and probably also has a responsibility to allow the copyright owner to participate in any subscription revenue derived from retransmission.

So who goes after the subscription revenue that the cable company derives if they are allowed to just rebroadcast and profit from that programming?

So who goes after the subscription revenue that the cable company derives if they are allowed to just rebroadcast and profit from that programming?

Cable companies PAY a STATUATORY LICENSE FEE for the right to retransmit copyright programming. ALWAYS HAVE.

Oh please.

Oh please.


Copyright Office Issues Report on the Cable and Satellite Compulsory Licenses

Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters acknowledges a continued need for the compulsory licensing scheme governing the retransmission of broadcast signals, at least for the immediate future, in a report delivered to Congress on August 1, 1997.

A compulsory license is a statutory copyright licensing scheme whereby copyright owners are required to license their works to users at a fixed price under terms and conditions set by the government. The cable and satellite compulsory licenses allow cable systems and satellite carriers to retransmit broadcast signals to their subscribers without incurring the costs associated with the negotiations to clear the rights to retransmit the copyrighted programming carried on the signals.

The Copyright Office submitted its report in response to a February 6, 1997, letter from Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who requested a thorough review of the copyright licensing regimes governing the retransmission of over-the-air radio and television broadcast signals. The request targeted key issues for study, starting with whether the licensing scheme should continue to exist, or in the case of the satellite compulsory license created by the Satellite Home Viewer Acts of 1988 and 1994, whether it should be extended beyond its December 31, 1999, sunset date. In addition, the Copyright Office considered the possible extension of the current cable compulsory license to new technologies, such as open video systems and the Internet, the advisability of allowing satellite carriers to retransmit local signals, and the creation of new markets for public television.

Although the Copyright Office recommends the continuation of a compulsory licensing scheme, this recommendation rests upon a determination that the rate structure for the cable compulsory license needs adjustment. Specifically, the Office recommends that the current complex mechanism for determining a cable system's royalty payment, which is tied to certain 1976 FCC rules no longer in existence, be replaced with a flat per subscriber, per signal fee based on fair market value. The Office makes this recommendation because it would more closely align the rates paid by the cable systems with those paid by the satellite carriers and it would simplify the filing process for the filer and the Copyright Office.

The study also proposes a new approach to the problems encountered by subscribers to a satellite service who sign up thinking that they will receive the network signals from the satellite carrier, when in fact they are not eligible to receive these signals under the current law because they purportedly can receive the local network affiliate over- the-air. To ameliorate this problem, the Office recommends that satellite carriers, and their distributors, inform a potential subscriber as to whether he or she is eligible to receive the network signals. Those who live in a certain geographical area would be eligible to receive the signal (the green zone), and those who live outside the area would not (the red zone). This approach would replace the current reliance on the Grade B signal intensity test, which purportedly is too expensive to administer. The Office also supports a temporary surcharge to subscribers located in a "red zone," who nonetheless wish to receive the network service.

The Office also carefully considered the emerging technologies in the field of telecommunication and their place, if any, in the compulsory licensing scheme. Satellite carriers had reported that the industry was capable of retransmitting local broadcast signals within a defined geographic area and had requested a clarification of the satellite compulsory license so that it would be clear that such retransmissions fall within the scope of the license; a suggestion that the Office endorses in its report. The Office, however, did not accept the arguments put forth by the Internet service providers and rejected their request to extend the cable compulsory license to their operations or recommend a new compulsory license for their industry.

As part of the study, the Copyright Office convened three days of public meetings to listen to the concerns of the industries and the copyright owners. Twenty-four witnesses, representing the motion picture industry, cable television, the broadcasting industry, local television, sports associations, Internet audio services, performing rights societies, satellite carriers, small-business interests, and the telephone industry, presented testimony to the Register of Copyrights and her staff. The Office also solicited written comments and reply comments from all interested parties. Forty-three parties filed comments in response to a Notice of Inquiry from the Office, and 35 parties filed reply comments. The commenters' views and suggestions are discussed at length in the final report.

Copies of the executive summary are available from the Office of the Copyright General Counsel, Library of Congress, James Madison Building, Room 403, 101 Independence Avenue S.E., Washington, DC 20540; and copies of the full report are posted on the Internet site for the Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ under the heading "What's New."

And from the FCC Cable Television Factsheet:

Copyright

The Copyright Act requires cable operators to obtain a compulsory license for the carriage of programming. The cable operator pays the fee to the copyright office, for distribution to the copyright holders of the program material. The fee for each cable system is based on the system's "gross receipts" from the carriage of broadcast signals and the number of "distant signal equivalents" a term identifying non-network programming from distant television stations carried by the system.

Under the Commission's must-carry rules, a cable operator is not required to carry a signal of a television broadcast station if that station would be considered a distant signal under the Copyright Act, unless the station agrees to indemnify the cable operator for any increased copyright liability resulting from carriage of the signal.

The Copyright Act requires a cable operator to file semi-annually a statement of account, including information about system revenue and signal carriage as well as the royalty fee payment. For further information regarding copyright regulation, contact the Licensing Division, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20557; telephone (202) 707-8380.

This is the WHOLE truth. Broadcasters are not collecting in the copyright owners behalf, only in their own behalf. Not that they shouldn't, but at least know the facts.

Not that they shouldn't, ...

You have just admitted to what you have been arguing against.

You have just admitted to what you have been arguing against.

On several occassions, I have stated that as long as the playing field is fair, then I don't have a problem. But preditors like Sinclair who would accept a bounty from a satellite company for a subscriber conversion while trying to cram a bunch of loser stations down MediaComs throat is not operating in the public interest. They are merely damaging the already fragile relationship between our respective industries.

Fifty cents per month for the Big 4, both SD and HD, and less for the netlets, fine.

Here is what some of the major cable channels get in monthly sub fees:

ESPN $2.96
TNT $.89
Disney Channel $.79
Fox News Channel $.75+ (per new Cablevision agreement)
USA $0.60
CNN $.44
MSNBC $.15
(Source: Kagan Research 10/06)

So you are suggesting, posg, that each of the Big Four is worth less than USA per month to cable/satellite/telco subscribers?

The ratings sure don't indicate that.

Here is what some of the major cable channels get in monthly sub fees:

ESPN $2.96
TNT $.89
Disney Channel $.79
Fox News Channel $.75+ (per new Cablevision agreement)
USA $0.60
CNN $.44
MSNBC $.15
(Source: Kagan Research 10/06)

So you are suggesting, posg, that each of the Big Four is worth less than USA per month to cable/satellite/telco subscribers?

The ratings sure don't indicate that.

Don't ignore the fact that retransmission has historically been negotiated as follows:

Mr. Cable Operator, if you want to carry our O&O ABC affilitates, you WILL carry ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNClassic, ESPNews, Disney, ToonDisney, etc, etc, etc, and you WILL PAY for them.

Same has historically applied with Viacom/CBS and NBC and FOX.

They get their money.

And all those high priced cable networks you mention (except CNN) are owned by the same parent companies as the major networks.

And Fred,

The 50 cent numbers are in line with what D* and E* pay for the Big Four. And to my knowledge, Sinclair has not "bundled" carriage of all their dog MYTV affliliates as a retrans requirement with the sats.

Don't ignore the fact that retransmission has historically been negotiated as follows:

Mr. Cable Operator, if you want to carry our O&O ABC affilitates, you WILL carry ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNClassic, ESPNews, Disney, ToonDisney, etc, etc, etc, and you WILL PAY for them.

Same has historically applied with Viacom/CBS and NBC and FOX.

They get their money.

And all those high priced cable networks you mention (except CNN) are owned by the same parent companies as the major networks.


A company I work with just spent around $6M to put in HD Local News. In fact, its been done in more than one market.

They aren't owned by ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX etc.

They don't have a cable channel that they "get the revenue from in the end" as you have implied.

That was just the cost for the HD Conversion - not to mention what they spend every week on Newscoverage.

They own the content. They do not get paid by the cable company.

So again, explain to me how this is fair that the cable company is profiting off their investments and re-airing copyrighted material that they aren't paying for?

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.

Six or seven channels? It may be that way in many medium and small markets today, but it isn't going to stay that way -- the LPTV service combined with multicasting means that OTA can offer much more than it once did.

Meanwhile, in a fairly large market (Dallas/Fort Worth), I can receive 35 unduplicated programming streams off-air -- that counts analog LPTV stations and full-powered digital channels and subchannels.

Of course most of those channels aren't of much interest to me -- multiple channels of Spanish programming and religion, for example. But that also describes cable and satellite for most people, so that's hardly a problem.

Six or seven channels? It may be that way in many medium and small markets today, but it isn't going to stay that way -- the LPTV service combined with multicasting means that OTA can offer much more than it once did.

Meanwhile, in a fairly large market (Dallas/Fort Worth), I can receive 35 unduplicated programming streams off-air -- that counts analog LPTV stations and full-powered digital channels and subchannels.

Of course most of those channels aren't of much interest to me -- multiple channels of Spanish programming and religion, for example. But that also describes cable and satellite for most people, so that's hardly a problem.

Yeah, and I get several dozen radio stations, and STILL can't find anything I like. When FOX News and ESPN and HBO and Discovery or their equivalents are on digital sidecar channels, fine, but Local Weather Radar on five channels, whorebag religious channels, and shopping networks are not my idea of compelling programming.

You still only have six or seven meaningful channels. And that ain't gonna change.

A company I work with just spent around $6M to put in HD Local News. In fact, its been done in more than one market.

They aren't owned by ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX etc.

They don't have a cable channel that they "get the revenue from in the end" as you have implied.

That was just the cost for the HD Conversion - not to mention what they spend every week on Newscoverage.

They own the content. They do not get paid by the cable company.

So again, explain to me how this is fair that the cable company is profiting off their investments and re-airing copyrighted material that they aren't paying for?

I worked on a cable project recently that involved 300 miles of new underground cable plant. The constuction cost averaged $40/foot, and that doesn't even included running a drop to the house. You do the math. Projected aquisition cost per paying subscriber was well over $2500.

Your signal reaches most of your viewers through that cable plant for free, and into areas where reception is difficult if not impossible. Why should the cable operator not charge you for delivering your signal?

Look, we all know that we have a mutually beneficially relationship. Let's be gentlemen, not crybabys, and realize that we are embarrassing ourselves in front of our customers with half truth arguments.

What hurts EVERYBODY are the Sinclair's, who use Enron style accounting to report unrealized future revenue to their stockholders based on assumptions that may not play out, and then enter into childish pissng contests with an entire industry.

The DTV conversion was mandated by the FCC, not the cable company. HD was your choice. But cable has also made HUGE investments in their infrastructure and gateway devices to be able to deliver it. My guess is that (unless you work for Sinclair), that the majority of your HD viewers are viewing your programming through a cable box that cost the cable company several hundred dollars to deploy.

There are two sides to every argument, and I respect your opinions, and hope you respect mine. :)

I worked on a cable project recently that involved 300 miles of new underground cable plant. The constuction cost averaged $40/foot, and that doesn't even included running a drop to the house. You do the math. Projected aquisition cost per paying subscriber was well over $2500.

Your signal reaches most of your viewers through that cable plant for free, and into areas where reception is difficult if not impossible. Why should the cable operator not charge you for delivering your signal?

Look, we all know that we have a mutually beneficially relationship. Let's be gentlemen, not crybabys, and realize that we are embarrassing ourselves in front of our customers with half truth arguments.

What hurts EVERYBODY are the Sinclair's, who use Enron style accounting to report unrealized future revenue to their stockholders based on assumptions that may not play out, and then enter into childish pissng contests with an entire industry.

The DTV conversion was mandated by the FCC, not the cable company. HD was your choice. But cable has also made HUGE investments in their infrastructure and gateway devices to be able to deliver it. My guess is that (unless you work for Sinclair), that the majority of your HD viewers are viewing your programming through a cable box that cost the cable company several hundred dollars to deploy.

There are two sides to every argument, and I respect your opinions, and hope you respect mine. :)


At last! ...................... You speak the truth. I can't say that I beleive that broadcasters should expect to pay the cable companies for expanding and improving their coverage, but it would make sense for them to at least be happy and content that it is happening.

It is all business. Companies acquire all the revenue they can from any possible source and that is fine with me. Broadcast companies and cable companies are entitled to do whatever they can legally do to maximize their revenue.

In the end, however, they must make sound business decisions that produce the best results for their own interests.

Question. ........... Is it in Sinclair's best business interests to remain off digital / HD cable?

Question. ........... Is it in Sinclair's best business interests to remain off digital / HD cable?

Hell, they're talking about pulling their SD signals off of MediaCom.

Is it in their best business interests? Depends on who blinks first.

But with the programming distribution landscape changing as quickly as it is, iPods, DVDs, full episodes available free on the net, if I were a broadcaster, I would want my programming as accessible as possible. And that doesn't mean forcing potential viewers to put up antennas or switch providers.

Whether or not it's good business or not is debatable, but in Sinclair's case, it's simply bad behavior.

Hell, they're talking about pulling their SD signals off of MediaCom.

Is it in their best business interests? Depends on who blinks first.

MediaCom is blinking pretty damn hard asking the FCC to step in and STOP Sinclair from taking their signal away from MediaCom. Sinclair appears to be very content to NOT be on MediaCom's systems.

I think you can see who is afraid of loosing more here and it AIN'T Sinclair.

MediaCom is blinking pretty damn hard asking the FCC to step in and STOP Sinclair from taking their signal away from MediaCom. Sinclair appears to be very content to NOT be on MediaCom's systems.

I think you can see who is afraid of loosing more here and it AIN'T Sinclair.

I'm sure all those households are REALLY going to miss Sinclair's portfolio of MYTV affiliates. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm sure all those households are REALLY going to miss Sinclair's portfolio of MYTV affiliates. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Not all are MNT affiliates. I think one or two are big 4 affiliates. One I know is a FOX affiliate.

I don't know that it is bad behavior on the part of Sinclair to deny me access to CBS HD on cable, it is just business on their part. They want to increase their revenue stream and why shouldn't they? I never declined an opportunity to increase my revenue stream so I shouldn't expect them to do so even though it narrows my entertainment stream.

When Sinclair comes to believe that so many people are watching only cable digital channels that advertisers will only pay reduced rates on their channels, they will REQUIRE cable systems to begin carrying their digital signals. For the time being, they are willing to gamble that we will put enough pressure on our cable systems to carry them and they will be able to collect a fee.

It's really as simple as that, I think. Just business and we're in the middle.

Not all are MNT affiliates. I think one or two are big 4 affiliates. One I know is a FOX affiliate.
Here's the list according to Sinclair:

Birmingham, AL:
WTTO (The CW), WABM (MyNetwork)

Cedar Rapids-Waterloo-Iowa City-Dubuque, IA:
KGAN (CBS)

Champaign/Decatur, IL:
WICD (ABC)

Des Moines-Ames, IA:
KDSM (Fox)

Greenville-Spartanburg-Asheville, NC:
WLOS (ABC), WMYA (MyNetwork)

Lexington, KY:
WDKY (FOX)

Madison, WI:
WMSN (FOX)

Milwaukee, WI:
WCGV (MyNetwork), WVTV (The CW)

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN:
WUCW (The CW)

Mobile, AL-Pensacola, FL:
WEAR (ABC), WFGX (MyNetwork)

Nashville, TN:
WZTV (FOX), WUXP (MyNetwork), WNAB (The CW)

Norfolk, VA:
WTVZ (MyNetwork)

Paducah, KY-Cape Girardeau, MO:
KBSI (FOX), WDKA (MyNetwork)

Peoria/Bloomington, IL:
WYZZ (FOX)

St. Louis, MO:
KDNL (ABC)

Springfield, IL:
WICS (ABC)

Tallahassee, FL:
WTWC (NBC)

OK, rest my case then. ;)

In San Antonio, we do not get to see the Cowboys games (or any NFC football) or the Spurs games (My35) because the Fox & MyTV affiliates here locally are both owned by Sinclair. It boggles the mind that the top 2 sports draws in town can not be watched in HD without putting up an antennae or dish....

