost" via Itunes, and SlingTV, who needs a local broadcaster anyway?

I'll put my money on cable ANYDAY.

Satellite unbundles local stations and offers them as a "pay extra" option.

That's not really the case any more. All of DirecTV's advertised packages are bundled with locals. Dish Network only offers them as a seperate option for the America's Top 60 tier.

DirecTV stated in a recent conference call that they are fast approaching the time where locals (both SD & HD) will be included in all their tiers with an exception for the 8% of the population that do not have them available.

Maybe true, but I would guess that they would grandfather existing huge non-local subscriber base. The price jump, plus the logistics of serving subscribers whose locals are not on the "core" satellite, would be a nightmare.

Sidebar comment. I happen to have both DirecTV and Time Warner Cable. If you want to have the cable verses satellite debate, bring it on!!!! They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and both will continue to survive. But at this point if I had to choose between the two, it would have to be cable. Overall superior picture quality, (especially now that all channels on my system are digital) with the long term promise of much less compression than satellite, although already better, and all the video on demand content that is right around the corner.

But then there's the NFL... No perfect solution.

Maybe true, but I would guess that they would grandfather existing huge non-local subscriber base. The price jump, plus the logistics of serving subscribers whose locals are not on the "core" satellite, would be a nightmare.

Not sure what you mean, but no extra charge for locals is pretty clear. It also means the local stations will get revenue from 100% of all D* subs in their viewing area.


Sidebar comment. I happen to have both DirecTV and Time Warner Cable. If you want to have the cable verses satellite debate, bring it on!!!!

This has nothing to do with cable service vs. DBS service. However, considering they compete with each other, neither can allow the other to gain a significant advantage for very long. Cable won't allow D* to be the only way (other than OTA) for subs to get their local stations in HD.

"... I also disagree that ALL broadcast groups are headed for cash, a few, maybe..."

I strongly disagree. There is no reason any more that cable companies shell out $.10 to $2.60 a month for cable "channels" yet pay zero for the network programming which is still by far their most popular offerings. And with the exception of live sports -- and "Sponge Bob" -- even network reruns on TNT, USA, etc, are day-in and day-out generally the top-rated cable fare.

The days are overof networks allowing their programming to be carried so that satellite/cable would agree to carry their cable networks.

Here is an excerpt of an article I posted earlier today on the "Hot Off The Press" sticky which discusses this very topic:

On-Demand Television Viewing Could Boost Broadcasters' Hand

There is fascinating article in today’s Wall Street Journal in which TV columnist Joe Flint looks at the total revolution engulfing the TV networks as well as cable and satellite providers. If you subscribe to the WSJ it is at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113259994741003284.html?mod=home_us_inside_today

If you don’t, here is an excerpt:

“…There is no denying that the distribution agreements (between the networks and VOD providers) represent a turning point for the broadcast networks. In a world where the majority of television homes have access to scores if not hundreds of channels and myriad other entertainment options, finding new ways to deliver content to viewers is crucial. But one of the major catalysts for these pacts that was lost in the noise surrounding the announcements is a desire on the part of the broadcast networks to force cable and satellite operators to pay the networks for their programming.

For years, broadcasters and local television stations have been frustrated that cable carriers shell out fees to the parent companies of cable networks based on the number of subscribers to their services, but pay nothing to transmit the signals of ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS into viewers' homes. So, for example, big cable companies like Time Warner Inc. or Comcast pay 55 cents to General Electric Co.'sa USA Network for every household that receives the cable signal.

Cable operators long have argued that it is unfair to ask them to pay for a signal that people can receive free with an over-the-air antenna. The broadcasters counter that if their signals weren't part of a cable operator's package, few people would subscribe.

The growing popularity of time-shifting could play into the broadcasters' favor in the dispute. That's because the networks reason that if consumers demonstrate they are willing to pay 99 cents or more for any individual broadcast program, broadcasters will be able to claim that their entire line-up should be worth at least a couple of bucks per viewer.

That, at least, is what Viacom Inc.'s CBS is thinking, say people familiar with the network's thinking. Chairman and Chief Executive Leslie Moonves has made no secret that he believes his network should be paid by cable and satellite operators in the same way the cable networks are compensated…”

The way the retransmission model has worked up to this point, for those who don't know, is through consessions, rather than cash. For example, ABC's parent Disney also owns a barnyard full of cable networks, ESPN being one. ABC tells the cable operator if he wants permission to retransmit ABC, he is going to have to add ESPN, ESPNews, ESPNClassic, DisneyTOON, et al, and PAY for those channels.

The cable operator may not want to have 15%-20% of his channel line-up clogged with ABC's channels, let alone pay for them, but in the end, he does. Of course NBC's and CBS's parent companies do the same. So indirectly the networks ARE deriving huge financial consideration, plus controlling what the cable operator carries, deriving cash and advertising dollars along the way. Jeez, do we really need the Fox Soccer Channel??? Well, like it or not, I've got it, and like it or not, I'm paying for it.

The broadcast groups charge HUGE fees for channels like ESPN, as much as $3.00 per month/sub. They absolutely refuse to allow the cable operator to "unbundle" these channels. The reason Sinclair wants cash is they don't have ANY bargaining chips.

It's ironic that in the UK all one needs to pick up the terrestrial broadcasters via satellite is to buy the dish. The channels are absolutely in the clear. Sky TV, the UK's answer to DirecTV could care less. People buy satellite hardware to get local reception, and then are exposed to all the freeviews and promotion that Sky can throw at them, including pay per view without being an ongoing subscriber. The attitude is this. Anyone can retransmit free OTA broadcast as long as they allow free access to those channels to consumers. Brilliant.

Here's my crystal ball for the future of broadcast TV.

Local advertiser's, principally auto dealerships, get consolidated into a dozen or so national "super dealerships". They become more interested in the efficiencies of national spot buys than local advertising. The revenue stream starts to dry.

Networks start to demand compensation FROM stations, a la the KRON debocal, just as stations demand cash from cable.

TV stations become more like the Clear Channel radio model, localism is abandoned, news operations shut down, (Sinclair has already done this), and local TV stations look more like PAX, excuse me, ITV outlets. All ownership restrictions are abandoned, the networks buy all the channels, shut half of them down, and they essential become repeaters. Down the road when everyone has fiber in thier homes, they ask themselves why they need to bother with all this expensive transmission equipment.

As far as the popularity argument goes, two interesting things have happened, one, less than half of all TV viewrship belongs to the Big Four, and the big three domestic auto manufacturers command less than 50% of the market.

Sinclair's tactics will, in the long run, hurt them. They are not as important as they would like to think they are. Time Warner will not lose any revenue by not carrying the Sinclair WB affiliate. Sinclair stands to lose what little audience it has.

Now, does anyone want to buy a Buick????

Dish Network only offers them as a seperate option for the America's Top 60 tier.

Really? Then why does it list different prices for all their basic packages (including AT 120+AT180) except AT60 Plus with and without locals on the E* website?

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/packages/index.shtml

Really? Then why does it list different prices for all their basic packages (including AT 120+AT180) except AT60 Plus with and without locals on the E* website?

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/packages/index.shtml

Because, um, websites change?

Because, um, websites change?

True, however I can find no info anywhere that suggests E* only offer locals seperately with AT60(or plan to) including other forums such as DBStalk/etc. I frequent often. But, maybe I'm just missing it.

So, I would appreciate it if you could provide a link to info that proves what you say is correct.

Thanks.

As a E* customer who uses primarily uses OTA for TV programming, I have no need, or desire whatsoever to pay them, or anyone else to receive programming from local broadcast stations.

Nitewatchman, no, I concede that somewhere on E*'s website most likely still indicated the packages were available seperately, they were probably just emphasizing local channels when I last visited their site. I'll have to wait till the next time I get one in the mail to be sure, but I'm more certain that my local print ads omit the pricing for packages w/o locals.

The only real significance to D* starting to include locals for no extra charge is that the local broadcaster will get paid cash for every D* sub. I'd wager that the actual cost to us will stay pretty much the same - it just will not be an option any longer.

Sinclair Announces Analogue and Digital Cable Carriage With Insight Communications
Friday December 23, 8:30 am ET


BALTIMORE, Dec. 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SBGI - News) is pleased to announce that it has reached a multi-year retransmission consent agreement providing for the analogue and digital cable carriage for television stations in eight of Sinclair's markets by Insight Communications cable systems, as well as providing for the carriage of multicast channels.
The markets which will be able to receive Sinclair owned, operated and/or programmed television station signals in high definition on Insight's cable systems are:


WICS/WICD (ABC 15/ABC 20) in Champaign/Springfield, IL
WDKY (FOX 56) in Lexington, KY
WYZZ (FOX 43) in Peoria, IL
WSYX (ABC 6) and WTTE (FOX 28) in Columbus, OH
WSTR (WB 64) in Cincinnati, OH
WKEF (ABC 22) and WRGT (FOX 45) in Dayton, OH

WZTV (FOX 17) and WUXP (UPN 30) in Nashville, TN and WMSN (FOX 47) in Madison, WI will also be available on a limited number of Insight cable systems in certain markets.

Barry Faber, Sinclair's Vice President and General Counsel, commented, "We are pleased to have reached an agreement beneficial to all parties involved. This agreement was made possible because Insight recognized the value of being able to carry our signals, which allowed for an appropriate economic agreement to be reached."

Sinclair has previously indicated that it does not provide cable operators with its digital signals without receiving adequate consideration. Sinclair continues to negotiate with other cable systems, and as a reminder, in those markets and for those cable operators where agreements have not been reached, viewers can access the high definition digital signal for free over-the-air.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., one of the largest and most diversified television broadcasting companies, currently owns and operates, programs or provides sales services to 60 television stations in 37 markets. Sinclair's television group reaches approximately 22% of U.S. television households and includes ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, WB, and UPN affiliates.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051223/phf001.html?.v=32

Sinclair reaches terms with WideOpenWest for high-def cable
Tony Goins
Business First
After a deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., WideOpenWest cable television customers will be able to watch Ohio State University in the Fiesta Bowl in high-definition.


Sinclair, which operates WSYX-TV and WTTE-TV, Columbus' ABC and Fox affiliates, said Wednesday it reached an agreement to provide its high-definition broadcast signal to Denver-based WideOpenWest Holdings LLC.

Sinclair has been providing its regular signal to WideOpenWest and other local cable providers free of charge, but has demanded payment for the high-definition signal.

Randy Nungester, head of WideOpenWest's operations in Ohio, said his company is not paying for the high-definition signal but, citing confidentiality, he would not disclose what WideOpenWest is giving Sinclair in the deal.

Sinclair is still negotiating with market leader Time Warner Cable, which has about 320,000 subscribers in Central Ohio. Time Warner receives a high-definition signal free of charge from NBC-owned WCMH-TV and WBNS-TV, which is owned by Columbus' Dispatch Broadcast Group.

Time Warner has been negotiating with Sinclair for "several years," said spokeswoman Judy Barbao, but it's sticking to its refusal to pay extra for the HD feed. Time Warner feels subscribers who spring for high-definition television sets shouldn't have to pay extra for the signal, she said.

The fact that WideOpenWest came to terms won't hurt Time Warner's bargaining position, Barbao said: "We're focusing on our own negotiations."

"Sinclair continues to negotiate with the other Columbus-based cable systems and, as a reminder, viewers can access the high-definition digital signal for free over the air," Dan Mellon, Sinclair's general manager in Columbus, said in a press release.

http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/high_tech/cable_tv_radio/2005/12/19/columbus_daily18.html

"Sinclair continues to negotiate with the other Columbus-based cable systems and, as a reminder, viewers can access the high-definition digital signal for free over the air," Dan Mellon, Sinclair's general manager in Columbus, said in a press release.

http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/high_tech/cable_tv_radio/2005/12/19/columbus_daily18.html

I don't want to pay for all the equiptment, but I would pay a small monthly fee to receive these two channels. Come on, Time Warner suck it up and the customers who want the channels will help pay!

Sinclair makes deal with Verizon
Ryan Sharrow
Staff

Baltimore-based Sinclair Broadcast Group has reached a multi-year affiliation with Verizon Services Corp., to provide cable service for Sinclair owned and operated television stations in the Baltimore and Tampa Fla., markets.

Sinclair's two Baltimore stations, WBFF Fox 45 and WNUV WB 54, are among those affected.

Baltimore and Tampa will also serve as the first Sinclair markets to use Verizon's FIOS-TV service. The service will compete with cable and satellite providers of television programming.

According to Verizon's Web site, FIOS will provide a 100 percent fiber optic network with an on-demand library, HDTV channels, DVR, premium and international channels, much like Comcast's digital cable service.

Sinclair hopes to enter into similar agreements for its other stations as FIOS-TV expands its footprint into other Sinclair markets, Sinclair General Counsel Barry Ferber said in a statement.

Sinclair's television group stretches to roughly 22 percent of U.S. television households and includes ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, WB and UPN affiliates.

http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2005/12/26/daily12.html

I am not a big fan of Sinclair, but come on.

If cable companies routinely pay $2.60 per sub for ESPN, which has an average viewership in prime time of fewer than two million people nationwide (that's less than two per cent of the viewers), why shouldn't ithey pay a buck or so per network affiliate?

After all, in prime time big four nhetywork affiliates routinely have four to seven times as many viewers as ESPN.

And in a given week, close to 80% of a market's viewers will actually watch a (big four) network affiliate in prime time. That's at least four times the number that will watch ESPN.

Given those figures, a major network affiliate should be charging cable companies at least $5-$7 per month -- if they were to use the ESPN model.

The cable companies got away for decades by not paying for carriage -- because in most cases they traded channel space for carriage with the networks and their O&Os. Now, as networks have cut their affiliation payments -- eliminated them, really -- the local affiliates want their share of the $$$$.

CBS has said openly it will demand payment for its O&Os in new cable carriage contracts. Dish and DirecTV have been paying local stations for carriage rights for years. Why should cable get this valuable property free?

I don't like it, but I sure can't blame them. They bring far more value to a cable/sat lineup than any cable network.

USA and TNT are the leading cable nets for 2005. Each has some original programming, but the bulk of their highly-rated workhorse prime time material comes from off-network series.

They get paid by the cable and sat systems. Why shouldn't the local affiliates which carry much of the soon-to-be-on-cable/sat material?

I am not a big fan of Sinclair, but come on.

If cable companies routinely pay $2.60 per sub for ESPN, which has an average viewership in prime time of fewer than two million people nationwide (that's less than two per cent of the viewers), why shouldn't ithey pay a buck or so per network affiliate?