The Sinclair affiliate in Portland, Maine is CBS.

I'm sure all those households are REALLY going to miss Sinclair's portfolio of MYTV affiliates. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

WOW! Talk about trying to slant the truth and not getting close to reality!!!! I certainly hope you do better research in your real life - especially as 70% of Sinclair/Mediacom carriage is not MyNetwork TV.

Mediacom/Sinclair Markets:

ABC-5
Asheville, NC - ABC
Pensacola, FL - ABC
Champaign, IL - ABC
Springfield, IL - ABC
St Louis, MO - ABC

CBS-1
Cedar Rapids, IA - CBS

CW-3
Nashville, TN - CW
Milwaukee, WI - CW
St Paul, MN - CW

Fox-6
Bloomington, IL - Fox
Cape Girardeau, MO - Fox
Des Moines, IA - Fox
Lexington, KY - Fox
Madison, WI - Fox
Nashville, TN - Fox

MyTV-7
Birmingham, AL My Network
Cape Girardeau, MO - My Network
Greenville, SC - MyNetwork
Milwaukee, WI - MyNetwork
Nashville, TN - MyNetwork
Norfolk, VA - MyNetwork
Pensacola, FL - My Network

NBC-1
Tallahassee, FL - NBC

Or maybe you write political advertising copy and the elections are over?

WOW! Talk about trying to slant the truth and not getting close to reality!!!! I certainly hope you do better research in your real life - especially as 70% of Sinclair/Mediacom carriage is not MyNetwork TV.

Mediacom/Sinclair Markets:

ABC-5
Asheville, NC - ABC
Pensacola, FL - ABC
Champaign, IL - ABC
Springfield, IL - ABC
St Louis, MO - ABC

CBS-1
Cedar Rapids, IA - CBS

CW-3
Nashville, TN - CW
Milwaukee, WI - CW
St Paul, MN - CW

Fox-6
Bloomington, IL - Fox
Cape Girardeau, MO - Fox
Des Moines, IA - Fox
Lexington, KY - Fox
Madison, WI - Fox
Nashville, TN - Fox

MyTV-7
Birmingham, AL My Network
Cape Girardeau, MO - My Network
Greenville, SC - MyNetwork
Milwaukee, WI - MyNetwork
Nashville, TN - MyNetwork
Norfolk, VA - MyNetwork
Pensacola, FL - My Network

NBC-1
Tallahassee, FL - NBC

Or maybe you write political advertising copy and the elections are over?

OK OK It was a bad joke bashing MYTV. (Now I understand how John Kerry felt.... :p )

HOWEVER, the BIG issue with between MediaCom and Sinclair is Sinclair insistance on bundling it's entire portfolio of stations, the Big Ones and the Stinkers, forcing MediaCom to pay for ALL channels in ALL markets, and to GROSSLY overpay for the dogs.

And that's a Pandora's Box that MediaCom is not ready to open and I don't blame them. It's the old game of "if you want ESPN, you have to carry ESPN2, Classic, News, U, etc. It's not the way things are done.

It's not the way things are done.

Really? I guess GE, Disney, CBS/Paramount and News Corp along with Discovery and the rest didn't get that memo.

And that's a Pandora's Box that MediaCom is not ready to open and I don't blame them. It's the old game of "if you want ESPN, you have to carry ESPN2, Classic, News, U, etc. It's not the way things are done.That Pandora's Box opened long ago. Bundling is the way Big Media does business, along with pressure tactics like, in our area, moving a couple of Iowa Hawkeye football games to ESPNU and refusing to let the cable company buy these individual games as it has in the past. Bingo! You've just forced Mediacom to buy an ENTIRE channel just because a couple of Hawk games are on it.

And as I've said before, Big Sports (read: the NFL and the Big Ten Conference) are taking a page from the same playbook, and no doubt they'll try to get on the basic tier so that EVERYONE pays for them.

[QUOTE=dline]That Pandora's Box opened long ago. Bundling is the way Big Media does business, along with pressure tactics like, in our area, moving a couple of Iowa Hawkeye football games to ESPNU and refusing to let the cable company buy these individual games as it has in the past. Bingo! You've just forced Mediacom to buy an ENTIRE channel just because a couple of Hawk games are on it.

And as I've said before, Big Sports (read: the NFL and the Big Ten Conference) are taking a page from the same playbook, and no doubt they'll try to get on the basic tier so that EVERYONE pays for them.[/QUOTE



The Red Sox is a religion in New England. They did not succeed on the pay tier, however, and were moved to the basic tier. I think when it was done, it didn't increase the price much. In the case of anything else, I think that people would strenuously object to anything being added to the basic tier if it was going to raise the cable price beyond what it is already.

I don't see ANYTHING out there that I would be willing to pay more for.

Really? I guess GE, Disney, CBS/Paramount and News Corp along with Discovery and the rest didn't get that memo.

Bundling is a tactic used to gain distribution for less desirable cable channels, but not so much broadcasting channels.

But let me pose a "what if":

NewsCorp owns several FOX stations in top markets. These stations overlap TWCs cable footprint in several markets. Let's say FOX buys a nonperforming HSN affiliate in a major market. TWC doesn't want it. FOX says that it's part of the package, and if they want any of the FOX stations, they have to pay for this HSN station as well. Deal or No Deal. AND FOX decides this HSN station is $2.00/month per sub, in a market where TWC has 600,000 subs. What should TWC do, knowing the implications of losing FOX? Tough call.

That may be an extreme example, but it is not inconsistant with Sinclair's position with MediaCom. Sinclair is pushing an envelope. MediaCom is calling their bluff. MediaCom will end up dropping the Sinclair stations. Sinclair may have won a battle. But MediaCom will win the war.

We don't seem to remember that the satellite industry spent it's first five or so years with NO locals, and people were still wanting and willing to purchase their product.

MediaCom will drop Sinclair. They will lose a few subscribers, but the overall impact will be less than the cost of paying Sinclair. Sinclair will lose ALL of the moneys they could have gotten from MediaCom had they been reasonable, pick up a little revenue from the sat operators and lose a little ad revenue. Some viewers will simply lose a channel, because it's not worth the effort to reclaim it.

So who wins? The satellite operator who picks up a few subscribers he might not have gotten. He's the only guy who comes out on top.

Bundling is a tactic used to gain distribution for less desirable cable channels, but not so much broadcasting channels.

But let me pose a "what if":

NewsCorp owns several FOX stations in top markets. These stations overlap TWCs cable footprint in several markets. Let's say FOX buys a nonperforming HSN affiliate in a major market. TWC doesn't want it. FOX says that it's part of the package, and if they want any of the FOX stations, they have to pay for this HSN station as well. Deal or No Deal. AND FOX decides this HSN station is $2.00/month per sub, in a market where TWC has 600,000 subs. What should TWC do, knowing the implications of losing FOX? Tough call.

That may be an extreme example, but it is not inconsistant with Sinclair's position with MediaCom. Sinclair is pushing an envelope. MediaCom is calling their bluff. MediaCom will end up dropping the Sinclair stations. Sinclair may have won a battle. But MediaCom will win the war.

We don't seem to remember that the satellite industry spent it's first five or so years with NO locals, and people were still wanting and willing to purchase their product.

MediaCom will drop Sinclair. They will lose a few subscribers, but the overall impact will be less than the cost of paying Sinclair. Sinclair will lose ALL of the moneys they could have gotten from MediaCom had they been reasonable, pick up a little revenue from the sat operators and lose a little ad revenue. Some viewers will simply lose a channel, because it's not worth the effort to reclaim it.

So who wins? The satellite operator who picks up a few subscribers he might not have gotten. He's the only guy who comes out on top.

I love people that don't understand strategy.

They are so easy to beat in business in the real world as they can't see the forest for the trees.

It's almost a shame its so easy.

I love people that don't understand strategy.

They are so easy to beat in business in the real world as they can't see the forest for the trees.

It's almost a shame its so easy.

You obviously must understand business strategy better than me. Rather than simply being condesending, how about sharing your wisdom?

HDTVFanAtic,

Where do you "hang your hat"? Texas perhaps? Just curious. There's just something in your attitude.

HDTVFanAtic,

Where do you "hang your hat"? Texas perhaps? Just curious. There's just something in your attitude.

No, my track record in business proves it.

Your post proves what virtually every CEO and COO lament as the problem today - people not looking at the big picture and no long term strategic thinking.

As shown multiple times - you cannot see the forest for the trees even when someone gives you a guided tour of the forest.

So what happens with Mediacom (and other cable companies) when CBS -- which has already announced it will seek payment for its O&Os,--GE, NewsCorp -- which has also indicated it will demand $$$ for retransmission rights-- and Disney demand cash for cable carriage of their stations?

Mediacom may temporarily win this skirmish with Sinclaire, but cable will ultimately lose this war.

And by paying such a relatively high price for cable "networks" which relatively few people watch, MSOs will be hard pressed to find reasons not to pay something in the $1+ range for each of the Big Four network stations.

If Cablevision, for example, is so concerned about Fox News devotees deserting that it is willing to ante up more than 75 cents for FNC, what will ABC (Lost, Grey's, DH, NCAA football, etc.) or CBS (NFL, NCAA basketball, the CSIs, Survivor, Without A Trace, Cold Case, NCIS, Criminal Minds, etc.) or NBC (NFL, Olympics, ER, the Law & Orders, etc.) or Fox (NFL, MLB, BCS, American Idol, 24, House, etc) be worth?

No, my track record in business proves it.

Your post proves what virtually every CEO and COO lament as the problem today - people not looking at the big picture and no long term strategic thinking.

As shown multiple times - you cannot see the forest for the trees even when someone gives you a guided tour of the forest.

The FOREST is that broadcast TV as a business is way past it's prime. Viewership is down, revenues are down, station values are down. Two way switched video networks are the future. All the chest pounding by broadcasters is vanity and living in the past.

And that is the REAL big picture.

So what happens with Mediacom (and other cable companies) when CBS -- which has already announced it will seek payment for its O&Os,--GE, NewsCorp -- which has also indicated it will demand $$$ for retransmission rights-- and Disney demand cash for cable carriage of their stations?

Mediacom may temporarily win this skirmish with Sinclaire, but cable will ultimately lose this war.

And by paying such a relatively high price for cable "networks" which relatively few people watch, MSOs will be hard pressed to find reasons not to pay something in the $1+ range for each of the Big Four network stations.

If Cablevision, for example, is so concerned about Fox News devotees deserting that it is willing to ante up more than 75 cents for FNC, what will ABC (Lost, Grey's, DH, NCAA football, etc.) or CBS (NFL, NCAA basketball, the CSIs, Survivor, Without A Trace, Cold Case, NCIS, Criminal Minds, etc.) or NBC (NFL, Olympics, ER, the Law & Orders, etc.) or Fox (NFL, MLB, BCS, American Idol, 24, House, etc) be worth?

Fred,

I think $1 each for the Big Four is fair. I think most cable operators would be happy to pay that. MYTV, on the other hand, isn't worth squat. But the Sinclair's deal is a convoluted cluster#### that is so out in left field to be laughable.

This is an example of how ridiculous Sinclair's behavior is:


MultiChannel News, 8/14/2006

Suddenlink, Sinclair Settle Retransmission-Consent Flap

St. Louis — Suddenlink Communications Inc. reached an agreement last Tuesday with Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. regarding their retransmission-consent dispute. Terms were not disclosed.

Suddenlink — which closed on its purchase of 240,000 subscribers in Charleston, W.Va., from CEO Jerry Kent’s former company, Charter Communications Inc., in July — was faced with a retrans deal costing more than $40 million to carry two Sinclair-owned Charleston-area broadcast stations, ABC affiliate WCHS-TV and Fox affiliate WVAH-TV.

Sinclair had asked for a $40 million upfront fee and $1 per month for each of the 200,000 Suddenlink subscribers in the area to continue carrying the stations. Sinclair had threatened to pull the stations from Suddenlink’s systems in early July.

Suddenlink petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to force Sinclair to keep the stations on Suddenlink’s cable systems at least until July 27 (the end of the Nielsen Media Research July sweeps). Suddenlink also asked the agency to force Sinclair to accept a deal similar to Suddenlink’s pacts with the station owner in other markets.

$40,000,000 for 200,000 subscribers upfront ??? Just think about that for a minute. That's $200 per household. For two TV channels. PLUS $1/month. They didn't get it. Not even close. In fact, I hear they ended up about $40,000,000 short.

Agreed, that Sinclair's position with Suddenlink was preposterous.

Agreed, that Sinclair's position with Suddenlink was preposterous.

Most of their positions are off the wall. That's why I'm rooting for MediaCom in this battle.

What disturbs me most about the current flap is a broadcaster making unrealistic demands from a cable operator, while accepting a bounty from a satellite operator for a subscriber conversion. There's something sleazy and slimey about that development.

Look, we are talking broadcasters, cable and satellite here.

Unfortunately, I think sleazy is assumed.

Look, we are talking broadcasters, cable and satellite here.

Unfortunately, I think sleazy is assumed.

Oh Yeah, thanks, Fred, for putting my train back on the tracks. :D :D :D

And in a somewhat related story:

Every night at 8 p.m. on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann awards his daily pick for "Worst Person in the World." Some contenders are lucky — or unlucky —enough to be nominated more than once.

The Bronze for Friday, Nov. 3 goes to rapper Kanye West. His high-budget video for “Touch the Sky,” a loss to “We are your Friends” by the group Justice vs. Simian at the MTV Europe Music Awards in Copenhagen.

After the acceptance speech, West burst onto the stage and launched a profanity-ridden tirade against the judge's vote against “Touch the Sky.”

“My video cost a million dollars,” he shouted, “Pamela Anderson was in it. I was jumping across canyons and stuff.” West later reappeared on stage alongside a cardboard cut out of Mike Myers and added “And President Bush doesn't care about 'Touch the Sky.'”

The Silver goes to the Republican National Committee. Ever heard of Marina Pacific Distributors? They're the owners of Active Duty Productions. They make porn. Actually, they make porn featuring active U.S. soldiers with titles of the movies like “Fire in the Hole.”

Guess what? Federal election records show the company's been making campaign contributions to the Republican National Committee.

But our winner is Mark Hyman, the former vice president and right-wing commentator for the Sinclair Broadcast Group TV stations. The man enabled the Swift Boat Veterans two years ago, and called the French “Cheese-eating surrender monkeys” and was proud of it. He says he's giving up the commentaries at the end of month because “I'm exhausted.”

Of course you are, it's hard work carrying that much guilt around.

Mark Hyman, Friday's “Worst Person in the World.”

This is an example of how ridiculous Sinclair's behavior is:


MultiChannel News, 8/14/2006

Suddenlink, Sinclair Settle Retransmission-Consent Flap

St. Louis — Suddenlink Communications Inc. reached an agreement last Tuesday with Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. regarding their retransmission-consent dispute. Terms were not disclosed.

Suddenlink — which closed on its purchase of 240,000 subscribers in Charleston, W.Va., from CEO Jerry Kent’s former company, Charter Communications Inc., in July — was faced with a retrans deal costing more than $40 million to carry two Sinclair-owned Charleston-area broadcast stations, ABC affiliate WCHS-TV and Fox affiliate WVAH-TV.

Sinclair had asked for a $40 million upfront fee and $1 per month for each of the 200,000 Suddenlink subscribers in the area to continue carrying the stations. Sinclair had threatened to pull the stations from Suddenlink’s systems in early July.

Suddenlink petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to force Sinclair to keep the stations on Suddenlink’s cable systems at least until July 27 (the end of the Nielsen Media Research July sweeps). Suddenlink also asked the agency to force Sinclair to accept a deal similar to Suddenlink’s pacts with the station owner in other markets.

$40,000,000 for 200,000 subscribers upfront ??? Just think about that for a minute. That's $200 per household. For two TV channels. PLUS $1/month. They didn't get it. Not even close. In fact, I hear they ended up about $40,000,000 short.

While you think $200 per household is laughable - The last time I heard, cable values each sub around $2,500 each now on their books now.