After all, in prime time big four nhetywork affiliates routinely have four to seven times as many viewers as ESPN.

And in a given week, close to 80% of a market's viewers will actually watch a (big four) network affiliate in prime time. That's at least four times the number that will watch ESPN.

Given those figures, a major network affiliate should be charging cable companies at least $5-$7 per month -- if they were to use the ESPN model.

The cable companies got away for decades by not paying for carriage -- because in most cases they traded channel space for carriage with the networks and their O&Os. Now, as networks have cut their affiliation payments -- eliminated them, really -- the local affiliates want their share of the $$$$.

CBS has said openly it will demand payment for its O&Os in new cable carriage contracts. Dish and DirecTV have been paying local stations for carriage rights for years. Why should cable get this valuable property free?

I don't like it, but I sure can't blame them. They bring far more value to a cable/sat lineup than any cable network.

USA and TNT are the leading cable nets for 2005. Each has some original programming, but the bulk of their highly-rated workhorse prime time material comes from off-network series.

They get paid by the cable and sat systems. Why shouldn't the local affiliates which carry much of the soon-to-be-on-cable/sat material?

I do NOT think the local affiliates should be able to demand $$ for carriage from cable operators. The FCC gives them a license and dictates the fact that they broadcast OTA (first in SD, now they're dictating Digital terms). I don't think we, as consumers, should be forced to pay for something that others can get for free. They should be bound by their license to serve the public... and in my opinion that means working in good faith with local cable operators, because the fact is either with analog or digital a good percentage of each DMA can't pick up all of their affiliate signals even with high quality antenna setups.

In my market I have a full fledged antenna setup with boosters & the works but because my local Sinclair ABC affiliate is too cheap to fix a problem with their encoder and transmitter that would allow it to operate at full power over half of my DMA can't pick up their DT signal over the air, even with boosters and all of that. I can only get a clear analog picture from ONE of the major four networks, thankfully HD comes in on all of them OK though

Also you should consider that ESPN shares all costs w/ cable operators for the rights fees to the programming they air, whereas the nets pass a large part of that cost onto affiliates, and they command higher commercial rates as well. As for the "off-net" programs on cable systems... TNT, TBS, etc all pay syndication fees to the networks (or production companies) to air those based on their audiences as well.

I do NOT think the local affiliates should be able to demand $$ for carriage from cable operators. The FCC gives them a license and dictates the fact that they broadcast OTA (first in SD, now they're dictating Digital terms). I don't think we, as consumers, should be forced to pay for something that others can get for free.
Probably not the best way to put it. My response would have to be, "Well, what did you expect?" If you have cable, by definition, you ARE paying. The issue is whether the cable company gets to keep ALL the money for retransmitting stations' signals.

The cable companies got away for decades by not paying for carriage

Which the broadcasters were very happy with as the original intent of Community Antenna TeleVision systems got them eyeballs they were otherwise not able to count.

IMO as long as they are full power OTA, they've met their license obligation.

D*, and now Verizon, seem to have no problem coming up with a satisfactory arrangement. Like I've been saying throughout this thread, I suspect the minute D* starts rolling out HD LILs in some of the larger Sinclair markets - cable will suddenly change their position.

IMO as long as they are full power OTA, they've met their license obligation.

D*, and now Verizon, seem to have no problem coming up with a satisfactory arrangement. Like I've been saying throughout this thread, I suspect the minute D* starts rolling out HD LILs in some of the larger Sinclair markets - cable will suddenly change their position.

My affiliate is not at full power OTA, and they are operating in violation of the FCC's Mandate that all of the "Big 4" reach that milestone by July 2005.

If they have a vaild STA (Special Temporary Authority) from the FCC they are not in violation.

My affiliate is not at full power OTA, and they are operating in violation of the FCC's Mandate that all of the "Big 4" reach that milestone by July 2005.


:mad: I feel your pain. I live 7 miles from our Sinclair (FOXHD) transmitter and can not get it even with amplifiers and all. Sinclair and General Media (Our NBC Channel) are both at low power and both refuse to allow TWC to carry their signals. I missed NFC games last year and this year in HD because they are too cheap or have terrible planning/managment in getting their digital signals out. I have emailed, called, faxed, snail mailed, and tried any other way I could think to complain. It does no good. Sinclair and TWC (as well as General Media) are not playing nice and Sinclair just keeps promising to fix their transmitter soon.... well, soon is not two years!

I stand by my opinion.... Sinclair SUCKS! :mad:

I am just happy Sinclair had finally quit our market and our CBS affiliate is now O&O, but Sinclair's legacy continues because our CBS station still has trouble getting the HD guide info correctly. You see Sinclair decided back then to have their late news an hour ahead of all other networks affiliates, but rebroadcasted the HD version real time, so the HD guide was one hour off. Somehow it still haunts us from time to time.

:mad: I feel your pain. I live 7 miles from our Sinclair (FOXHD) transmitter and can not get it even with amplifiers and all. Sinclair and General Media (Our NBC Channel) are both at low power and both refuse to allow TWC to carry their signals.
Are you sure you don't mean Media General?

Are you sure you don't mean Media General?

It could be for NBC. There really hasn't been a lot that I wanted to watch on it lately. Fox however carries the two football teams that I follow as well as some of my college games. The FOX station is 7 miles away while the NBC station is about 15 or so. They both broadcast on low power settings from temp locations while they set up their tower (which they both share).

Bottom Line. Sinclair sucks. My local Fox engineer has responded to me a couple of times but Sinclair has been quite. They really do not care. I have refused to watch their station other than the football games that I can only get there. I do not support their advertisers and I email them daily.

Media General / General Media or whatever, they seem to be as bad. I do not watch their channel here either. I concentrate on Sinclair due to the football.

:mad:

I don't want to pay for all the equiptment, but I would pay a small monthly fee to receive these two channels. Come on, Time Warner suck it up and the customers who want the channels will help pay!


Its not alot $ wise for a OTA tuner. Plus, if your on the west side, you can get some stations from dayton too.

The other option is to switch to Insight or WOW if you can and get the stations now.

It's not the $ that's the problem. I already have an OTA tuner. Once you're used to using your HD-DVR, it's hard to go back to watching straight TV with commercials and no pause ability. I realize I could go with satellite to get a DVR with OTA built-in, but that's a whole other topic.

Thought I'd resurrect this thread. My Adelphia is changing to Comcast and I'm wondering if Sinclair still has a deal with Comcast to broadcast their FOX-HD stations? Specifically channel 53 in pittsburgh. Anyone know?

who do I need to bother?!

well I just got my new HDTV and upgraded my digital cable to the HD tier.... only to find I don't get ABC in HD because of sinclairs BS! my question is who should I be calling to complain? my local cable provider (charter)?

Now of course I could just get an antenna and try and get it OTA, but I am love wit h my DVR. :confused:

Mediacom filed an emergency retransmission consent complaint at the Federal Communications Commission Tuesday in an effort to get station owner Sinclair to begin negotiations with the MSO in good faith.

who do I need to bother?!

well I just got my new HDTV and upgraded my digital cable to the HD tier.... only to find I don't get ABC in HD because of sinclairs BS! my question is who should I be calling to complain? my local cable provider (charter)?