So which is more ridiculous .... especially considering that Fox and ABC probably make up AT LEAST 10% of the cable's viewing?

The FOREST is that broadcast TV as a business is way past it's prime. Viewership is down, revenues are down, station values are down. Two way switched video networks are the future. All the chest pounding by broadcasters is vanity and living in the past.

And that is the REAL big picture.

LOL....Its really amazing. You can't see the real picture. You leave your running at 3rd base without bringing him home.

Yes NETWORK viewership is down - but it still trounches anything else on cable.

Yes revenues are down (as they were for virtually every media - including cable since 9/11) - but revenues seem to be turning back around - except for NBC.

And that's why if cable wants the stations, they are going to have to pony up to the table.

That's the real bottom line story. You made the point without even knowing it.

And in a somewhat related story:

Every night at 8 p.m. on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann awards his daily pick for "Worst Person in the World." Some contenders are lucky — or unlucky —enough to be nominated more than once.

The Bronze for Friday, Nov. 3 goes to rapper Kanye West. His high-budget video for “Touch the Sky,” a loss to “We are your Friends” by the group Justice vs. Simian at the MTV Europe Music Awards in Copenhagen.

After the acceptance speech, West burst onto the stage and launched a profanity-ridden tirade against the judge's vote against “Touch the Sky.”

“My video cost a million dollars,” he shouted, “Pamela Anderson was in it. I was jumping across canyons and stuff.” West later reappeared on stage alongside a cardboard cut out of Mike Myers and added “And President Bush doesn't care about 'Touch the Sky.'”

The Silver goes to the Republican National Committee. Ever heard of Marina Pacific Distributors? They're the owners of Active Duty Productions. They make porn. Actually, they make porn featuring active U.S. soldiers with titles of the movies like “Fire in the Hole.”

Guess what? Federal election records show the company's been making campaign contributions to the Republican National Committee.

But our winner is Mark Hyman, the former vice president and right-wing commentator for the Sinclair Broadcast Group TV stations. The man enabled the Swift Boat Veterans two years ago, and called the French “Cheese-eating surrender monkeys” and was proud of it. He says he's giving up the commentaries at the end of month because “I'm exhausted.”

Of course you are, it's hard work carrying that much guilt around.

Mark Hyman, Friday's “Worst Person in the World.”


As stated before, you grasp for straws and can't see the real battle and the strategy - being totally distracted by red herrings.

So what happens with Mediacom (and other cable companies) when CBS -- which has already announced it will seek payment for its O&Os,--GE, NewsCorp -- which has also indicated it will demand $$$ for retransmission rights-- and Disney demand cash for cable carriage of their stations?

We have a winner!

Fred gets it.

Sinclair is fine to stay off Mediacom. POSG thinks no big deal.

So now CBS comes in and wants payment. Does Mediacom the allow 2 of the big 3 Networks (NBC = No Body Cares right now).....ok...just joking....2 of the 4 Networks to disappear off their system?

They have to pony up to at least one of the two - and once they do it for one - come renewal.....

I think posg keeps thinking that there are only two ways of watching TV, cable or sat. There is a third way. I will admit it is novel, but others are beginning to do the same thing now. It is called WIRELESS.

I find it funny that TV has been wireless for over 60 years and most everything else has been wired. Now all of that wired stuff is going wireless and TV HAS to be wired? If people are willing to watch TV on a 4 inch screen on a WIRELESS cell phone, why would they NOT want to watch TV on a 42 inch screen via wireless too? Did I miss something here?

I think posg keeps thinking that there are only two ways of watching TV, cable or sat. There is a third way. I will admit it is novel, but others are beginning to do the same thing now. It is called WIRELESS.

I find it funny that TV has been wireless for over 60 years and most everything else has been wired. Now all of that wired stuff is going wireless and TV HAS to be wired? If people are willing to watch TV on a 4 inch screen on a WIRELESS cell phone, why would they NOT want to watch TV on a 42 inch screen via wireless too? Did I miss something here?

Yes, there's a cultural perception that OTA means fuzzy, static-filled, and ghosting picture. Until analog is shut off, OTA doesn't have much hope of shedding that reputation.

Yes, there's a cultural perception that OTA means fuzzy, static-filled, and ghosting picture. Until analog is shut off, OTA doesn't have much hope of shedding that reputation.

Its interesting because even after that, the perception will live on until it's changed.

I have been in discussions with the heads of one of the Top 5 cable company this week about HDLITE and Directv's new ads - and by heads - I don't mean so low level local guy - but guys with 3 intials that start with C in front of their title - as well as the people that decide their marketing marketing strategy nationwide.

10 years ago DBS found the 2 Achilles Heel of cable and made an issue of it

1) Price

2) PQ because of analog vs digital

Today, in most markets, DBS is more expensive than cable - so much for Pigs Flying.

But the PQ fable continues to permeate because of the wonderful marketing job that was done for years. It's a classic Harvard Business School text book type case for doing great marketing.

Now DBS has started again - quotes from the new Jessica Simpson D* Spot

"You're not going to watch me on Directv HD? You're just not going to get the best picture out of some fancy big screen TV without Directv"

"It's in 1080i - I don't know what it is - but I want it!"

"For picture quality that beats cable, it's Directv"

The issue is defining what HDLITE is in a way J6P can understand it in 5 seconds and gets pissed off about it - and, quite frankly, I have come up with the way. As D* is tyring to do it again, I just hope that cable isn't so focused on marketing bundling right now that they don't let this opportunity slip away - because if they don't whack them now - DBS and Directv in particular will still be thought of as the unchallenged HD leader PQ leader.

BUT, to digress, until OTA Broadcasters take on a campaign to show that OTA is not "your Grandmother's Oldsmobile" that perception will continue past 2009 - until the perception is addressed head on.

It would also probably help immenslely if Cable could roll out national ad campaigns using celebrities like DirecTV or Dish can. However, Cable seems cursed with hokey, 3rd rate commercials produced locally and on the cheap.

I do believe customers associate that with a perceived quality of service difference. It's definitely groan worthy, like when you watch a well produced national ad for a company like Nike or Pepsi, only to have it followed up by and ad for your local car dealer. Most cable advertisements fall squarely into that "car dealer" category of commercials.

They just feel cheap, and customers associate that with the service, whether that's reasonable or not. I mean it's a pretty stark contrast in comparison to Bill Paxton talking to you about DirecTV in the middle of a scene from Twister.

Not the approach needed to make J6P understand what HDLITE is and get them pissed off about it.

Jessica Simpson even admits she doesn't know what 1080i is in the D* Spots.

Think Political Advertising if you want to cut someone's heart out and stomp on it in 5-10 seconds - its not done with spokespeople.

I am convinced I know that message and how to get it across - but if anyone else wants to try their creativity and explain (audio and visually) HDLITE in 5-10 seconds max to J6P and get them PISSED OFF @ D* and E* for it, I'm all ears....Especially as many here cannot do it in a post or even a thread of unlimited length.

Take you best shot in a new thread or message me ... so not to hijack this one.

Yes, there's a cultural perception that OTA means fuzzy, static-filled, and ghosting picture. Until analog is shut off, OTA doesn't have much hope of shedding that reputation.

And a 4 inch picture on a digital phone is high definition? RIIIGGGHHHHTTTT!

So I guess all of these people who come on AVSForum asking how to receive digital TV are not part of the J6Ps but are freaks of nature since they seem to KNOW that clear digital TV is NOT the same as snowy analog TV? The public knows digital TV is not the same as analog TV. The issue is/has been/and is getting better, price of the equipment. As the price of sets have come down, people are running to buy them because they KNOW it isn't their Grandma's TV anymore.

That argument doesn't hold water like it used to.

I think posg keeps thinking that there are only two ways of watching TV, cable or sat. There is a third way. I will admit it is novel, but others are beginning to do the same thing now. It is called WIRELESS.

I find it funny that TV has been wireless for over 60 years and most everything else has been wired. Now all of that wired stuff is going wireless and TV HAS to be wired? If people are willing to watch TV on a 4 inch screen on a WIRELESS cell phone, why would they NOT want to watch TV on a 42 inch screen via wireless too? Did I miss something here?

My wife and I are downsizing. We sold our house and will be moving into a townhouse. We are in an apartment for a few months in the interum. I OF COURSE have cable, but use a Silver Sensor to pick up the "Sinclairs", although I never really watch them. It is a constant struggle to find a sweet spot that works for more than one or two channels. Everytime the cat walks around the room, the picture freezes. An OTA antenna in our new townhouse would be a really struggle.

The point is that while OTA exists, it isn't a viable option for many viewers, and not just those on the "fringe". A huge number of people live in structures and locations that simply don't support putting a 4228 on "their" roof or attic, because they don't have one.

OK, I'm ducking. :D :D

I picked up two towers located 19 and 23 miles away with a 90 degree spread using a $5 Radio Shack double-bowtie settop antenna. A $26 4221 on my chimney allowed me to pick up two additional markets.

fyi ...I dont know if anyone has posted this or not but an ad on one of the mediacom channels is directing people to this link: http://befairsinclair.com

The point is that while OTA exists, it isn't a viable option for many viewers, and not just those on the "fringe". A huge number of people live in structures and locations that simply don't support putting a 4228 on "their" roof or attic, because they don't have one.

But just about every apt or condo I have seen built in the last 20 years or so have a porch or balcony and antennas DO work from there, not only OTA but sat as well. That is one of the reasons why the FCC came out with the OTARD rules.

Next excuse?

But just about every apt or condo I have seen built in the last 20 years or so have a porch or balcony and antennas DO work from there, not only OTA but sat as well. That is one of the reasons why the FCC came out with the OTARD rules.

Next excuse?


Wife acceptance factor ;)

The public knows digital TV is not the same as analog TV. The issue is/has been/and is getting better, price of the equipment. As the price of sets have come down, people are running to buy them because they KNOW it isn't their Grandma's TV anymore.

That argument doesn't hold water like it used to.

In a due respect, if we are talking HDTV (they think its all HD - and the digital vs analog isn't as wide spread as one would think) yes they know HDTV supposedly looks better than the old TV - though I bet most don't know its digital vs analog.

If we are talking OTA Analog vs digital - and the OTA antennas - I would respectfully disagree and state that most still think OTA looks like crap as they have been conditioned by cable and satellite to think that way.

You and I both know that the OTA done right always used to look better than cable because of all the analog amps in the CATV line adding more and more noise at every amp.

Now with the use of more and more fiber feeds to the nodes - alot of that noise is gone.

And lets face it - how many J6P have really compared a good OTA to Cable and DBS recently?

I can tell you that the local cable company when digital simulcast of ALL analog channels in my market 3 days ago.

Interesting enough, though I think its a mistake, they did not include the cablecard sets in the automatic switchover. I'm glad for this for several reasons (Split Screen will not work with 2 Digital Tuners). However, it's made some interesting comparisons today.

With the Digital SD channel on the right of an ICF calibrated Sony CRT HD monitor through a SA8300HD and HDMIT with the analog SD cable channel on the right - except for a roughly 6 second lag time, I am shocked I see literally no difference thus far in the 2 feeds.

Now, I confess, right now, I don't know if this means that the signal coming on fiber to within a quarter mile of my house is the difference - that the old analog CATV amps being out really solved this issue - or if the bandwidth is so bad on the digital SD channels that its bringing it down to analog quality.

I suspect its the former though and not the later.

My wife and I are downsizing. We sold our house and will be moving into a townhouse. We are in an apartment for a few months in the interum. I OF COURSE have cable, but use a Silver Sensor to pick up the "Sinclairs", although I never really watch them. It is a constant struggle to find a sweet spot that works for more than one or two channels. Everytime the cat walks around the room, the picture freezes. An OTA antenna in our new townhouse would be a really struggle.

The point is that while OTA exists, it isn't a viable option for many viewers, and not just those on the "fringe". A huge number of people live in structures and locations that simply don't support putting a 4228 on "their" roof or attic, because they don't have one.

OK, I'm ducking. :D :D
No need to duck, but OTA receivers (meaning their tuners) have been steadily improving. The newest "5th Generation" tuners work well in close-in areas that have plenty of signal, and therefore plenty of ghosts.

At the risk of leaving some out while only mentioning a few, the new TVs from LG include their new 5th gen tuners in them. The old set-top box market hasn't been keeping up (because LG reuses to sell their chips to them) but the Samsung DTB-H260F seems to work well. Computer tuners from DVICO use 5th generation tuners, but that isn't really useful for the average home (even though they work great!)

If you live in-town and have lots of signal, try out the new tuners. If you live in the suburbs you may need an outside antenna. Fancy tuner chips can't make something out of nothing. If cable and DBS aren't possible (or desirable) "come home" to OTA!

I'm a big believer in the value (and quality) of OTA DTV. However, as has already been noted by a couple of folks here, an evangelical outreach to inform the masses of this option is very badly needed if we are going to be more than a small minority.

I got a reminder of this a couple months back when a friend moved into a new house, and the movers dropped and damaged his old 27" TV in the process. Since he had previously expressed a desire to keep his monthly expenses down for a while, I had already talked him out of not signing up for cable in the new house, but instead relying on OTA reception.

Since he was in the position of having to buy a new television anyway, I encouraged him to only consider sets with built in ATSC tuners. He was surprised to learn that he had a fair chance of receiving free HDTV OTA, especially since his house is well over 40 miles from the transmitter sites. I told him that he *might* get something with an indoor antenna, and that an attic antenna would almost certainly work great.

So he came home with a 30" CRT-based HD set, hooked it up to rabbit ears, and was pleasantly surprised to receive a couple of digital channels with that set up. That was enough to encourage him to spend $70 for a good antenna to place in his attic (less than two months worth of cable or satellite bills), and has been extremely pleased with the results. He is now absolutely hooked on the great HD picture he is receiving for free, along with a couple of the multicast services ("The Tube" and one of the weather subchannels).

The bottom line: a new OTA viewer who is extremely pleased with what he is getting...but who would never have even thought about that option until I talked with him. And it raises the question, once again, as to why broadcasters aren't using their own airwaves to really *sell* the value of their broadcast signal. It is the one big advantage that they really have over cable networks...so you'd figure that they would want to make the most of it.

At the risk of leaving some out while only mentioning a few, the new TVs from LG include their new 5th gen tuners in them. The old set-top box market hasn't been keeping up (because LG reuses to sell their chips to them) but the Samsung DTB-H260F seems to work well. Computer tuners from DVICO use 5th generation tuners, but that isn't really useful for the average home (even though they work great!)Note that the 5th gen LG chip set used in the above mentioned products does not include the RF front end used in the LG prototype for the famous Mark Schubin apartment test, which makes a big difference in how well the tuner works.

I'm at a loss to understand why no one (LG or others) has designed a DTV tuner to include all of the design improvements used in the LG prototype that did so well in Mr. Schubin's NYC domicile, and not just the '5th gen chip' by itself.

The reports I've read about the 5th gen chip seem little better than gen 4 products. There is at least one company who says they have access to the LG 5th gen chip and plans on a external STB unit, see this topic: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8800476

Wife acceptance factor ;)



In a due respect, if we are talking HDTV (they think its all HD - and the digital vs analog isn't as wide spread as one would think) yes they know HDTV supposedly looks better than the old TV - though I bet most don't know its digital vs analog.

If we are talking OTA Analog vs digital - and the OTA antennas - I would respectfully disagree and state that most still think OTA looks like crap as they have been conditioned by cable and satellite to think that way.

You and I both know that the OTA done right always used to look better than cable because of all the analog amps in the CATV line adding more and more noise at every amp.

Now with the use of more and more fiber feeds to the nodes - alot of that noise is gone.

And lets face it - how many J6P have really compared a good OTA to Cable and DBS recently?

I can tell you that the local cable company when digital simulcast of ALL analog channels in my market 3 days ago.

Interesting enough, though I think its a mistake, they did not include the cablecard sets in the automatic switchover. I'm glad for this for several reasons (Split Screen will not work with 2 Digital Tuners). However, it's made some interesting comparisons today.