Now of course I could just get an antenna and try and get it OTA, but I am love wit h my DVR. :confused:

Send a letter to all of the local advertisers on the Sinclair station and copy Sinclair. Tell them you are an HDTV user, and since Sinclair is not on your cable system, your viewship of the station will be reduced since you will be watching mostly HD programming. Tell them that unless they boycott Sinclair, you will boycott their business. Be polite, and make sure you send it to the right eyeballs. THAT's where to get at them.

Send a letter to all of the local advertisers on the Sinclair station and copy Sinclair. Tell them you are an HDTV user, and since Sinclair is not on your cable system, your viewship of the station will be reduced since you will be watching mostly HD programming. Tell them that unless they boycott Sinclair, you will boycott their business. Be polite, and make sure you send it to the right eyeballs. THAT's where to get at them.



Sorry, but thats ridiculous.

You must live in a fantasy world where people boycott all advertisters in Newspapers because the Newsprint is cutting down the forests and the Amazon Rain Forest.

Stations sell ratings to Ad Agencies and so if you watch or not, its all calculated in. If people don't watch, they don't pay - its all reconciled in posting after the schedule is done.

And you will boycott the advertisers? LOL! You have to watch the station to find out who advertisers on it!

People continue to pay D* and E* for HDLITE without complaining and that is big bucks they spend EVERY MONTH.

And you think people will complain in mass about no cable carriage? Boy are you dreaming! If the advertiser has the best price, people will buy it, despite any boycot - thats been proven over and over again. They will not spend extra because a company happens to advertise on a Sinclair station, lol.

Just remember - spend the extra money to buy American! ;)

Sorry, but thats ridiculous.

You must live in a fantasy world where people boycott all advertisters in Newspapers because the Newsprint is cutting down the forests and the Amazon Rain Forest.

Stations sell ratings to Ad Agencies and so if you watch or not, its all calculated in. If people don't watch, they don't pay - its all reconciled in posting after the schedule is done.

And you will boycott the advertisers? LOL! You have to watch the station to find out who advertisers on it!

People continue to pay D* and E* for HDLITE without complaining and that is big bucks they spend EVERY MONTH.

And you think people will complain in mass about no cable carriage? Boy are you dreaming! If the advertiser has the best price, people will buy it, despite any boycot - thats been proven over and over again. They will not spend extra because a company happens to advertise on a Sinclair station, lol.

Just remember - spend the extra money to buy American! ;)

You missed the point. At a grass roots level when the media buyer for Fantasy Ford is trying to spend $x/month on local TV, and he asks his Sinclair account exec why ABC isn't on cable because he's gotten a few letters from customers, and the Sinclair account exec starts bashing cable, well, you've done a little damage where it hurts.

Send a letter to all of the local advertisers on the Sinclair station and copy Sinclair. Tell them you are an HDTV user, and since Sinclair is not on your cable system, your viewship of the station will be reduced since you will be watching mostly HD programming. Tell them that unless they boycott Sinclair, you will boycott their business. Be polite, and make sure you send it to the right eyeballs. THAT's where to get at them.

How about, no. Sinclair's basic position is quite reasonable. While, it's unfortunate that cable viewers are inconvenienced until the parties can reach a mutually acceptable compensation agreement, the signal remains available for free over-the-air.

How about, no. Sinclair's basic position is quite reasonable. While, it's unfortunate that cable viewers are inconvenienced until the parties can reach a mutually acceptable compensation agreement, the signal remains available for free over-the-air.

To those willing to suffer the inconvenience of tuning to a channel which is not on their primary provider. It's naive to think such technologically challenged people like my wife would even understand how to do it.

Those are the people that will call their cable company and demand that the channel be added...or tell their husband to switch to satellite.

If you read just the Multichannel article (a very pro cable rag), you come away with the feeling that Mediacom is MUCH more worried about loosing the Sinclair SD stations than the Sinclair stations loosing the cable coverage. IMHO, that speaks volumes about who is more worried about the outcome. Sinclair appears to be very content about losing the cable coverage and Mediacom is doing everything it can to stop it. It would appear the Emperor (cable) has no clothes

You missed the point. At a grass roots level when the media buyer for Fantasy Ford is trying to spend $x/month on local TV, and he asks his Sinclair account exec why ABC isn't on cable because he's gotten a few letters from customers, and the Sinclair account exec starts bashing cable, well, you've done a little damage where it hurts.

Fantasy Ford does not have any dealings with an Account Exec on ABC.

You clearly don't understand the advertising chain.

To the Ad Agency that actually deals with the rep firm that places the advertising for the Ford Dealer Group, neither could care less - they only care about buying ratings at a certain cost per point which the ratings dictate. If people don't watch, the rating goes down and they pay less, making it up on another station.

It's no big deal to them as they buy all the stations to make up the schedule and bring the schedule in at a certain cost per point, regardless of which stations are involved - they get the same number of eyeballs.

On top of that, as over 50% of the public has no HD source and wouldnt know it if they saw it, they can see ABC on their cable system and it shows up on their HDTV, so they know you are just some nut job anyway.

If it was as easy as you say, why haven't you been able to accomplish it with the Sinclair station in Greensboro or WRAL/WRAZ in Raleigh who are not on D* or E*? WRAL/WRAZ certainly isn't suffering.

If you read just the Multichannel article (a very pro cable rag), you come away with the feeling that Mediacom is MUCH more worried about loosing the Sinclair SD stations than the Sinclair stations loosing the cable coverage. IMHO, that speaks volumes about who is more worried about the outcome. Sinclair appears to be very content about losing the cable coverage and Mediacom is doing everything it can to stop it. It would appear the Emperor (cable) has no clothes

Mediacom is probably more concerned about how to handle an 800% increase in call center volume, and still be able to support normal business. The people who really get hurt by these feuds are the poor $8/hour customer service reps.

Call volume is a customer service reps best friend. It's when the call volume drops that you need to worry about the poor customer service reps, because their job's days are numbered.

Mediacom is probably more concerned about how to handle an 800% increase in call center volume, and still be able to support normal business. The people who really get hurt by these feuds are the poor $8/hour customer service reps.

No the people who get hurt on the cable companies who are try to play the "oh poor me" card like Mediacom is doing. Obviously the courts don't seem to worried about this since they are not going to rule on Mediacom's injunction request. Sinclair is sitting pretty and Mediacom is about to loose MANY subs and they know it. The Emperor truly has no clothes. This case proves what I have been saying for years. TV CAN do without cable unlike cable who can't do without the local broadcaster. Disagree all you want, but the facts are right here in this thread.

Call volume is a customer service reps best friend. It's when the call volume drops that you need to worry about the poor customer service reps, because their job's days are numbered.

It's never your "best friend" when the jerk on the other end of the phone calls to vent anger. These "disputes" are operational nightmares for everybody.

As far as job security goes, turn over is so high that there are never cutbacks that involve lay-offs. Normal attrition takes care of cutbacks in short order.

No the people who get hurt on the cable companies who are try to play the "oh poor me" card like Mediacom is doing. Obviously the courts don't seem to worried about this since they are not going to rule on Mediacom's injunction request. Sinclair is sitting pretty and Mediacom is about to loose MANY subs and they know it. The Emperor truly has no clothes. This case proves what I have been saying for years. TV CAN do without cable unlike cable who can't do without the local broadcaster. Disagree all you want, but the facts are right here in this thread.

We'll see.