With the Digital SD channel on the right of an ICF calibrated Sony CRT HD monitor through a SA8300HD and HDMIT with the analog SD cable channel on the right - except for a roughly 6 second lag time, I am shocked I see literally no difference thus far in the 2 feeds.

Now, I confess, right now, I don't know if this means that the signal coming on fiber to within a quarter mile of my house is the difference - that the old analog CATV amps being out really solved this issue - or if the bandwidth is so bad on the digital SD channels that its bringing it down to analog quality.

I suspect its the former though and not the later.

There are several satellite channels (and local analog OTA's) that are still received in an analog format by my local cable company and go through an analog to digital conversion before being included in the digital simulcast.

However, many channels are delivered in a digital format off C-band satellite, and are pretty much "passed through" unmolested. Those channels are remarkably better than their analog conterparts.

This is getting way out in the weeds as far as the thread topic goes, but you are correct certainly that the reduction in amplifier cascades has significantly reduced noise levels, while dramatically reducing downtime as well. But a transmission that exists in the digital domain from cradle to grave are generally better than one that suffers all the compromises of the NTSC scheme.

One thing I have noticed is that MOST TVs have much better scalers than are included in set top boxes. The best results you get on 480i source material is to allow the set top to pass through all native resolutions to the TV rather than using the 1080i default output.

There are several picture enhancements for 480i inputs on my TV that are not even accessable when an external scaling is applied.

I have Time Warner, DirecTV, and Dish Network feeds in my office. I do not have HD feeds from D* or E*, but generally the TWC SD pictures are noticeably superior to the SATS.

One other quick comment, then I'll shut up. As far as HD goes, I have tried and tried and tried to find any significant difference between my locals as received OTA, through my Clear QAM tuner off TWC, and through the SA8300 using component connections, and as trained an eye as I have, I just don't see any difference.

I'm a big believer in the value (and quality) of OTA DTV. However, as has already been noted by a couple of folks here, an evangelical outreach to inform the masses of this option is very badly needed if we are going to be more than a small minority.

I got a reminder of this a couple months back when a friend moved into a new house, and the movers dropped and damaged his old 27" TV in the process. Since he had previously expressed a desire to keep his monthly expenses down for a while, I had already talked him out of not signing up for cable in the new house, but instead relying on OTA reception.

Since he was in the position of having to buy a new television anyway, I encouraged him to only consider sets with built in ATSC tuners. He was surprised to learn that he had a fair chance of receiving free HDTV OTA, especially since his house is well over 40 miles from the transmitter sites. I told him that he *might* get something with an indoor antenna, and that an attic antenna would almost certainly work great.

So he came home with a 30" CRT-based HD set, hooked it up to rabbit ears, and was pleasantly surprised to receive a couple of digital channels with that set up. That was enough to encourage him to spend $70 for a good antenna to place in his attic (less than two months worth of cable or satellite bills), and has been extremely pleased with the results. He is now absolutely hooked on the great HD picture he is receiving for free, along with a couple of the multicast services ("The Tube" and one of the weather subchannels).

The bottom line: a new OTA viewer who is extremely pleased with what he is getting...but who would never have even thought about that option until I talked with him. And it raises the question, once again, as to why broadcasters aren't using their own airwaves to really *sell* the value of their broadcast signal. It is the one big advantage that they really have over cable networks...so you'd figure that they would want to make the most of it.

So you pretty much watch crime dramas and sports. :D :D :D

One other quick comment, then I'll shut up. As far as HD goes, I have tried and tried and tried to find any significant difference between my locals as received OTA, through my Clear QAM tuner off TWC, and through the SA8300 using component connections, and as trained an eye as I have, I just don't see any difference.
And these days, you won't! That's because the local cable companies don't bother to reduce the data rate of OTA HD (and in fact most of the HD that they carry.) It's too expensive to do now. What they DO mess with is the data rate of the digital simulcast versions of their SD locals and basic services. If you compared the digital simulcast version of an OTA NTSC channel with its real OTA signal, then you'd really see a difference!

Note that the 5th gen LG chip set used in the above mentioned products does not include the RF front end used in the LG prototype for the famous Mark Schubin apartment test, which makes a big difference in how well the tuner works.

I'm at a loss to understand why no one (LG or others) has designed a DTV tuner to include all of the design improvements used in the LG prototype that did so well in Mr. Schubin's NYC domicile, and not just the '5th gen chip' by itself.

The reports I've read about the 5th gen chip seem little better than gen 4 products. There is at least one company who says they have access to the LG 5th gen chip and plans on a external STB unit, see this topic: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8800476
The LG prototype was hand-tweaked for performance. You are correct, the RF front end does affect the performance of a DTV receiver. Mark Schubin has noted that other devices using the 5th gen chipset have not performed as well as the prototype, speculating that it is the RF section that is causing the difference in performance. So far, I don't think he has tested any of the LG sets that include the chipset in their internal tuners.

LG has chosen to NOT support the STB market. Other "5th gen" solutions from other vendors are slowly enetring the market. Samsung uses one of them in their STB product. It's performance is better than their earlier products, but not quite as good as the LG prototype, at least as reported by those who claim to have tried both.

5th gen receivers are truly remarkable, compared to earlier models. I use one at my desk, and it is MUCH better than the others I have tried (or own.) It truly works in the canyons of NYC.

Fred,

I think $1 each for the Big Four is fair. I think most cable operators would be happy to pay that. MYTV, on the other hand, isn't worth squat. But the Sinclair's deal is a convoluted cluster#### that is so out in left field to be laughable.

Most times you appear way out in left field, minimizing the popularity of the Big4's programming. Then you say something like this which not only shows reason and common sense, but goes well beyond what most of the rest of us would say. Did you miss your medication? ;)

You could justify $1 a piece, or even $5 a piece if you were comparing to ESPN. Personally, I'd consider $0.50 fair - which is the number Sinclair was trying to get when this thread started ...... and the cablecos still balked.

But if the cablecos were smart, they'd contractually commit the affiliates to pass through the HD channel at full bandwidth - or a guaranteed minimum bandwidth - and have them waive any right to require carriage of any subchannels (just in case legislation is passed that enables them to invoke mustcarry for subchannels).

If the public relations sh*t hits the fan, it is no longer an issue of not being willing to pay for programming - it becomes an issue of the affiliates wanting to be paid for HD programming, but not wanting to guarantee real HD quality to their viewers. Four or five full bandwidth HD channels is a small burden on the cable infrastructure - but it is an almost unbearable burden on DBS when extrapolated for 200 markets. They would likely turn around the quality perception in favor of cable if they could deliver pristine Big4 programming - certainly faster than any other HD programming out there.

Most times you appear way out in left field, minimizing the popularity of the Big4's programming. Then you say something like this which not only shows reason and common sense, but goes well beyond what most of the rest of us would say. Did you miss your medication? ;)

My position has always been that the broadcaster/cable&satco relationship is mutually beneficially, and that both parties benefit equally. Both make investments in their infrastucture and programming, and both are trying to offer their consumers the best product they can afford.

Networks are currently embracing new distribution vehicles for their programming, iPod, DVD, websites, etc. They clearly understand that they HAVE to be user friendly and you need to get your product in front of users in anyway you can. There's just too many choices out there to afford anyone the luxury of making their product less accessable.

My wife has recently just gotten into Grey's Anatomy. She put it into our Netflix queue and she's been catching up a little at a time. She won't watch any new episodes, she'd rather not get "spoiled". I've follow a couple of series like that myself. It's not so much as "What's on TV tonight, as to what came in the mail?"

So Grey's Anatomy, and several other series, have "legs" that aren't necessarily attached to the broadcast model. It's almost as if broadcast TV were a preview channel. The model is changing.

Cable has proved that it can produce hig quality programming like Sopranos, Deadwood, Band of Brothers, while networks rely more and more on game shows and mindless talent contests, my confidence in the long term importance of broadcast TV is skeptical at best.

While we get the occasional "LOST" we also get a lot of absolute CRAP. Quite frankly, BSG and the 4400 are much better shows that Jericho. What new fall show are you still watching. I had six that I followed for three or four weeks, but I (or they) threw in the towel on all of them.

And just wait until NFL Network pulls half the NFL schedule off broadcast TV. It's only a matter of time.

Broadcasters need to be a little less arrogant. Cable actually CAN be their best friend. There are unbelievable opportunities to be had if they would consider cable an allie rather than an adversary.

Anyway, I better go find my medicine. :D :D :D

So you pretty much watch crime dramas and sports. :D :D :D

Nope, don't care for either. And there's plenty on broadcast TV that doesn't fall into either category.

Meanwhile, on the cable side, it is interesting to note that the highest rated programs (aside from MNF) tend to be children's shows and reruns of crime dramas that originally ran on the broadcast networks. And, that for every high quality drama like "Battlestar Galactica" that runs on cable networks, there are three channels worth of crap like "The Surreal Life" or "Dog the Bounty Hunter".

This is an example of how ridiculous Sinclair's behavior is:


MultiChannel News, 8/14/2006

Suddenlink, Sinclair Settle Retransmission-Consent Flap

St. Louis — Suddenlink Communications Inc. reached an agreement last Tuesday with Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. regarding their retransmission-consent dispute. Terms were not disclosed.

Suddenlink — which closed on its purchase of 240,000 subscribers in Charleston, W.Va., from CEO Jerry Kent’s former company, Charter Communications Inc., in July — was faced with a retrans deal costing more than $40 million to carry two Sinclair-owned Charleston-area broadcast stations, ABC affiliate WCHS-TV and Fox affiliate WVAH-TV.

Sinclair had asked for a $40 million upfront fee and $1 per month for each of the 200,000 Suddenlink subscribers in the area to continue carrying the stations. Sinclair had threatened to pull the stations from Suddenlink’s systems in early July.

Suddenlink petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to force Sinclair to keep the stations on Suddenlink’s cable systems at least until July 27 (the end of the Nielsen Media Research July sweeps). Suddenlink also asked the agency to force Sinclair to accept a deal similar to Suddenlink’s pacts with the station owner in other markets.

$40,000,000 for 200,000 subscribers upfront ??? Just think about that for a minute. That's $200 per household. For two TV channels. PLUS $1/month. They didn't get it. Not even close. In fact, I hear they ended up about $40,000,000 short.


I had not looked at cable valuation of subscribers in this decade. Guess I should have searched a little harder -as you should have as well - but we know you won't look for reality.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DIZ/is_12_14/ai_84593521

"Writing in Cable TV Investor, Flynn says values for cable systems peaked in 2000, with the year's average value per sub hitting $5,755 and cash flow multiples rising to 19.5 times. "

Sinclair is worth FAR MORE than $200 per sub to the system in the MSO's value.

And there is all kinds of precedence for this, including what Jerry Jones and the NFL Dallas Cowboys (WOW....THE NFL PULLED THIS?) in 1990 during the sale of a broadcast outlet.

For those interested in the ongoing dispute between Sinclair and TW. The "why" I had to buy an antenna to get "The Game." A pox on both their houses, but especially Sinclair.

Thanks to the Columbus Dispatch for the following:

TUBE TALK
High definition of greed at play in HDTV flap
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
MOLLY WILLOW

For three years now, whenever a big sporting event has aired on ABC or Fox, certain members of the central Ohio population have become very mad at their televisions.

They’re going to be angry again soon.

Time Warner cable subscribers who actually like to benefit from their highdefinition televisions won’t have that chance Saturday during the biggest game ever between No. 1 Ohio State and No. 2 Michigan.

Unlike HDTVowning subscribers to Insight and Wide Open West cable, they won’t be marveling at each blade of the ’Shoe’s new grass.

ABC will broadcast The Game in high-definition, but Time Warner doesn’t carry WSYX-TV (the local ABC affiliate) or WTTE-TV (the Fox affiliate) in HD.

The reason? Good old corporate greed.

Since 2003, Sinclair Broadcasting, the company that owns both stations locally, has been demanding payment from Time Warner for Sinclair’s HD signal — which, by the way, is free over the airwaves.

Time Warner, a company also looking out for its bottom line, says it shouldn’t have to pay for something that’s free.

(If you have a tuner for your HD set, you just need an antenna to pick up the signal, although it might not be as high-quality as the cable delivery.)

Sinclair, however, says that, because people will pay, they should.

"The facts prove that people will willingly pay for it," said Sinclair general counsel Barry Faber, pointing to deals his company has with DirecTV and Dish Network.

It’s sort of like a schoolyard bully claiming that, because kids will pay not to get beat up, they should.

But there’s more: Faber says that cable companies soon will be paying for analog channels, the basic ones that are, yes, also free. (He says that’s what people with cable are essentially doing anyway, which is technically true.)

Sinclair is in the midst of demanding such payment from Mediacom Communications in Cedar Rapids and Des Moines, Iowa.

Although the circumstances aren’t exactly the same as those with Time Warner, negotiations over payment for channels have gone so badly in Iowa that, without a deal by Dec. 1, Sinclair will pull its analog stations. (In other words: no more House for Des Moines residents or CSI in Cedar Rapids.)

Apparently when Sinclair decides that it wants somebody’s lunch money badly enough, it’s not above stuffing people in lockers.

The problem is that Sinclair’s tactics are working. Both Insight and Wide Open West pay Sinclair for its local HD signal, Faber said. "That’s why they have deals."

Talks between Sinclair and Time Warner are being handled on the corporate level, but Time Warner Columbus spokeswoman Judy Barbao said Sinclair is asking for more than the other local HD stations do.

"The other broadcast channels in town do not charge us for those signals," she said.

Tom Griesdorn, general manager for WBNS-TV (Channel 10), confirmed as much.

Furthermore, he said, "we have an arrangement with all three cable systems where we don’t charge," although WBNS did ask for the ability to split the HD signal so it could be used for multiple broadcasts (as with NCAA March Madness, during which multiple college-basketball games were shown).

As Faber sees it, the industry norm will one day involve payment for analog channels. He chalks up difficulties with Mediacom and Time Warner thusly: "Changing a historical practice is a difficult thing to do. . . . Some of the cable companies are just taking a little bit longer being dragged kicking and screaming into that reality."

None of which is liable to make that certain segment of TV watchers like Sinclair Broadcasting much. Luckily for the corporation, it doesn’t care.

"We do not tend to change our business practices because the public doesn’t like it," Faber said.

All of which leaves Time Warner customers with few options. Sinclair would love for you to switch to Insight or WOW for your HD needs.

It would be a shame to let the bullies win, though.

Hoping to retain subscribers, Time Warner has given away HD antennas – more than 1,000 so far (at a cost of $20 each to the company).

The catch: If your HDTV doesn’t have a tuner — according to the Consumer Electronics Association, roughly 60 percent do — you must buy one. And, even then, the signal is good only for about 30 miles from the WSYX-WTTE studios at 1261 Dublin Rd.

Eventually, Time Warner will probably have to cave.

Mediacom, in danger of losing its basic Sinclair channels, is finding out what happens to companies that don’t bend. (The Federal Communications Commission recently agreed to hear the dispute.)

No local station can afford to lose all its programming, and Sinclair knows it.

In central Ohio, Faber said, "right now we’re content to let Time Warner carry our analog signal for free."

He almost made that seem gracious before adding: "I don’t know if that will go on forever."

Molly Willow writes about television for The Dispatch.

mwillow@dispatch.com

Thanks to the Columbus Dispatch for the following:

TUBE TALK
High definition of greed at play in HDTV flap
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
MOLLY WILLOW

(If you have a tuner for your HD set, you just need an antenna to pick up the signal, although it might not be as high-quality as the cable delivery.)

If she's this ignorant, she should stop writing articles about HDTV.

None of which is liable to make that certain segment of TV watchers like Sinclair Broadcasting much. Luckily for the corporation, it doesn’t care.

"We do not tend to change our business practices because the public doesn’t like it," [Sinclair general counsel Barry] Faber said.
Yep ... that's a formula for BIG ratings!!!!!!!!

What a great story to appear in the newspaper of any affected area. Right on. Don't let the bullies win and get your lunch money.

TUBE TALK
High definition of greed at play in HDTV flap
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
MOLLY WILLOW


Time Warner, a company also looking out for its bottom line, says it shouldn’t have to pay for something that’s free.


Sorry, that runs both ways. Should you have to pay for it on cable then because it's free?

Originally Posted by DocHDTV from the Columbus Dispatch article
None of which is liable to make that certain segment of TV watchers like Sinclair Broadcasting much. Luckily for the corporation, it doesn’t care.

"We do not tend to change our business practices because the public doesn’t like it," [Sinclair general counsel Barry] Faber said.


Yep ... that's a formula for BIG ratings!!!!!!!!


I don't like paying for channels I don't watch.

Cable doesn't change their policies to ala carte because the public doesn't like their bundling either.

So Sinclair is saying the same thing as TWC - It goes both ways.

Sorry, that runs both ways. Should you have to pay for it on cable then because it's free?

Isn't the FCC theory that the cable company is not charging for local free channels, only the cost and markup of delivering the service? ......... You can be sure, however, that if the cable company has to pay for local channels you will bear the burden.

Remember, this is just business, not a case of morality. It's whoever blinks first. When Sinclair must begin lowering their advertising rates because advertisers are going where there message will be seen, Sinclair will begin lowering their demands against cable companies.

In the meantime, Sinclair has every right and reason to work to raise its long term total revenue potential. You and I would do the same thing if we were hard-headed businessmen.

Isn't the FCC theory that the cable company is not charging for local free channels, only the cost and markup of delivering the service? ......... You can be sure, however, that if the cable company has to pay for local channels you will bear the burden.

Remember, this is just business, not a case of morality. It's whoever blinks first. When Sinclair must begin lowering their advertising rates because advertisers are going where there message will be seen, Sinclair will begin lowering their demands against cable companies.

In the meantime, Sinclair has every right and reason to work to raise its long term total revenue potential. You and I would do the same thing if we were hard-headed businessmen.

No the FCC theory is not the cable company is not charging for local free service. It's to be included, unencrypted, in their basic tier - that's all.

Just came across this link in another thread:

http://www.wben.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=06292

It's from WBEN, a news-talk radio station in Buffalo, NY. Apparently, the local Time Warner system in Buffalo is having trouble with Sinclair now. Their retrans agreement expires in January.

So far, there's nothing on Time Warner Cable's or Sinclair's websites on this, but according to WBEN the cable company is sending out a 30-day notice that it may have to stop carrying the local Fox and My stations.

"The Iowa federal court handling the retransmission consent dispute between Mediacom and Sinclair denied a motion from the broadcaster that sought a stay of proceedings in the matter. The court ordered Sinclair to file an answer on Mediacom's complaint within 30 days. Sinclair wanted the stay while Mediacom worked on an appeal of its rejected preliminary injunction request tied to Sinclair's termination of the retrans deal with the MSO. Mediacom is fighting to keep Sinclair stations on its systems while the sides hammer out a new agreement"

The LG prototype was hand-tweaked for performance. You are correct, the RF front end does affect the performance of a DTV receiver. Mark Schubin has noted that other devices using the 5th gen chipset have not performed as well as the prototype, speculating that it is the RF section that is causing the difference in performance. So far, I don't think he has tested any of the LG sets that include the chipset in their internal tuners.This is correct, according to Mark's recent comments, he hasn't had the opportunity to try any of the LG products with the 5G in his apartment.

LG has chosen to NOT support the STB market. Other "5th gen" solutions from other vendors are slowly enetring the market. Samsung uses one of them in their STB product. It's performance is better than their earlier products, but not quite as good as the LG prototype, at least as reported by those who claim to have tried both.Which is why I'm at a loss....

I'm at a loss to understand why no one (LG or others) has designed a DTV tuner to include all of the design improvements used in the LG prototype that did so well in Mr. Schubin's NYC domicile, and not just the '5th gen chip' by itself.
My guess is that LG would rather build TV sets rather than STBs. IF (and I don't know if it is true) the integrated sets don't perform as well as the prototype, then LG did not include all the benefits of the prototype in their integrated sets.

As for other manufacturers, they can choose what RF devices to include in their sets. The choice might only be based on cost, not performance.

The Des Moines Register (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061128/NEWS01/611280379/1001/NEWS) is reporting in today's editions that Mediacom and Sinclair reps met yesterday for more than two hours in FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's Washington, D.C. office. So far, neither side is commenting, and as of now the websites for both Mediacom (http://www.mediacomcable.com) and the Cedar Rapids Sinclair station (KGAN CBS 2) (www.kgan.com) are still advertising their positions as if nothing has changed.

It now appears to be a done deal.

In a press release (http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_20061129_184.shtml) issued today, Sinclair Broadcast Group said that "negotiations with Mediacom Communications Corp. are not likely to result in an agreement being reached between the two companies." As a result, it now appears more likely than ever that Mediacom will be forced to drop Sinclair stations in 16 markets -- both analog and digital -- this Friday morning at 12:01am.

Sinclair also announced that its rebate offers, designed to entice Mediacom subscribers to switch to DirecTV, have been extended through December 31.

Unless the FCC steps in at the last minute, the true test of wills is about to begin.

Friday (12/1/06) would be a great day for MediaCom Customer Service Reps to burn off any unused sick time they may have left.

According to family in one of the affected markets where Sinclair owns the ABC affiliate, the exodus from Mediacom has begun to D* and E* and Mediacom is feeling it. The family has already called me to come install their new D* dish.

I wonder if someone switches to DirecTV and qualifies for the $150 rebate paid out as a $10/month credit will still get that credit if a subsequent agreement is reached between Sinclair and MediaCom. Somehow I doubt it.

And what guarantee does that MediaCom defector have that Sinclair might pull the stunt with E* and D* down the road, after they sign the "free equipment service requirement contract."

Hi, foxeng !!! by the way. I've been away for awhile, but I'm back. :D

And what guarantee does that MediaCom defector have that Sinclair might pull the stunt with E* and D* down the road, after they sign the "free equipment service requirement contract.

The same guarantee any sub would have with ANY MSO they sign with.

Yeah, it has been "nice" not to have you around!! :D

The same guarantee any sub would have with ANY MSO they sign with.

That's why I avoid signing long term service contracts. They always cover their ass as far as allowing you an "out" if what you originally bought changes "for reasons beyond their control".

Yeah, it has been "nice" not to have you around!! :D

My feelings are hurt. :( :( :(

My feelings are hurt. :( :( :(

Talk about ME not being able to take a joke! That is why I put the smiley face on it!! :D SEE? :)

Just funning with you. You know that I'm as thick skinned and as thick headed as you are. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://www.skyreport.com/

Late Thursday, Mediacom reported on its Web site that it received an extension of its agreement with Sinclair that will allow the MSO to keep the broadcaster's stations in its lineup. The stations won't be pulled at midnight tonight, the Web site said.

Details were sketchy, but the extension goes along with comments from a Sinclair executive earlier in the day that suggested the TV station owner was willing to grant Mediacom temporary access to the local channels.

The move could give the sides more time to negotiate a more formal retransmission consent deal. The present agreement between the companies was set to expire at midnight last night.

Frankly I don't really care who wins in the end, though I agree with Sinclair's side of things. What I want to know is if the HD signals are part of this. My local Mediacom is not carrying KDSM-DT.

I kind of side with the cable companies on this one. The government is making the broadcasters update their equipment to show content in HD, not the cable company. Sinclair and other broadcasters have made millions for years by selling advertising on their programming, which is carried to cable subscribers. Why should that change now?

I kind of side with the cable companies on this one. The government is making the broadcasters update their equipment to show content in HD, not the cable company. Sinclair and other broadcasters have made millions for years by selling advertising on their programming, which is carried to cable subscribers. Why should that change now?

OK. Then when I watch TBS or ESPN or Comedy Central why do I see commercials?
If we pay for a tv "service" (cable or DBS) why do we still get commercials?
Even Discovery channel who spent the money on HD equipment runs commercials as well. But these channels are also sold to the cable/DBS providers.

Late last night Mediacom reached a deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group that will allow for continued carriage of local television stations owned by the broadcaster on its channel line-up through Jan. 5.

MediaCom has offered to allow Sinclair to either:

A) choose from any of the retransmission agreements that MediaCom has entered into with any other broadcaster, or

B) choose from any of the retransmission agreements that Sinclair has entered into with any other cable operator.

In other words, you can treat us as badly as ANYONE, but worse than NO ONE.

Sounds like a more than reasonable offer to me.

Not to Sinclair. They are once again "out in the weeds".

Frankly I don't really care who wins in the end, though I agree with Sinclair's side of things. What I want to know is if the HD signals are part of this. My local Mediacom is not carrying KDSM-DT.From what I understand, it's just an extension of the status quo for a little over a month, and the status quo doesn't include KDSM-DT. The two sides still have to negotiate a new, longer-term deal which WE HOPE will include the HD signals, but that's up to the negotiators.

Not to Sinclair. They are once again "out in the weeds".

I beg to differ. It is Mediacom "out in the weeds." The churn has already started. Sinclair still has its viewers. The blood is in the water now. I predict that Sinclair will get what it is asking or they will be off Mediacom. The precedence is that important to Sinclair. In the long run it is a "win-win" for Sinclair. If they are off the system, it is a short term hit but they do recover in the long run. Mediacom has a MUCH harder row to hoe since that local channel will not be available to them but will be available to their competitors.

Plus EVER OTHER STATION OWNER is watching this closely. You can see that with the Pappas agreements just signed.

Say for a moment, that a significant local cable company was stubborn enough to hold out forever and absorb the loss of some subscribers and force other subscribers to put up antennas where possible.

Would this have any effect on the local station left off the cable? What action do you think would take place, if any?

Say for a moment, that a significant local cable company was stubborn enough to hold out forever and absorb the loss of some subscribers and force other subscribers to put up antennas where possible.

Would this have any effect on the local station left off the cable? What action do you think would take place, if any?
It's a balancing act. If the stations in question are located in an area where OTA is common and viable, then there may not be a lot of impact, some to be sure, but not as much as say in the SF bay area. If a station was pulled off the cable systems here, it's pretty much off the air period and would have very detrimental effects to their bottom line.

I beg to differ. It is Mediacom "out in the weeds." The churn has already started. Sinclair still has its viewers. The blood is in the water now. I predict that Sinclair will get what it is asking or they will be off Mediacom. The precedence is that important to Sinclair. In the long run it is a "win-win" for Sinclair. If they are off the system, it is a short term hit but they do recover in the long run. Mediacom has a MUCH harder row to hoe since that local channel will not be available to them but will be available to their competitors.

Plus EVER OTHER STATION OWNER is watching this closely. You can see that with the Pappas agreements just signed.

Every cable operator is watching this closely as well. At least MediaCom has acknowledged what they have been willing to conceed, while Sinclair has not.

If MediaCom drops Sinclair, Sinclair loses, and here's why. MOST of the stations that will be dropped by MediaCom are CW and MYTV affiliates. Few people will make any effort to recieve those stations by installing antennas, or switching providers. THOSE stations will simply lose access to 60% of their potential viewers.

If MediaCom drops Sinclair, Sinclair loses, and here's why. MOST of the stations that will be dropped by MediaCom are CW and MYTV affiliates. Few people will make any effort to recieve those stations by installing antennas, or switching providers. THOSE stations will simply lose access to 60% of their potential viewers.

You tried that argument before and when the list was published (from HDTVAtic I think) it showed that there were MANY big 4 stations with a lot being FOX and ABC in the Sinclair stable. Remember, in many markets, Sinclair has duopolies and in many one of them are a big 4, like ABC in Asheville and Greensboro and St Louis just to name a few. Raleigh is one of the few markets with both Sinclair stations not a big 4.

From what my relatives are saying, dishes have started popping up all over in the last week, both D* and E*. There is a waiting list and some private installers are trying to take advantage of viewers. They were quoted an $800 install for 3 SD receivers, that is why I am installing it for them. In their market it is ABC they will lose.

You tried that argument before and when the list was published (from HDTVAtic I think) it showed that there were MANY big 4 stations with a lot being FOX and ABC in the Sinclair stable. Remember, in many markets, Sinclair has duopolies and in many one of them are a big 4, like ABC in Asheville and Greensboro and St Louis just to name a few. Raleigh is one of the few markets with both Sinclair stations not a big 4.

From what my relatives are saying, dishes have started popping up all over in the last week, both D* and E*. There is a waiting list and some private installers are trying to take advantage of viewers. They were quoted an $800 install for 3 SD receivers, that is why I am installing it for them. In their market it is ABC they will lose.

I doubt too many people will be willing to choke up $800, when in all likelihood they know the fruckus will be settled within days after the channels are actually taken down, if it indeed actually happens.

While Sinclair does have several Big Four stations in their stable, they don't really line up much with the MediaCom markets. I'll do some homework to validate or repudiate my assertion. ;)

The fact is that MediaCom and Sinclair may just be the first skirmishes in this battle.

Frankly, if I were them, I would have insisted on short-term (two years or so) deals with the stations, and then just piggy-backed on the upcoming CBS negotiations.

The CBS O&Os WILL get money for retransmission. And I believe all the network O&Os will get similar deals as their current carriage deals expire.

After all, Dish and DirecTV have been paying for carriage from the inception, FiOS is paying, and how is it all their bills average far less than Comcast or Time Warner?

The fact is, the big cable guys have been saddling cable viewers with the costs of upgrading their internet and telco capabilities. Their rates have consistently outpaced setellite, the national cost of living index, or even the programming hikes imposed by cable programmers.

A local station deserves to get compensation. And I am sure in the next few years most will.

In the past the GEs, Disneys, NewsCorps and Viacoms insisted on cable network carriage rather than local retransmission compensation. But those days are over. The cable networks are (almost) all successful, and now the cable companies, which happily got free programming from the locals (and good deals on the cable networks, too) are having to pay the piper. It is just like those introductory sic-month deals they offer: all the cable, phone and internet you want for just $69. Then next year the bill hits $150.

Well, it is about to become "next year" for the cable companies as far as their free ride with the local stations is concerned. They might enjoy picking fights with Sinclair, but CBS, NewsCorp, Disney and GE will be a far different ball game. And it will be a game cable simply cannot win.

You tried that argument before and when the list was published (from HDTVAtic I think) it showed that there were MANY big 4 stations with a lot being FOX and ABC in the Sinclair stable. Remember, in many markets, Sinclair has duopolies and in many one of them are a big 4, like ABC in Asheville and Greensboro and St Louis just to name a few. Raleigh is one of the few markets with both Sinclair stations not a big 4.

From what my relatives are saying, dishes have started popping up all over in the last week, both D* and E*. There is a waiting list and some private installers are trying to take advantage of viewers. They were quoted an $800 install for 3 SD receivers, that is why I am installing it for them. In their market it is ABC they will lose.


Oh come on Foxeng don't act like everybody is putting up dishes for a channel or two what hasn't even been removed from mediacom. My sister has Mediacom and they are moderately concerned but not enough to not take a internet/cable promo to re-up for 6 months. I have D* and still might switch over to mediacom after football season to get the Series 3 Tivo. Of course I do have a Ch 4228 up to receive Fox23 (KBSI, Sinclair) and don't really care if the SD channel is pulled. Personally all I care about is if this helps HD show up more on cable and OTA. That said nobody will really care until the channels are pulled and stayed pulled for some time. People are getting used to all these channels being pulled for a day or two and they realize to just wait it out.

I doubt too many people will be willing to choke up $800, when in all likelihood they know the fruckus will be settled within days after the channels are actually taken down, if it indeed actually happens.

While Sinclair does have several Big Four stations in their stable, they don't really line up much with the MediaCom markets. I'll do some homework to validate or repudiate my assertion. ;)They actually line up pretty well -- 13 of the 16 markets where Mediacom and Sinclair co-exist stand to lose at least one affiliate of the Big Four.

Oh come on Foxeng don't act like everybody is putting up dishes for a channel or two what hasn't even been removed from mediacom. My sister has Mediacom and they are moderately concerned but not enough to not take a internet/cable promo to re-up for 6 months. I have D* and still might switch over to mediacom after football season to get the Series 3 Tivo. Of course I do have a Ch 4228 up to receive Fox23 (KBSI, Sinclair) and don't really care if the SD channel is pulled. Personally all I care about is if this helps HD show up more on cable and OTA. That said nobody will really care until the channels are pulled and stayed pulled for some time. People are getting used to all these channels being pulled for a day or two and they realize to just wait it out.