As broadcasters like to point out, the signal should be accessible off air. If that's the case, cable shouldn't lose too many subscribers, after all, people aren't paying $45/month just to get four network channels. Some may migrate to satellite, but there are negatives to that solution as well.

No, cable's biggest concern is the disruption these events cause in their immediate daily operations.

No, they're typically paying $45 a month for about 12 channels, but 4 of those channels make up the vast majority of viewing for most. About a third of the households watch American Idol, and plenty watch NFL football on Sundays - they will find a way to get their Fox station. That will be an antenna (which most prefer not to mess with), or satellite - and for wives that can't figure out switching from cable to antenna, they'll either make their husbands switch, or find a man with DBS to hang out with. ;)

Sinclair, Mediacom Spat Takes Turn in Court
Sinclair presented a scheduling order from the federal appeals court handling its retransmission consent spat with Mediacom concerning a legal decision aimed at keeping the broadcaster's signals on the MSO's systems. Sinclair said the decision suggests the injunction won't be decided until after Nov. 30. Mediacom sought the court order in an effort to keep Sinclair broadcast station signals after a carriage deal between the companies expires Dec. 1. The retrans case involves 22 stations covering an estimated 800,000 Mediacom subscribers.

No, they're typically paying $45 a month for about 12 channels, but 4 of those channels make up the vast majority of viewing for most. About a third of the households watch American Idol, and plenty watch NFL football on Sundays - they will find a way to get their Fox station. That will be an antenna (which most prefer not to mess with), or satellite - and for wives that can't figure out switching from cable to antenna, they'll either make their husbands switch, or find a man with DBS to hang out with. ;)

I don't really believe most TV households could go back to five or six TV channels. It's not that people even watch 90% of what they have access to, but boy do they love to surf !!! :)

We'll see.

We are seeing it. Cable (Mediacom) is fighting tooth and nail trying legal angles from loosing the signals. Sinclair isn't. Tell me who is scared of what?

As broadcasters like to point out, the signal should be accessible off air.

You just my point. It is and it is FREE. Cable is charging for somthing that they are getting for free. Same as if you go out and hook up cable and not pay for it. Let's see how cable likes that one. They don't. Both is OK because you are taking money out of their pocket, but broadcasters it doesn't matter. In my book, that is stealing and you can't argue with that.

If that's the case, cable shouldn't lose too many subscribers, after all, people aren't paying $45/month just to get four network channels. Some may migrate to satellite, but there are negatives to that solution as well.

No Joe Sixpack I know who ISN'T into sports is willing to pay for more than one MSO. If MSO A doesn't have the FOX affiliate and they can't see House, then they will drop MSO A for MSO B because they do have it. That is called CHOICE. And that is most of the viewing population.

No, cable's biggest concern is the disruption these events cause in their immediate daily operations.

That is cable's problem, not the broadcasters. They should have thought about that before they got into this p*ssing contest.

If a local Sinclair ABC affiliate gets a kickback from DirecTV for converting a cable subscriber to satellite, the cable operator should have the option of importing a ABC affiliate from another market.

Broadcasters want an open market when it plays in their favor, but they play the exclusivity card when it doesn't. And that's why I side with the cable operator. It's not the money, it's the playing field.

DirecTV is already paying cash (and has been) to carry the local affiliate signals. If you want to level the playing field, the cablecos need to get out their checkbooks.

DirecTV is already paying cash (and has been) to carry the local affiliate signals. If you want to level the playing field, the cablecos need to get out their checkbooks.

As long as cable operators are allowed to unbundle local channels from their basic service package, and adjust pricing accordingly, no problem.

Regardless of how D* and E* position locals in the marketing pieces, they are optional tiers, and broadcasters are only compensated for those subscribers who pay the effective $5.99 upcharge.

If broadcasters would allow cable operators to unbundle locals, fine. But they won't, hence the unfair playing field.

As long as cable operators are allowed to unbundle local channels from their basic service package, and adjust pricing accordingly, no problem.

Regardless of how D* and E* position locals in the marketing pieces, they are optional tiers, and broadcasters are only compensated for those subscribers who pay the effective $5.99 upcharge.

If broadcasters would allow cable operators to unbundle locals, fine. But they won't, hence the unfair playing field.

Federal Law expressly PROHIBITS that. Locals must be in the clear on Basic Service.

Write your Congressman if you have a problem with that - because writing a letter to the advertiser isn't going to work here either, lol.

As long as cable operators are allowed to unbundle local channels from their basic service package, and adjust pricing accordingly, no problem.

Regardless of how D* and E* position locals in the marketing pieces, they are optional tiers, and broadcasters are only compensated for those subscribers who pay the effective $5.99 upcharge.

If broadcasters would allow cable operators to unbundle locals, fine. But they won't, hence the unfair playing field.

You're grossly misinformed.

It isn't an "optional tier" for DirecTV. Basic Total Choice packages include all local SD and HD channels (they carry) at no additional charge. That means all DirecTV subs would fall under any carriage fee agreement with the local affiliates.

My cableco OTOH charges $13.50 for local channel only service.

You're grossly misinformed.

It isn't an "optional tier" for DirecTV. Basic Total Choice packages include all local SD and HD channels (they carry) at no additional charge. That means all DirecTV subs would fall under any carriage fee agreement with the local affiliates.

My cableco OTOH charges $13.50 for local channel only service.

I'd give you my password to the DirecTV retailer website that confirms my statement, but then I'd have to shoot you. :) :) :)

Federal Law expressly PROHIBITS that. Locals must be in the clear on Basic Service.

Write your Congressman if you have a problem with that - because writing a letter to the advertiser isn't going to work here either, lol.

ONLY if the station invokes "must-carry" status, not "retransmission consent" status.

You are comparing apples and oranges here, like you always do. The law says ALL players have to play X, Y and Z. That is all that is in play here. Unbundle has NOTHING to do with this BECAUSE and this is a VERY BIG BECAUSE, federal law says so. It doesn't matter who or how it got into law, it IS the law. PERIOD.

It is also fact that that you take the position that there is ONLY two ways of receiving a local station, cable or OTA. You have two other ways, Dish and DirecTV. It doesn't matter that station A isn't on MSO A but is on MSO B. If the viewer WANTS station A then they have a choice to either NOT receive it or go to MSO B. Cable is DEATHLY afraid of this because they loose subs.

Not only are the broadcasters closely looking at this, but so is cable. If Sinclair wins, and at this point it does look like they will, you will see every cableco run for cover and every station not in must carry will demand and get compensation. Point, set, game.

I want to make this perfectly clear. The fight with Mediacom and Sinclair IS NOT over HD rights, but SD rights. If Mediacom looses, ALL SD and HD Sinclair signals go off the Mediacom systems. This is HUGE folks.

I'd give you my password to the DirecTV retailer website that confirms my statement, but then I'd have to shoot you. :) :) :)


A simple screen capture which confirms that locals are an optional part of Basic Total Choice would be fine - otherwise, as CPanther95 alluded, STFU.


And as most viewers use their cable DVRs to timeshift local programming - and cable DVRs will not allow OTA channels (and cable dvr subs are making up a growing number of subs) - you are certainly dreaming that most cable customers would not sub to the local channels if given the choice.

foxeng: It is also fact that that you take the position that there is ONLY two ways of receiving a local station, cable or OTA.

posg: Where does that come from? I have referred to D* & E* several times as an option.