The relatives live in a mountainous area and they tell me the dishes are popping up. OTA isn't really an option for many people there.

After all, Dish and DirecTV have been paying for carriage from the inception, FiOS is paying, and how is it all their bills average far less than Comcast or Time Warner?


I don't think this is a fair comparison, or at least the numbers don't add up. We're talking about local broadcast stations that are always on the Limited Basic cable subscription. To the best of my knowledge those subscriptions run from under $10 to just over $20 a month for cable with the average falling in the $12-$18 range. A quick look at Dish and DirecTV, their Family package, which seems to be the lowest, is $19.95* for Dish and $29.95 for DirecTV.

So comparing apples to apples, to say that sat is cheaper is not really the case, and we're not even talking about upfront equipment costs for sat, whereas with cable, you just plug it into the TV.

Overall bills between sat and cable may be lower for cable, but not when we're talking about a minimum package that includes the stations that are in question.

* The Dish package doesn't even appear to even include locals.

In all honesty I will say my cable bill for HDTV and digital tiers is MUCH lower than satellite.

I don't think this is a fair comparison, or at least the numbers don't add up. We're talking about local broadcast stations that are always on the Limited Basic cable subscription. To the best of my knowledge those subscriptions run from under $10 to just over $20 a month for cable with the average falling in the $12-$18 range. A quick look at Dish and DirecTV, their Family package, which seems to be the lowest, is $19.95* for Dish and $29.95 for DirecTV.

So comparing apples to apples, to say that sat is cheaper is not really the case, and we're not even talking about upfront equipment costs for sat, whereas with cable, you just plug it into the TV.

Overall bills between sat and cable may be lower for cable, but not when we're talking about a minimum package that includes the stations that are in question.

* The Dish package doesn't even appear to even include locals.

Basic cable usually has the local channels only and the basic DBS has some non OTA cable channels along with the locals so you could do a pretty close apples to apples.

Basic cable usually has the local channels only and the basic DBS has some non OTA cable channels along with the locals so you could do a pretty close apples to apples.

A few posts back, I indicated that MediaCom has alledgely offered to allow Sinclair to use ANY retransmission agreement that either they or MediaCom have negociated as a template for a Sinclair/MediaCom agreement.

My speculation is that the sticking point has to do more with the "bundling" of the entire Sinclair Portfolio as a single negociation entity. That is to my knowledge without precedent and goes well beyond the context of any existing agreements.

What makes Sinclair's position even more preposterous is that they really are a pretty poor broadcaster when it comes to serving their public. This is all about pleasing stockholders.

While the retransmission argument is about preserving the financial viability of the "local" TV model, Sinclair has repeatedly shown indifference and even contempt towards meeting that ends.

In all honesty I will say my cable bill for HDTV and digital tiers is MUCH lower than satellite.

Be careful. That could be interpretted as a positive statement about cable. :rolleyes:

Basic cable usually has the local channels only and the basic DBS has some non OTA cable channels along with the locals so you could do a pretty close apples to apples.
Okay, yes, the satcos have additional "cable" channels in their lowest priced subscription, probably equating to cable's Standard or Limited+Expanded lineup. In that case cable would be higher on average, but, we're talking about local broadcast channels here which can had for under $20 with cable. If the subscriber wanted just local broadcast channels only, their cost would be higher with satco due to the bundling with the cablenet channels. It could be that that bundling allows the satcos a greater ability to pay for those local broadcast channels so the argument that sat has been paying all along for local broadcast whereas cable has not is not a fair argument. Cable is regulated to having to provide a basic, primarily local channel, lineup with the cost kept inline by local government. Satco doesn't have that restriction/regulation. In fact, to this day, satco still doesn't provide local channels in every market. In every market where there is cable, cable does provide locals.

So basically, the facts are, that to get the lowest cost for a primarily local channel lineup, satco is higher across the board than cable is.

I don't think this is a fair comparison, or at least the numbers don't add up. We're talking about local broadcast stations that are always on the Limited Basic cable subscription. To the best of my knowledge those subscriptions run from under $10 to just over $20 a month for cable with the average falling in the $12-$18 range. A quick look at Dish and DirecTV, their Family package, which seems to be the lowest, is $19.95* for Dish and $29.95 for DirecTV.

So comparing apples to apples, to say that sat is cheaper is not really the case, and we're not even talking about upfront equipment costs for sat, whereas with cable, you just plug it into the TV.

Overall bills between sat and cable may be lower for cable, but not when we're talking about a minimum package that includes the stations that are in question.

* The Dish package doesn't even appear to even include locals.


Good points, Jim.

But think another fair way to look at it is the average bills consumers pay, not the cheapest way they can get minimum services.

And when you add in HD, how does the cable/DBS/telco comparison work?

In many (if not most) cases, cable companies require a minimum of digital tier to access local HD, and then often tack on HD surcharges and extra for the STBS.

This may by no means be representiative, but I suspect it is pretty common: a friend in central Missouri wanted to upgrade from a basic family tier from MediaCom to HD. It would have cost her about $50 more, and an HD DVR would have been $12.95 a month more on top of that. And she has bundled internet/telco service. Her bill would have risen from $114 to about $175, just to add HD locals (although Fox is not available yet) and get the basic HD tier.

Since she watches mostly OTA, she is investing in an antenna (while keeping the basic family tier) and figures she'll be ahead of the game in three months.

(In fairness, Mediacom apparently offers a $59.95 cable/internet/phone deal for the first 12 months, so newbies could score all of it, including HD, for about $100 or so, I think.)

Say for a moment, that a significant local cable company was stubborn enough to hold out forever and absorb the loss of some subscribers and force other subscribers to put up antennas where possible.

Would this have any effect on the local station left off the cable? What action do you think would take place, if any?

I believe this would have a negative financial effect on the local station and it would, then, require the cable company to carry its signal. ................ Does anyone disagree??

Good points, Jim.



In many (if not most) cases, cable companies require a minimum of digital tier to access local HD, and then often tack on HD surcharges and extra for the STBS.


Typically, the larger cablecos do not charge extra for local HD, and if the sub's display has a QAM tuner then the HD STB is not required either although in most cases the sub would be paying about $5 more per month for the HD-capable STB as it would have all the guide info, etc.

HD-DVR's are more expensive with sat than they are with cable, although the dynamic of getting them into the customer's home is a bit different in that cable rents, whereas sat requires a substantial upfront cost, typically around $200-$300, plus a monthly "lease" fee. That monthly lease fee is right in line with what cable charges monthly for their DVR service.

Most cablecos, from what I can tell, do require a minumum of around $50 worth of programming to qualify to rent the HD-DVR. BTW, cable dose not have SD-only DVRs, they're all HD capable, another differentiating point from satco.

I still contend that, local to local only, cable is cheaper than satco by a good 30%-50%.

I believe this would have a negative financial effect on the local station and it would, then, require the cable company to carry its signal. ................ Does anyone disagree??
That would be a must-carry situation, and then the station couldn't ask for all the dollars that a Sinclair is attempting to do with Mediacom and others.

Be careful. That could be interpretted as a positive statement about cable. :rolleyes:

You mean that they show SHO/HBO/HDNET/HDNET Movies/UHD in 1920x1080iT and full bitrate for a cheaper price than satellite who doesn't?

That would be a must-carry situation, and then the station couldn't ask for all the dollars that a Sinclair is attempting to do with Mediacom and others.

Now, the trick is going to be to get cable subscribers to refrain from pressuring the cable companies to pay the recalcitrant station for its signal until the station begins experiencing reductions in advertising revenue due to its lack of extended and improved coverage from cable. .............. The station's accountant will inform the station when that moment has arrived.

The station will then exercise its "right" to be carried on the cable system.

This "dance" between broadcasters and cable companies should have ended 12/31/06. Instead, politicians (for some reason) have extended the dance until 2/09. Cable subscribers must stay on their feet during this marathon if they would have any chance of winning. .......... How tough are we?

Now, the trick is going to be to get cable subscribers to refrain from pressuring the cable companies to pay the recalcitrant station for its signal until the station begins experiencing reductions in advertising revenue due to its lack of extended and improved coverage from cable. .............. The station's accountant will inform the station when that moment has arrived.

The station will then exercise its "right" to be carried on the cable system.

This "dance" between broadcasters and cable companies should have ended 12/31/06. Instead, politicians (for some reason) have extended the dance until 2/09. Cable subscribers must stay on their feet during this marathon if they would have any chance of winning. .......... How tough are we?

Once again you have proved how utterly clueless you are to the way things work.

As the ratings that advertisers pay attention to are not done continuously, between lag time, upfront buys and posting (which you don't know what it is), the advertiser will get the rating points they purchased as it will be made up with bonus weight.

Furthermore, the lag time to see the BEGINNING of what you have described would be 6 months at the EARLIEST.

What cable customer will sit around for 6-12 months with no CBS, NBC, FOX or ABC?

If its MyNetworkTV or CW, the cable companies can probably wait for years, lol.

And even if you thought money was shifting around, that would put pressure on sales avails at the other stations, forcing the price of their inventory up, which will put more demand on the inventory of the hold out - so even the rising tide will help buffer what you suggest.

Just to clarify, Cox (in the Pensacola area) offers HD/DVR service for as little as about $30/mo. That includes 25 SD channels and 5-10 HD channels. Also, they do offer SD only DVRs.


Typically, the larger cablecos do not charge extra for local HD, and if the sub's display has a QAM tuner then the HD STB is not required either although in most cases the sub would be paying about $5 more per month for the HD-capable STB as it would have all the guide info, etc.

HD-DVR's are more expensive with sat than they are with cable, although the dynamic of getting them into the customer's home is a bit different in that cable rents, whereas sat requires a substantial upfront cost, typically around $200-$300, plus a monthly "lease" fee. That monthly lease fee is right in line with what cable charges monthly for their DVR service.

Most cablecos, from what I can tell, do require a minumum of around $50 worth of programming to qualify to rent the HD-DVR. BTW, cable dose not have SD-only DVRs, they're all HD capable, another differentiating point from satco.

I still contend that, local to local only, cable is cheaper than satco by a good 30%-50%.

My bill just went up $5 to slightly over $50 for the first time. I get all the locals in digital (except Sinclair MyNetworkHD, Pax i and Telemundo Spanish), roughly 150 digital SD Channels, VOD, HBO, SHO (all channels plus HD) TNTHD, A&EHD, DiscoveryHD, INHD1/2, HDNET/Movies/ESPN/UHD and HD PPV, plus the sports tier.

I could not even get the basic 60 channel digital package in HD without HBO and SHO for anything close to that from satellite.

No that's not the rack rate either - and I don't know exactly how I ended up with that rate (essentially they gave me HBO, SHO and Sports 3 years ago and reduced my bill by $3) and no one else has been able to, but it only went up $1 the second year and $5 this year.

You have got to be afraid to ask about a DVR and call attention to that rate.

If its MyNetworkTV or CW, the cable companies can probably wait for years, lol.

And the reason MediaCom doesn't want to finance these "pork barrel" losers as part of a retrans agreement for Big Four signals in completely different markets. :cool:

Once again you have proved how utterly clueless you are to the way things work.

As the ratings that advertisers pay attention to are not done continuously, between lag time, upfront buys and posting (which you don't know what it is), the advertiser will get the rating points they purchased as it will be made up with bonus weight.

Furthermore, the lag time to see the BEGINNING of what you have described would be 6 months at the EARLIEST.

What cable customer will sit around for 6-12 months with no CBS, NBC, FOX or ABC?

If its MyNetworkTV or CW, the cable companies can probably wait for years, lol.

And even if you thought money was shifting around, that would put pressure on sales avails at the other stations, forcing the price of their inventory up, which will put more demand on the inventory of the hold out - so even the rising tide will help buffer what you suggest.

Although there will indeed be lagtime due to the ratings that advertisers use, I don't see you disagreeing with my simple scenario. Advertising expenditures demand potential positive results. If the advertising message is less likely to be received, adjustments will be made (to the detriment of the affected station).

By the way, HDTVFAN, don't get so caught up in your little world of "inside baseball" that you forget basic principles. Most of us have been involved in professions that include specialized lingo. Such language can be useful on the job, but should not be used to impress people outside the profession unless you want to be considered the ultimate fool.

Although there will indeed be lagtime due to the ratings that advertisers use, I don't see you disagreeing with my simple scenario. Advertising expenditures demand potential positive results. If the advertising message is less likely to be received, adjustments will be made (to the detriment of the affected station).

By the way, HDTVFAN, don't get so caught up in your little world of "inside baseball" that you forget basic principles. Most of us have been involved in professions that include specialized lingo. Such language can be useful on the job, but should not be used to impress people outside the profession unless you want to be considered the ultimate fool.

Yes, as I expected you don't understand posting nor what demand in the market does to pricing.

There is a reason why stations make money even with crappy ratings, but you don't get that part - and unless you understand the whole flow - which you don't - you better not think you know how to win a battle in the Industry.

And the reason MediaCom doesn't want to finance these "pork barrel" losers as part of a retrans agreement for Big Four signals in completely different markets. :cool:


But guess what, CBS will do the same for CW and Fox for MyNetwork.

That's the way the game is played in cable - group owners make one deal and its made on a Corporate level.

BTW, even the losers have higher viewership than most of the dogs cable pays for today.

But guess what, CBS will do the same for CW and Fox for MyNetwork.

That's the way the game is played in cable - group owners make one deal and its made on a Corporate level.

BTW, even the losers have higher viewership than most of the dogs cable pays for today.

I can tell you this much. There is absolutely NO viewship in our household for the Sinclair owned CW and MYTV affiliates in my market. There are at least a dozen cable networks that get watched regularly.

I can tell you this much. There is absolutely NO viewship in our household for the Sinclair owned CW and MYTV affiliates in my market. There are at least a dozen cable networks that get watched regularly.

And there is most likely NO viewership of the dozen or so cable networks that get viewed in households that view CW and MYTV - and again - ratings prove that these, though low by OTA standards, have more viewers than virtually every cable channel.

Think about it - when the highest rated program on cable news gets around 2 Million viewers, its not very hard.

And there is most likely NO viewership of the dozen or so cable networks that get viewed in households that view CW and MYTV - and again - ratings prove that these, though low by OTA standards, have more viewers than virtually every cable channel.

Think about it - when the highest rated program on cable news gets around 2 Million viewers, its not very hard.

Wrong.

SpongeBob beats CW.
O'Reilly (gag) beats CW.
I bet even CSPAN beats MYTV. :rolleyes:

Mr. FanAtic, whether you know it or not you are having a very difficult time making yourself understood. .......... You seem to be saying that a local station doesn't really care if it is on the cable system or not because it will make just as much advertising money anyway.

If this is what you are saying, please confirm and, then, proceed to explain in as simple a fashion as possible using everyday language and terminology what I am overlooking. At that point, I will probably arrive at the same conclusion that you have.

Mr. FanAtic, whether you know it or not you are having a very difficult time making yourself understood. .......... You seem to be saying that a local station doesn't really care if it is on the cable system or not because it will make just as much advertising money anyway.

If this is what you are saying, please confirm and, then, proceed to explain in as simple a fashion as possible using everyday language and terminology what I am overlooking. At that point, I will probably arrive at the same conclusion that you have.

I am saying that you don't understand market dynamics of supply and demand - and how TV advertising is accomplished.

Points are guaranteed and makeup spots are given to bring the weight of the schedule in.

If, as you say, you have an abnormal market occurance (TV station disappears off of cable) it will take literally a half year before that will have any influence on the ratings that advertisers will take serious.

Never mind that large amounts of advertising are placed on annual buys.

But, if you have an abnormal market occurance - and thus more advertisers move to the other stations - their rates will go UP because of pressure is put on their inventory.

That in turn takes the cost per point of the market upward - and as I stated, depending on the drop in audience, the rise in cost per point can actually offset the loss.

Now if the market is in an advertising lull where there is literally no advertising going on at that time, that won't happen as the pipeline won't be full.

But rates will be reactive to market demands.

What you fail to comprehend is this isnt a vaccum between 1 station and a cable company. As it will take literally a year to get the results you desire, during that time another network's retransmission will come up - and they will hold as well. What happens in 12-18 months when ABC, CBS and FOX are all off the cable system?

I'll tell you what will happen - it won't be the TV station crying uncle.

And the Corporations that own the TV stations understand this now - and are willing to take the short term loss for the long term gain.

Wrong.

SpongeBob beats CW.
O'Reilly (gag) beats CW.
I bet even CSPAN beats MYTV. :rolleyes:

Wow....you managed to list the top rated news show that has roughly 2 million viewers. Unfortunately, FNC doesn't 24/7.

Unfortunately, one show does not a Network make.

SpongeBob averages around 3Million Viewers - unfortunately, Nick doesn't 24/7.

If you want to advertise to Women 18-34s and you don't think America's Next Top Model blows out O'Reily, think again. I don't see many Covergirl spots on O'Reily.

In fact, looking at the ratings from Friday night,

Friday 12/01/06
Note: The following results are based on the fast national ratings (Live Plus Same Day data).

Household Rating/Share
ABC: 6.9/12, NBC: 6.3/11, CBS: 4.5/ 8, CW: 2.8/ 5, Fox: 2.8/ 5

-Total Viewers:
ABC: 11.94 million, NBC: 9.91, CBS: 6.56, CW: 4.71, Fox: 4.00

-Adults 18-49:
ABC: 3.7 rating/11 share, NBC: 3.1/ 9, CBS and Fox: 1.5/ 4 each, CW: 1.4/ 4


CW had 4.71 Million viewers for the night.

So much for O'Reilly and SpongeBob.

Again, overall the CW and MYTV stations will beat the cable system channels on a total week basis - which is how this is judged.

It's not PPV. It's not a single show.

And with the local Syndication and other shows, yes, all the local MYTV stations beat CSpan in weekly viewership.

Okay, yes, the satcos have additional "cable" channels in their lowest priced subscription, probably equating to cable's Standard or Limited+Expanded lineup. In that case cable would be higher on average, but, we're talking about local broadcast channels here which can had for under $20 with cable. If the subscriber wanted just local broadcast channels only, their cost would be higher with satco due to the bundling with the cablenet channels. It could be that that bundling allows the satcos a greater ability to pay for those local broadcast channels so the argument that sat has been paying all along for local broadcast whereas cable has not is not a fair argument. Cable is regulated to having to provide a basic, primarily local channel, lineup with the cost kept inline by local government. Satco doesn't have that restriction/regulation. In fact, to this day, satco still doesn't provide local channels in every market. In every market where there is cable, cable does provide locals.

So basically, the facts are, that to get the lowest cost for a primarily local channel lineup, satco is higher across the board than cable is.

Dishnetwork does not require a basic package for locals. You can subscribe to locals only for $12 ($6 access fee, $6 local package).

Lowest priced package is Dish Family, with locals its $25.

Dishnetwork does not require a basic package for locals. You can subscribe to locals only for $12 ($6 access fee, $6 local package).

Lowest priced package is Dish Family, with locals its $25.
I wasn't aware of that, I stand corrected. Does DirecTV have a locals only package as well. Is the STB free from Dish for that local only package?

I'm not defending cable, personally I hate my local Comcast system as they have not upgraded the system since before they even started carrying HD over 3 years. But I am saying that, in general, cable is the less overall expensive solution to local channels.

It's really going to be interesting when CBS comes up for contract, basic cable rates will probably rise for sure. Although, depending on how many stations CBS owns, and what cable companies they're dealing with, I'm not so sure CBS is going to get this bank load of money that Moonves keeps talking about. Nets like NBC and ABC which actually own a small amount of stations will probably have even less leverage. I think NBC only owns about 10-11 nationwide.

I am saying that you don't understand market dynamics of supply and demand - and how TV advertising is accomplished.

Points are guaranteed and makeup spots are given to bring the weight of the schedule in.

If, as you say, you have an abnormal market occurance (TV station disappears off of cable) it will take literally a half year before that will have any influence on the ratings that advertisers will take serious.

Never mind that large amounts of advertising are placed on annual buys.

But, if you have an abnormal market occurance - and thus more advertisers move to the other stations - their rates will go UP because of pressure is put on their inventory.

That in turn takes the cost per point of the market upward - and as I stated, depending on the drop in audience, the rise in cost per point can actually offset the loss.

Now if the market is in an advertising lull where there is literally no advertising going on at that time, that won't happen as the pipeline won't be full.

But rates will be reactive to market demands.

What you fail to comprehend is this isnt a vaccum between 1 station and a cable company. As it will take literally a year to get the results you desire, during that time another network's retransmission will come up - and they will hold as well. What happens in 12-18 months when ABC, CBS and FOX are all off the cable system?

I'll tell you what will happen - it won't be the TV station crying uncle.

And the Corporations that own the TV stations understand this now - and are willing to take the short term loss for the long term gain.

Earlier, we were talking about a 6 month lag time before advertisers both wised up and were able to move their advertising from the station that did not add its digital signal to the cable system to a station that DID add its digital signal to the cable system.

You have changed that time frame to 1 year and even 18 months.

Right now, we are discussing Sinclair stations not authorizing their digital signals to be placed on cable systems. The clock has already started running. At this moment, 26 months remain before stations must broadcast digitally. This is nothing but a checkpoint along the way. I suspect before that checkpoint is reached, however, Sinclair could be brought to their knees by a cable provider that had the resources and tenacity to hold on.

Mr. FanAtic, whether I am right or wrong on the eventual outcome, would you not agree with me that the withholding station would at least begin to suffer financially during this period? Would you, also, not agree with me that the station would begin to benefit financially (after the presumed 6 - 18 month waiting period you reference) when they are added to the local cable system?

Are you really saying that advertisers don't care if a station is carried on the local cable system?

Well, there was an article in the Des Moines Register last week about how the local Sinclair station, KDSM Fox 17, sent out a letter to its advertisers telling them that the station would cut its ad rates if it left cable. It probably wouldn't have made news except that the Register somehow got one of those letters. But it illustrates the risk the station and others faced. And KDSM faced a particular risk -- it was the first UHF station in what had been an all-VHF market. It was full of viewers who could successfully tune in 5, 8, 11 or 13 with rabbit ears, but suddenly had trouble with this new station. Cable helped them tremendously. They've advertised themselves as "Fox 17 - Cable 6" for years. More than half the market watches them on cable. Granted, some would've get an "A/B" switch and an antenna, and others would have taken Sinclair's $150 rebate and bolted for satellite, but they'd need a lot of rebates to break even viewer-wise.

Well, there was an article in the Des Moines Register last week about how the local Sinclair station, KDSM Fox 17, sent out a letter to its advertisers telling them that the station would cut its ad rates if it left cable. It probably wouldn't have made news except that the Register somehow got one of those letters. But it illustrates the risk the station and others faced. And KDSM faced a particular risk -- it was the first UHF station in what had been an all-VHF market. It was full of viewers who could successfully tune in 5, 8, 11 or 13 with rabbit ears, but suddenly had trouble with this new station. Cable helped them tremendously. They've advertised themselves as "Fox 17 - Cable 6" for years. More than half the market watches them on cable. Granted, some would've get an "A/B" switch and an antenna, and others would have taken Sinclair's $150 rebate and bolted for satellite, but they'd need a lot of rebates to break even viewer-wise.

I'm sure your posting will aid Mr. FanAtic in understanding the market dynamics of supply and demand. .............. I'm guessing that Sinclair's letter was aimed at demonstrating that they were prepared to "tough it out."

The A/B switch.

1) Walk across the room and flip switch to "B"
2) Press Menu
3) Scroll down to "Setup", press enter
4) Scroll down to "Tuner", press enter
5) Scroll down to "Band", press enter
6) Change Band from CATV to Antenna, press enter
7) Press Exit
8) Enter UHF channel number

Let's see, only a dozen or so steps just to watch an off-air channel.

Now when you want to switch back to a cable channel, repeat the above.

Simple. Broadcasters really don't get it, do they???

P.S. Just try to DVR "LOST" on your cable DVR. Ain't gonna happen.

You need a new TV posg.

You need a new TV posg.

:D :D :D

You know better than that. But there are still a few (well over half) of the TVs out there that are "direct connects", and if you haven't ever worked for a cable company, let me educate you. Switching between Antenna and Cable mode is well beyond the intellegence of the average TV user. Trust me on that little tidbit.

You need a new TV posg.

As soon as the 46" Sony XBR LCD drops below $3000, the Quasar "Works-in-a- Drawer" is going on e-bay!!!!

The Sony website had it on sale last week for $1200 off it's entry price of just three months ago.

Mr. FanAtic, whether I am right or wrong on the eventual outcome, would you not agree with me that the withholding station would at least begin to suffer financially during this period? Would you, also, not agree with me that the station would begin to benefit financially (after the presumed 6 - 18 month waiting period you reference) when they are added to the local cable system?

Are you really saying that advertisers don't care if a station is carried on the local cable system?

I made the point whether 6, 12 or 18 months or longer - just a stations have stayed off Dish and Directv, they will stay off cable. The time doesn't matter, because sooner or later, the other stations will also pull off. In 6-12 months, another station will pull off the system, so they should exhibit the same drop in viewership. Then another, then another....

Pretty soon the cable system doesn't have 2 or 3 or 4 of the networks.

You can get satellite installed in a week. That's a lot shorter time than waiting for several quarters to see the financial impact of advertising loss.

And the advertising rates are no different that the price of gasoline - it totally is controlled by supply and demand.

You are looking at it as if there are only 2 parts - the station and the cable system.

Its a multidimensional marketplace and that's where your 2 dimensional scenario falls apart.

Think about airline pricing of fares and you can better understand it.

HDTVFanAtic, don't forget the rules on the game. In this prisoner's dilemma, even though the broadcasters best outcome is to all withhold their signal in concert for compensation, the individual actors have incentives to strike a deal with a cable and reap a viewership advantage.

HDTVFanAtic, don't forget the rules on the game. In this prisoner's dilemma, even though the broadcasters best outcome is to all withhold their signal in concert for compensation, the individual actors have incentives to strike a deal with a cable and reap a viewership advantage.


Well, actually remember that the local stations do not have individual rights to sign retrans agreements. That is all done on a Corporate Level - and since every market is different - in terms of Station Ownership and Cable Ownership, just like the cable companies to consumer, the broadcast stations will not sign individual markets "ala carte".

If you are still having problems with the advertising pricing, look at this story from this afternoon's www.insideradio.com.

I'll post here as the story will move off the front page tomorrow.

October looks like radio’s best revenue-increase month in 2-1/2 years.

That’s based on our own quick analysis of the monthly numbers issued by the Radio Advertising Bureau – which say that local revenue grew 2%, national jumped 14% and non-spot revenue stayed hot at a +15% clip. Average all that together and you get a 6% rise for the month of October. Though Wachovia analyst Marci Ryvicker says “Don’t get too excited – it’s just easy comps” from the year before. Ryvicker notes that in October 2005, revenue declined 7%. But this year's strong October seems to buttress what many group heads have been saying about all of Q4.



Now how did this happen and what does this have to do with TV ads rates?

Simple - a large multidimensional marketplace with Supply and Demand.

First, let's get it out the way. The reason October was a record month for radio - and TV as well, was because of the Election Advertising.

In an effort to take back Congress, Democrats spent like crazy, Republican's spent like crazy, even Indys spent like crazy. PAC's spent like crazy. The RNC and DNC spent like crazy. Even the referendum sides spent like crazy.

So you say, doesn't Broadcasting have a law where you must give candidates the Lowest Rate on the Station for several months prior?

Why, yes they do. So how is everyone making Record Profits selling at the lowest rate in months?

First, only Candidates who buy spots (Iamb John Smith and I endorsed this message) get the rate. PAC's, RNC, DNC, referendums etc don't. They pay the going rate.

That took a large amount of inventory out of the system. Think like an airline. The Political Candidates got the cheap seats.

Again, how did everyone make record revenue in October then?

By taking inventory out of the system, the remaining avails became more valuable and the price went up accordingly. In fact there was so much demand that the remaining inventory rates went through the roof.

At this point, that priced the advertisers who could not pay the highly inflated October rates to either 1) look for a station that didn't raise the rates that much (they couldn't find it as all stations sold political ads) or 2) go to radio or other means, which many did.

There are many categories, such as wireless, that will go between Radio and Television depending on the pricing. You did not see as many local car dealers and wireless cellphone ads on TV in October, whether you realize it or not, because they were priced out of TV and went to radio.

Radio had demand coming in and raised their rates as well, so all of broadcasting won.

This is where Stan54's argument falls apart.

Let's say in 6+ months the viewership of a station is down so people go to the other 3 stations. The other 3 stations start raising their rates because of increased demand on the inventory - just as they did in October. As the rates are increased, as the tide rises, more and more advertisers look for alternatives (as what happened in October with TV and Radio) and they will end up going to the station that is no longer on cable.

However, the other stations have pushed up the Cost Per Point for the market, thus the station that is off cable can actually raise its cost per point rates to come in line with the market for Cost Per Point - negating much of what you think will be the revenue loss.

Think about it from what you see of Airline fare increases. One airline raises the fare by 10% - if the others go along - it sticks. If someone doesn't raise the rates, the first airline reduces the rates again.

And back to cable, before long a second network station is off cable - and if the cable system hasn't cried uncle, wait until the 3rd falls off.

I suspect that cable will loose FAR more in revenue than the stations will - and the difference is, that comes back when the cable company has to give in.

I am aware of one "war" that took place a number of years ago in a slightly different circumstance where the equivalent of the cable company lost 10% of their subscribers and it took close to 7 years to make those 10% back up.

And thus, the cable company most likely lost those customers for a very long time.

They clearly have the most to loose.

Now, the only way this doesnt work is if the entire advertising market is soft for a long period of time - then everyone will cut rates.

However, if that is the case, most likely the Broadcast companies will point to that and say its needed even more - thus digging their heels in deeper.

Mr. FanAtic -

I posed 3 questions:
1. Would you not agree with me that the withholding station would at least begin to suffer financially during this period?

2. Would you, also, not agree with me that the station would begin to benefit financially (after the presumed 6 - 18 month waiting period you reference) when they are added to the local cable system?

3. Are you really saying that advertisers don't care if a station is carried on the local cable system?

Would you please respond with a YES or NO to my questions, particularly the last question?

Thanks.

I have been reading your reasons very carefully and the economics are generally what one might expect. The problem is that under your reasoning, a station would still be making adequate money even if they went to 10% radiated signal. ............. There has to be a time when a station suffers if it doesn't reach a sufficient number of eyeballs.

So the law states that they must let cable companies rebroadcast their Analog signal for free, but it doesn't have any provisions for the digital signal?No, the first part of your statement is wrong - the cable company needs permission to broadcast the analog signal also. But Sinclair can't afford to play hardball there because the analog signal is what gets measured for their ratings. No cable carriage = very low ratings = no advertising revenue = out of business.

But that is exactly where Sinclair IS playing hardball, oxothuk.

All its signals will go dark on MediaCom if there is no agreement on compensation.

But that is exactly where Sinclair IS playing hardball, oxothuk.

All its signals will go dark on MediaCom if there is no agreement on compensation.Sounds more like playing "chicken" than "hardball". But sorry I replied to a post on page 1 of the thread without realizing there were 30 pages more.

Mr. FanAtic -

I posed 3 questions:
1. Would you not agree with me that the withholding station would at least begin to suffer financially during this period?



As stated above, there are no absolute answers to this.

As stated above, not neccessarily - and most likely no. They will continue to sell and make up any cpp shortage on posting with added bonus weight.

However, the cable company would suffer financially ALMOST IMMEDIATELY.