HDTVFanAtic: you are certainly dreaming that most cable customers would not sub to the local channels if given the choice.

posg: Where does that come from? I didn't say it and I don't dispute it.

HDTVFanAtic: STFU

posg: How mature.

So, again, you claim one thing is on your screen which supports your claim but refuse to post it.

Anyone here can see who is delusional - and in this case - it's not me.

I STAND CORRECTED:

Where available, local channels are an optional part of your package with Dish Network ($5.00/month), but are bundled in the basic programming package with DIRECTV. This includes any high defintion local channels that you are able to receive over satellite. For DIRECTV, if local channels are unavailable where you live, you will receive a $3.00 bill credit each month.

P.S. This policy was changed by DirecTV earlier this year.

Thought I'd resurrect this thread. My Adelphia is changing to Comcast and I'm wondering if Sinclair still has a deal with Comcast to broadcast their FOX-HD stations?Sinclair and Comcast struck an agreement last year. Don't know when it's up ... but ... should be good for several years.

How long is the 'typical' consent agreement term anyway?

And IIRC the issue then was multicasts. Sinclair didn't get a per-sub fee from Comcast, Insight, and the others they were negotiating with then. They got an agreement to carry all the multicasted sub-channels.

However, Comcast does have some (potentially nasty) consent agreement negotiations coming up. Belo in 2007 and CBS O&O in 2008. Both of which have been very loud about wanting fees.

I want to make this perfectly clear. The fight with Mediacom and Sinclair IS NOT over HD rights, but SD rights. If Mediacom looses, ALL SD and HD Sinclair signals go off the Mediacom systems. This is HUGE folks.

It is HUGE folks. It means even higher cable bills and less incentive for broadcasters to invest in programming that attracts viewers, and as a result, advertisers. It changes broadcasting into a quasi-subscription supported business. Viewers will end up paying more and getting less. Wall Street will have been fed. And so it goes....

How long is the 'typical' consent agreement term anyway?


I think it's about 10 years, but the way the content delivery landscape has been changing the term may be less now.

I think it's about 10 years, but the way the content delivery landscape has been changing the term may be less now.

I thought it was three years.

No the people who get hurt on the cable companies who are try to play the "oh poor me" card like Mediacom is doing. Obviously the courts don't seem to worried about this since they are not going to rule on Mediacom's injunction request. Sinclair is sitting pretty and Mediacom is about to loose MANY subs and they know it. The Emperor truly has no clothes. This case proves what I have been saying for years. TV CAN do without cable unlike cable who can't do without the local broadcaster. Disagree all you want, but the facts are right here in this thread.A long time ago, a lot of us speculated that cable would eventually drop broadcast signals and let customers use "A/B" switches to switch between cable and broadcast antenna. It was a big topic when the current retransmission consent laws were passed in the early '90s. I'm surprised Mediacom doesn't mention that option at all on their www.befairsinclair.com web page. Granted it wouldn't work for everybody -- let's face it, cable was originally for people who couldn't get broadcast signals -- but many viewers would clearly benefit from such information, as would Mediacom.

Mediacom already benefits in this dispute by trotting out Sinclair's alleged shortcomings as a local broadcaster. Specifically for Iowa, Mediacom claims that it airs more local programming on its Connections channel than Sinclair does on its two Iowa stations combined. Its full-page newspaper ad, which has run in the Cedar Rapids Gazette at least twice this week, notes that Mediacom has "successfully negotiated carriage agreements with the other broadcast stations in the Cedar Rapids area, including higher-rated stations that compete with [Sinclair owned] KGAN."

I thought it was three years.
Could be, I might be thinking of franchise agreements. Three years seems to be a rather short time period though. I'm sure somebody here knows, I'll bet fredfa knows the answer.

Hint to Mediacom, if you want consumer sympathy that you're negotiating in good faith it might be a good idea to get the call signs of the stations you're in dispute with correct. The former KMWB has been WUCW since June 19, yet Mediacom doesn't have it correct on befairsinclair.com: http://www.befairsinclair.com/kmwb/index.html

It is HUGE folks. It means even higher cable bills and less incentive for broadcasters to invest in programming that attracts viewers, and as a result, advertisers. It changes broadcasting into a quasi-subscription supported business. Viewers will end up paying more and getting less. Wall Street will have been fed. And so it goes....

You must be kidding. Quasi-subscription? You must not be aware that broadcasters CAN and have had FULL subscription stations for the last 40 years. Nothing illegal about it. And there is no proof that cablecos HAVE to raise rates. They don't need ANY reason to raise rates now.

A long time ago, a lot of us speculated that cable would eventually drop broadcast signals and let customers use "A/B" switches to switch between cable and broadcast antenna. It was a big topic when the current retransmission consent laws were passed in the early '90s. I'm surprised Mediacom doesn't mention that option at all on their www.befairsinclair.com web page.


They don't because it would run people to satellite. They AREN'T going to do that.

Could be, I might be thinking of franchise agreements. Three years seems to be a rather short time period though. I'm sure somebody here knows, I'll bet fredfa knows the answer.

Every three to five years. It depends on how the local government has it set up.

Not true, foxeng, although local governments have some leeway in dealing with cable companies, the retrans dates and procedures are set -- hard and fast -- by the FCC.

Every three years, on Oct. 1, stations have the right to change their retransmission status.

(The election date was last in 2005, next will be 2008, then 2011, etc. The station's option actually takes effect on January 1 of the following year.)

Complete details from the FCC are here:

url]http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html[/url]

Every three to five years. It depends on how the local government has it set up.
You're talking about stations carriage on the local cable system? I didn't know the local govt. had any say in the matter.

Not true, foxeng, although local governments have some leeway in dealing with cable companies, the retrans dates and procedures are set -- hard and fast -- by the FCC.

Every three years, on Oct. 1, stations have the right to change their retransmission status.

(The election date was last in 2005, next will be 2008, then 2011, etc. The station's option actually takes effect on January 1 of the following year.)

Complete details from the FCC are here:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html


The obvious question is why is this deal coming up now (in 2006) - and they state that 12/1 is the deadline which is why they are trying to move the court date?

Not true, foxeng, although local governments have some leeway in dealing with cable companies, the retrans dates and procedures are set -- hard and fast -- by the FCC.

Every three years, on Oct. 1, stations have the right to change their retransmission status.

(The election date was last in 2005, next will be 2008, then 2011, etc. The station's option actually takes effect on January 1 of the following year.)

Complete details from the FCC are here:

url]http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html[/url]

I don't deal with it (handled MUCH higher up the food chain) so I couldn't remember exactly what it was, but 3 years kept ringing in my brain.

(Welcome back by the way!!)

thanks, foxeng!

It is HUGE folks. It means even higher cable bills and less incentive for broadcasters to invest in programming that attracts viewers, and as a result, advertisers. It changes broadcasting into a quasi-subscription supported business. Viewers will end up paying more and getting less. Wall Street will have been fed. And so it goes....

You are clearly delusion again with no basis for fact. The few dollars that broadcasters would get from each cable sub wouldn't begin to make a dent in the amount they bill from advertisers.

If they don't invest in programming, the worse the ratings and the more cable can decide not to pay them and not carry them.

Let's use a few examples from DMA markets San Diego and Houston, as I know these very well and can supply links to all references except for Miller Kaplan which you will have to sub to if you want revenue numbers.

DMA Numbers with Households are here. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=719690)

Largest MSO systems in America are here. (http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=72)

San Diego is the 5th largest cable system in America with 408,000 basic subs.

If the ABC/CBS/FOX station in town was to receive $1 per sub, thats $408,000 a month. While you might think this is substantial, these stations have advertiser revenues of $50M - $60M each per year - or $4.2M - $5M a month.

Thus that is not even 10% of their total revenue.

You think that stations are going to cave on programming for that? If so, you are nuts. Even if they were to receive $2 - $3 per sub - they still are not going to risk the larger number.

Houston is the #1 MSO System in America with 764,000 basic subs. Again, $1 per sub would be $764,000 a month. Again, while this looks to be a big number, consider the total television revenue market for Houston is $525Million per year.

Easily 75% of that goes to the big 4 network affilate stations. That puts their share each of $10M+ per month.

Again, $764,000 a month is nice - but its not $10M+ a month.

If you are crazy enough to think someone will risk $10M a month for less than 10% of that, I would expect nothing less of you, but that being said - that doesn't happen in the real world - only with gamblers in vegas.

So while you can type things as you continue to type that have no relevancy in the real world, stations will continue to invest heavily in programming to get dollars.

In fact, if you knew ANYTHING about ANY BUSINESS, you would know the real profit is made in the last 10% of the revenue. That is because of fixed costs that do not change.

It cost you the same amount for a transmitter, a tower, electricity, a building, a lease, Gas for news vehicles etc etc etc whether you have 10 viewers or 1 Million Viewers. Those are fixed costs.

That is the same even at McDonalds. Your cost for the land, building and property tax will be the same every month regardless of the number of customers. In fact, for the most part, your electrical costs will not vary that much even on the number of customers at McDonalds.

It's that last 10% of the budget where you REALLY make a profit.

And that is where stations struggle each year in up and down advertising years.

This helps stabilize that number and the smart stations WILL use that for better equipment, better programming and things that the Audience will want as the ratings are where the REAL money will be made - the cable payments will just be a residual for their work.

So go back to fantasy land and come up with other excuses of what works in posg land but has no basis in reality.

As Foxeng stated, the retransmission agreements are handled by the President or the Sr. VP at the Corporate level for virtually every company. The local management has literally no say so whatsoever.

To think that one can boycott an advertiser that would make its way back up the food chain - simple stated, most Sales Managers would never pass that info up the ladder to where it would ever be known by the person making the retransmission decisions.

I can tell you that if by chance it did ever get to that level, the President of the Broadcast Company would ask the local GM why the Sales Manager and local account rep were so weak that they could not sell past that objection - especially as they are selling cost per point which has no basis in the retransmission of a station on cable or not.

It would also make the President wonder why he had a GM that would put up with a BS sales excuse like that - which is why the Sales Manager would never pass it to the GM who would never pass it to the Group President.

You are clearly delusion again with no basis for fact. The few dollars that broadcasters would get from each cable sub wouldn't begin to make a dent in the amount they bill from advertisers.

If they don't invest in programming, the worse the ratings and the more cable can decide not to pay them and not carry them.

Let's use a few examples from DMA markets San Diego and Houston, as I know these very well and can supply links to all references except for Miller Kaplan which you will have to sub to if you want revenue numbers.

DMA Numbers with Households are here. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=719690)

Largest MSO systems in America are here. (http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=72)

San Diego is the 5th largest cable system in America with 408,000 basic subs.

If the ABC/CBS/FOX station in town was to receive $1 per sub, thats $408,000 a month. While you might think this is substantial, these stations have advertiser revenues of $50M - $60M each per year - or $4.2M - $5M a month.

Thus that is not even 10% of their total revenue.

You think that stations are going to cave on programming for that? If so, you are nuts. Even if they were to receive $2 - $3 per sub - they still are not going to risk the larger number.

Houston is the #1 MSO System in America with 764,000 basic subs. Again, $1 per sub would be $764,000 a month. Again, while this looks to be a big number, consider the total television revenue market for Houston is $525Million per year.

Easily 75% of that goes to the big 4 network affilate stations. That puts their share each of $10M+ per month.

Again, $764,000 a month is nice - but its not $10M+ a month.

If you are crazy enough to think someone will risk $10M a month for less than 10% of that, I would expect nothing less of you, but that being said - that doesn't happen in the real world - only with gamblers in vegas.

So while you can type things as you continue to type that have no relevancy in the real world, stations will continue to invest heavily in programming to get dollars.

In fact, if you knew ANYTHING about ANY BUSINESS, you would know the real profit is made in the last 10% of the revenue. That is because of fixed costs that do not change.

It cost you the same amount for a transmitter, a tower, electricity, a building, a lease, Gas for news vehicles etc etc etc whether you have 10 viewers or 1 Million Viewers. Those are fixed costs.

That is the same even at McDonalds. Your cost for the land, building and property tax will be the same every month regardless of the number of customers. In fact, for the most part, your electrical costs will not vary that much even on the number of customers at McDonalds.

It's that last 10% of the budget where you REALLY make a profit.

And that is where stations struggle each year in up and down advertising years.

This helps stabilize that number and the smart stations WILL use that for better equipment, better programming and things that the Audience will want as the ratings are where the REAL money will be made - the cable payments will just be a residual for their work.

So go back to fantasy land and come up with other excuses of what works in posg land but has no basis in reality.

The real profit is NOT made in the last 10% revenue. It is made within the TOTAL revenue.

The real profit is NOT made in the last 10% revenue. It is made within the TOTAL revenue.

Incorrect - as stated - set costs are the same regardless if you are at 50% of budget or 100% of budget.

If you only bill 80% of your budget, guess what - you aren't going to make ANY profit for the year - and at 90% the profit is going to be minimal.

It's the step from 85% - 100% of the budget where the real profit comes in.

If you are only at 50% of budget, you may have budgeted to make a profit, but you will find the budgeted profit had to pay for set costs.

It's no different than if your rent or house payment is $2000 a month. It's $2000 a month regardless of if you make $3000 a month or $6,000 a month.

You might have been thinking you were going to put money in the bank with $6,000 a month, but if you get fired or loose that income half way through the year, you are NOT going to put any money in the bank when the whole year is accounted for.

The last 10% are pure gravy as set costs have already been covered much earlier on.

The only expense on the last 10% is the commision costs.

If you can't understand that concept, talk to an accountant.

Incorrect - as stated - set costs are the same regardless if you are at 50% of budget or 100% of budget.

If you only bill 80% of your budget, guess what - you aren't going to make ANY profit for the year - and at 90% the profit is going to be minimal.

It's the step from 85% - 100% of the budget where the real profit comes in.

If you are only at 50% of budget, you may have budgeted to make a profit, but you will find the budgeted profit had to pay for set costs.

It's no different than if your rent or house payment is $2000 a month. It's $2000 a month regardless of if you make $3000 a month or $6,000 a month.

You might have been thinking you were going to put money in the bank with $6,000 a month, but if you get fired or loose that income half way through the year, you are NOT going to put any money in the bank when the whole year is accounted for.

The last 10% are pure gravy as set costs have already been covered much earlier on.

The only expense on the last 10% is the commision costs.

If you can't understand that concept, talk to an accountant.

Trust me, companies care more about their TOTAL revenue than they do their first, middle or last revenue.

Trust me, companies care more about their TOTAL revenue than they do their first, middle or last revenue.

No, trust me - you make 85% of your TOTAL revenue and you have virtually NO PROFIT for the year.

The reason the care about their TOTAL REVENUE is because they know THERE IS NO PROFIT if they don't get to the high end of the total - as stated in the previous posts.

You are looking at that final result - and not how you have to get there.

All you have to do is look at a basic pie chart or budget to realize this - as to where the money goes.

If you change the end result, the other numbers change dramatically as well.

If you think a Broadcast Operation that is budgeted to bottom line 20%, 30%, 40% - or whatever in profit for every dollar they bill can do the same when they miss their annual budget by 10% - 20%, you are dreaming as the set costs remain the same - thus skewing the entire percentage.

And considering the soft ad market for the last few years, it hasn't been a great time for broadcast revenues.

Quote from HDTVFanatic:
"You are looking at that final result - and not how you have to get there."

Response:
Exactly!

Quote from HDTVFanatic:
"You are looking at that final result - and not how you have to get there."

Response:
Exactly!
Which is exactly why you don't understand it looking at bottom up analysis instead of top down analysis.

It's clear you do not work in Broadcast Management from your posts and questions in the Portland Maine section. As someone who has been involved with literally hundreds of budgets in broadcasting, I can assure you that Management knows the total picture of what produces the profit margins, even if you you don't.

So quite frankly, no, I don't need to trust you as you have no direct experience in this and I've been involved into too many budgets to not understand how the all the line items come into play. You change one figure, such as revenue, and the margin percentages vary accordingly.

A long time ago, a lot of us speculated that cable would eventually drop broadcast signals and let customers use "A/B" switches to switch between cable and broadcast antenna. It was a big topic when the current retransmission consent laws were passed in the early '90s. I'm surprised Mediacom doesn't mention that option at all on their www.befairsinclair.com web page.
They don't because it would run people to satellite. They AREN'T going to do that.
Like I said, it was discussed in the early '90s, when the current retransmission consent laws were being drawn up. As you may remember, that was the last time broadcasters were clamoring for compensation -- and the cable companies were adamantly against any deal which would have forced them to pay cash. Our cable company in Central Iowa (it was TCI) even had an "FYI" channel set up, which they would use in place of any broadcast station they couldn't reach a deal with. Thankfully it never came to that, and satellite wasn't yet enough of a factor. So no one's had any reason to talk about it lately.

This situation is different. Sinclair's advertising (at least on our local station) mentions only ONE way to keep getting its stations: satellite. For most viewers, that is incorrect. So why not keep the viewers you can? There are going to be those who like Mediacom and its features and will be reluctant to give them up for a service which requires additional equipment and a 10- to 15-month commitment to get the full rebate Sinclair is offering. Through befairsinclair.com, Mediacom already gives many reasons NOT to take the Sinclair/DirecTV offer, but they don't give information about the way to get the soon-to-be-missing stations.

Providing this information wouldn't necessarily "run people to satellite." Sinclair's already doing this.

Which is exactly why you don't understand it looking at bottom up analysis instead of top down analysis.

It's clear you do not work in Broadcast Management from your posts and questions in the Portland Maine section. As someone who has been involved with literally hundreds of budgets in broadcasting, I can assure you that Management knows the total picture of what produces the profit margins, even if you you don't.

So quite frankly, no, I don't need to trust you as you have no direct experience in this and I've been involved into too many budgets to not understand how the all the line items come into play. You change one figure, such as revenue, and the margin percentages vary accordingly.

Having had extensive budgeting experience in cable and another couple of industries, I agree with you that incremental revenue can make the diffference between moderate and high success.

A broadcaster could potentially double his pretax by increasing his revenue by 10% without increasing costs (perhaps with retrans revenue).

But lets say a cable operator grosses $80/month/household and nets a pretax of 15%. That's $12. If he pays $6/month aggragately to several broadcasters, his pretax net has been chopped in half.

And that is the reality of the situation and why the stakes are so high.

A long time ago, a lot of us speculated that cable would eventually drop broadcast signals and let customers use "A/B" switches to switch between cable and broadcast antenna.

I'm not surprised that it never happened -- the cable industry wouldn't want those A/B switches, because they don't want a fair number of their subscribers to realize that most of the programming that they watch is available for free OTA.

I'm not surprised that it never happened -- the cable industry wouldn't want those A/B switches, because they don't want a fair number of their subscribers to realize that most of the programming that they watch is available for free OTA.Well it's better than letting Sinclair's DirecTV campaign fester without challenge. Sinclair's TV advertising and "crawls," at least here, suggest that the ONLY way to get their stations is to DUMP Mediacom and subscribe to satellite. There's not one mention that there's a way to keep your Mediacom services (cable, internet, etc.) AND continue to watch the soon-to-be-missing-from-cable station.

A few people MAY go back to OTA, but for most viewers cable is all about going beyond the six or seven channels they get OTA.

Well it's better than letting Sinclair's DirecTV campaign fester without challenge. Sinclair's TV advertising and "crawls," at least here, suggest that the ONLY way to get their stations is to DUMP Mediacom and subscribe to satellite. There's not one mention that there's a way to keep your Mediacom services (cable, internet, etc.) AND continue to watch the soon-to-be-missing-from-cable station.

A few people MAY go back to OTA, but for most viewers cable is all about going beyond the six or seven channels they get OTA.

Sinclair is the poster child for why ownership deregulation was a mistake. When "free market" plays to their advantage, they're on the free market bandwagon. But they'll play the "regulation" card at the drop of the hat.

Seems like hypocracy to me, but then David Smith and Ted Haggard are cut from that same "cloth". Some would call them smart businessmen. In my book, they're whores.

Sinclair is the poster child for why ownership deregulation was a mistake. When "free market" plays to their advantage, they're on the free market bandwagon. But they'll play the "regulation" card at the drop of the hat.

Isn't that the pot calling the cattle black? It is free market for TV and regulation for internet services?

Isn't that the pot calling the cattle black? It is free market for TV and regulation for internet services?

You've lost me. I've heard the expression "pot calling the kettle black", but "black cattle" is a new one on me. :confused: :confused: :confused: :D

You've lost me. I've heard the expression "pot calling the kettle black", but "black cattle" is a new one on me. :confused: :confused: :confused: :D

Typo. Trying to do too many things at one time and not doing any of them very well. You know what I mean though.

I believe that broadcasters should have no rights to what happens to the signal they send out over the publicly licensed airwaves. The only right they should have is the right to terminate broadcasting. If someone captures the signal and gains profit from it there should be no violation of law unless the broadcaster can somehow prove damages.

:rolleyes:

So we should be able to record next season's 24, package it, and sell it for profit?

I don't think the owners of "24" would permit that.

:rolleyes:

So we should be able to record next season's 24, package it, and sell it for profit?

This gets complicated. The copyright owner of "24" is neither the station nor the network. The station is not harmed by unauthorized distribution of the copyright work, the copyright owner is. The station has a limited fudiciary responsibility to protect the copyright owner, and probably also has a responsibility to allow the copyright owner to participate in any subscription revenue derived from retransmission.

Next, networks and syndicators will want their share of retransmission revenue, just like a commercial landlord who gets a percentage of the gross. And it never stops.

Typo.

I thought you were trying to say "the cat calling the cattle black." (which would have worked better on Halloween anyway) :D