2. Would you, also, not agree with me that the station would begin to benefit financially (after the presumed 6 - 18 month waiting period you reference) when they are added to the local cable system?


To use the old phrase, there you go again, as I did not agree with you also in #1. You are again making assumptions.

Yes, because there will be added revenue paid by the cable system for the first time - so DUH, they will benefit financially.


3. Are you really saying that advertisers don't care if a station is carried on the local cable system?


Yes I am saying that. Advertisers buy on Cost Per Point - not on how many cable systems you are on.


Would you please respond with a YES or NO to my questions, particularly the last question?


Where yes or no is applicable, I have.


I have been reading your reasons very carefully and the economics are generally what one might expect. The problem is that under your reasoning, a station would still be making adequate money even if they went to 10% radiated signal. ............. There has to be a time when a station suffers if it doesn't reach a sufficient number of eyeballs.

The problem is you don't understand the way the market works - and the different dimensions - perhaps you were an advisor to GWB on Iraq? Same type thinking - get rid of Saddam, everyone will be happy?

And where do you even get a 10% radiated figure. Again, you assume only 1 cable system per DMA - which is another downfall for your argument.

The largest cable system in America is Houston with roughly 750,000 subs and a market of roughly 2 Million households.

http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=72

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=719690

There are only 12 systems in America with over 300,000 subs.

The DMA's go well past a city line - or a county line.

Time Warner in NYC only has 325,000 subs in a market of 7.3 Million households.

Cablevision's various systems has roughly 1 Million subs in the NY DMA in a market of 7.3 Million households.

Think about it.

Yes I am saying that. Advertisers buy on Cost Per Point - not on how many cable systems you are on.
That is true to some extent, and it may have something to do with why December 1 was the cutoff for the Sinclair/Mediacom retrans deal. By that date, the November "sweeps" measurements would have ended and the stations would have numbers from a month in which they WERE on cable. The next "sweeps" month isn't 'til February, so the stations will still have the numbers they had WITH cable for a couple of months until new measurements are taken. By that time, the logic goes, the broadcaster and the cableco may well settle their differences and the station will be back on cable to a full audience for February.

The problem with that theory is that advertisers and agencies read the papers, they know what's going on, and they will expect a discount until the stations reach a full audience.

(Keep in mind, I don't know whether Nielsen takes cable, sat or OTA-only into consideration when they select households for their ratings samples. So if a market is, say, 50% Mediacom, 15% DirecTV, 15% Dish and 20% OTA, I don't know if sample households reflect this proportion.)

The problem with that theory is that advertisers and agencies read the papers, they know what's going on, and they will expect a discount until the stations reach a full audience.

Hate to break the bad news to you, but if a station's coverage area full emcompasses a cable systems coverage, the station is considered at "full audience" whether they are on the cable system or not. A stations audience is based on households within their coverage area, not the cable systems sub numbers. Never has been.

That is true to some extent, and it may have something to do with why December 1 was the cutoff for the Sinclair/Mediacom retrans deal. By that date, the November "sweeps" measurements would have ended and the stations would have numbers from a month in which they WERE on cable. The next "sweeps" month isn't 'til February, so the stations will still have the numbers they had WITH cable for a couple of months until new measurements are taken. By that time, the logic goes, the broadcaster and the cableco may well settle their differences and the station will be back on cable to a full audience for February.

The problem with that theory is that advertisers and agencies read the papers, they know what's going on, and they will expect a discount until the stations reach a full audience.

(Keep in mind, I don't know whether Nielsen takes cable, sat or OTA-only into consideration when they select households for their ratings samples. So if a market is, say, 50% Mediacom, 15% DirecTV, 15% Dish and 20% OTA, I don't know if sample households reflect this proportion.)

As Foxeng said, that makes no difference.

The problem is you guys don't understand how Advertising works.

The Ad Agency plays the game safe - they go by numbers in the ratings for cpp.

The TV station guarantees a certain level. If there is a shortfall, they simply run bonus weight.

That's the way the game is played.

However, in the 2 dimensional world that you, posg and Stan54 see, you fail to realize that the cable company sees AN IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL HIT and under your scenario the curve will accelerate weekly. How long before the financial people at the cable company tell THEM to cry uncle?

Because as more move off cable, the TV stations in theory will increase its ratings back that percentage instantly.

However, the cable company has lost that customer for a LONG PERIOD OF TIME - if not forever.

And btw, with roughly 28 Million Satellite subs (and a percentage of those are businesses - probably under 10% but still significant) and roughly 115 Million Households, your satellite number is WAY too high.

EDIT-Damn spell check :(

Lots of speculation going on here.

Frankly, I think it would be interesting to see what actually would happen if, say, three of the four "big four" network affiliates were yanked from a local cable system at the same time in one of these retransmission disputes. While my suspicion is that the cable system would be the big loser, the truth is that it is (like most of the rest of this thread) just speculation until it actually happens.

My question for the industry folks here is whether there are any regions (markets or individual cable systems) where retransmission agreements all expire at the same time -- in other words, is there any place where it would actually be possible for multiple "big four" affiliates to yank their programming from cable at the same time?

...you assume only 1 cable system per DMA - which is another downfall for your argument.

Actually, in one major Sinclair market this is exactly the case. The Las Vegas Cox franchise serves 410,256 of 671,630 households in the DMA. The rest is pretty much DBS and OTA. Of course, they are only CW and MyTV affiliates, and while they do have some of the stronger syndication packages, I doubt their loss would cause very many subscribers to follow them to OTA or DBS. (After all, you can get your Seinfeld reruns from TBS, etc.)

Actually, in one major Sinclair market this is exactly the case. The Las Vegas Cox franchise serves 410,256 of 671,630 households in the DMA. The rest is pretty much DBS and OTA. Of course, they are only CW and MyTV affiliates, and while they do have some of the stronger syndication packages, I doubt their loss would cause very many subscribers to follow them to OTA or DBS. (After all, you can get your Seinfeld reruns from TBS, etc.)


As noted on the above reference (Post 905) the Las Vegas franchise is the 5th largest in the nation. As also noted, only 12 systems have over 300,000 subs.

Las Vegas is in a unique position in that regards.

However, as deals are done NATIONWIDE, not by market, whatever the local stations owners and the local MSO owner span multiple markets - so the damage can still be done.

You don't think cable companies have CFOs that look at all the systems they own individually?

As noted on the above reference (Post 905) the Las Vegas franchise is the 5th largest in the nation. As also noted, only 12 systems have over 300,000 subs.

Las Vegas is in a unique position in that regards.

However, as deals are done NATIONWIDE, not by market, whatever the local stations owners and the local MSO owner span multiple markets - so the damage can still be done.

You don't think cable companies have CFOs that look at all the systems they own individually?

It depends. Generally, carriage agreements are done on the corporate level, but for various reasons a deal may sometimes be made on a system basis. I will agree that for the large station groups like the network O&O's, Tribune, Sinclair, etc. the deal will probably be made at the corporate level if the MSO has many systems affected.

It depends. Generally, carriage agreements are done on the corporate level, but for various reasons a deal may sometimes be made on a system basis. I will agree that for the large station groups like the network O&O's, Tribune, Sinclair, etc. the deal will probably be made at the corporate level if the MSO has many systems affected.


Although there might always be an exception to the rule, Sunbelt, Meredith and Journal will all do Corporate retransmission agreements. Landmark with only 2 stations might not.

As a general rule, any group with more than a handful of stations will decide their Corporate Policy and all retrans agreements are handled by either the Group President or Senior VP.

Lots of speculation going on here.

Frankly, I think it would be interesting to see what actually would happen if, say, three of the four "big four" network affiliates were yanked from a local cable system at the same time in one of these retransmission disputes. While my suspicion is that the cable system would be the big loser, the truth is that it is (like most of the rest of this thread) just speculation until it actually happens.

My question for the industry folks here is whether there are any regions (markets or individual cable systems) where retransmission agreements all expire at the same time -- in other words, is there any place where it would actually be possible for multiple "big four" affiliates to yank their programming from cable at the same time?


For obvious reasons, most are staggered. Of course, with buying and selling of Stations and Cable Systems, some get closer and could match up with similar expiration times.

And though always exceptions to the rule, it seems overall most for cable are 3 years and 5 years for Satellite.

I'm beginning to believe that Fanatic and Fox are so overwhelmed by their insider knowledge that they are overlooking a hard fact that goes beyond rates and area population.

A person in charge of a company's advertising budget, is going to place the money where it will have the most effect regardless of any other factor. That person will use all available information in determining the likely effectiveness of the advertising dollars expended.

That person will either pay fewer dollars for advertising to a station not on the local cable system or pay them no dollars at all regardless of rating points or any other matter because he or she is simply guided by their perception of probable effectiveness. I believe any responsible and professional advertising manager would take this approach.

I'm beginning to believe that Fanatic and Fox are so overwhelmed by their insider knowledge that they are overlooking a hard fact that goes beyond rates and area population.

A person in charge of a company's advertising budget, is going to place the money where it will have the most effect regardless of any other factor. That person will use all available information in determining the likely effectiveness of the advertising dollars expended.

That person will either pay fewer dollars for advertising to a station not on the local cable system or pay them no dollars at all regardless of rating points or any other matter because he or she is simply guided by their perception of probable effectiveness. I believe any responsible and professional advertising manager would take this approach.

You keep operating from the standpoint of only one station of the big 4 in a market will not be on cable and there are no other options. That is a faulty point to start from. If/when Sinclair pulls this off, cable will see an exodus of stations off with subs going to either DBS or OTA or FIOS, where available, if cable doesn't pay. If cable looses a sub, they usually don't get them back for a long time, if ever. That is hard fact. Why do you think cable has resorted to bundling and giving 6 month deals? Because they feel generous?

CBS has been on record for the last 2 years that as their retrans comes up for renewal, they will/are asking for money. That would make 2 stations off in a market. Cable would be reeling at that point. Their losses would be bigger than you can imagine. You see evidence now of that point with Mediacom fighting in the courts to force Sinclair to stay on and Sinclair quitely sitting there watching this all play out. Mediacom knows if a major big 4 pulls off, others will follow. That is a fact that even cable knows. In that case, cable takes a bigger hit than the stations and cable will have a hard time raising rates if they are losing content.

You keep operating from the standpoint of only one station of the big 4 in a market will not be on cable and there are no other options. That is a faulty point to start from. If/when Sinclair pulls this off, cable will see an exodus of stations off with subs going to either DBS or OTA or FIOS, where available, if cable doesn't pay. If cable looses a sub, they usually don't get them back for a long time, if ever. That is hard fact. Why do you think cable has resorted to bundling and giving 6 month deals? Because they feel generous?

CBS has been on record for the last 2 years that as their retrans comes up for renewal, they will/are asking for money. That would make 2 stations off in a market. Cable would be reeling at that point. Their losses would be bigger than you can imagine. You see evidence now of that point with Mediacom fighting in the courts to force Sinclair to stay on and Sinclair quitely sitting there watching this all play out. Mediacom knows if a major big 4 pulls off, others will follow. That is a fact that even cable knows. In that case, cable takes a bigger hit than the stations and cable will have a hard time raising rates if they are losing content.

He's also obvious clueless to the way agencies place buys and the posting process - and that ignorance is how you loose wars.

And god forbid he ever learned what annual buys are - he'd never be able to understand that.

You keep operating from the standpoint of only one station of the big 4 in a market will not be on cable and there are no other options. That is a faulty point to start from. If/when Sinclair pulls this off, cable will see an exodus of stations off with subs going to either DBS or OTA or FIOS, where available, if cable doesn't pay. If cable looses a sub, they usually don't get them back for a long time, if ever. That is hard fact. Why do you think cable has resorted to bundling and giving 6 month deals? Because they feel generous?

CBS has been on record for the last 2 years that as their retrans comes up for renewal, they will/are asking for money. That would make 2 stations off in a market. Cable would be reeling at that point. Their losses would be bigger than you can imagine. You see evidence now of that point with Mediacom fighting in the courts to force Sinclair to stay on and Sinclair quitely sitting there watching this all play out. Mediacom knows if a major big 4 pulls off, others will follow. That is a fact that even cable knows. In that case, cable takes a bigger hit than the stations and cable will have a hard time raising rates if they are losing content.

You keep operating from the standpoint of more than one station of the big 4 in a market being off the cable. This would not seem to be a foregone conclusion.

My Sinclair CBS station is not on the cable system and people in the area are busy bringing big, beautiful digital tv's into their homes. Most are on cable and a few are reluctantly erecting antennas on their homes and hooking them up. The result is that most people are like me and completely out of touch with the local CBS channel and a few others might see it when they think to switch over to their antenna.

At some point in the near future, advertisers will consider acting on their personal observation that there is a somewhat reduced viewership for the Sinclair station. If that point is reached before one of the other big 4 stations pulls its signal from the cable in order to be paid for its signal, Sinclair will have to begin to decide whether or not to continue on the course it has set. Granted, because Sinclair has deep pockets, it could persevere and win by waiting for the second channel to drop off the cable. This, too, should not be a foregone conclusion.

I can easily foresee a situation in the next year or two whereby Sinclair says we have fought the good fight, but we are now beginning to see small revenue reductions and no assurance that this will not continue and escalate. Let's order the local cable system to begin carrying our digital signal so that we can resume competing with the rest of the media for all available advertising dollars.

By then, advertisers will not only be moving business to other channels (yes, at higher rates), placing advertising directly with the cable company, and using radio, newspapers, mail distribution, leaflets, blimps, signs, streetcorner speakers, semaphore signals, etc.

The thing that can come from Sinclair winning is that broadcasting stations will have a new source of revenue. The everyday television viewer loses and the loss will only become larger and larger.

Who are you rooting for, Mr. FanAtic?

You keep operating from the standpoint of more than one station of the big 4 in a market being off the cable. This would not seem to be a foregone conclusion.

My Sinclair CBS station is not on the cable system and people in the area are busy bringing big, beautiful digital tv's into their homes. Most are on cable and a few are reluctantly erecting antennas on their homes and hooking them up. The result is that most people are like me and completely out of touch with the local CBS channel and a few others might see it when they think to switch over to their antenna.

At some point in the near future, advertisers will consider acting on their personal observation that there is a somewhat reduced viewership for the Sinclair station. If that point is reached before one of the other big 4 stations pulls its signal from the cable in order to be paid for its signal, Sinclair will have to begin to decide whether or not to continue on the course it has set. Granted, because Sinclair has deep pockets, it could persevere and win by waiting for the second channel to drop off the cable. This, too, should not be a foregone conclusion.

I can easily foresee a situation in the next year or two whereby Sinclair says we have fought the good fight, but we are now beginning to see small revenue reductions and no assurance that this will not continue and escalate. Let's order the local cable system to begin carrying our digital signal so that we can resume competing with the rest of the media for all available advertising dollars.

By then, advertisers will not only be moving business to other channels (yes, at higher rates), placing advertising directly with the cable company, and using radio, newspapers, mail distribution, leaflets, blimps, signs, streetcorner speakers, semaphore signals, etc.

The thing that can come from Sinclair winning is that broadcasting stations will have a new source of revenue. The everyday television viewer loses and the loss will only become larger and larger.

Who are you rooting for, Mr. FanAtic?

For you to be like the Scarecrow and admit you don't have a brain for thinking that TV will feel financial impact and cry uncle while cable won't to a much more severe extent - as well as being clueless on advertising buys despite being told how advertising works.

Just because you live in what sounds like Hooterville with the Operator answering everyones phone, thats not the way it works in "the big cities" of say 25,000 population or more where everyone doesn't know everyone else's name.

You keep operating from the standpoint of more than one station of the big 4 in a market being off the cable. This would not seem to be a foregone conclusion.

If you worked in the industry you would already know that it is a foregone conclusion. Many owners are watching this closely and if Sinclair succeeds and all indicators look like they will, every station owner will ask money when retrans comes up and cable will not be able to hold out. That is common knowledge within both cable and broadcast. That is why cable fights as hard as they do against this. All it takes is one success and the flood gates will open.

Back in the day when cable had to the lock on wired systems, they had leverage. With DBS and FIOS, they have lost that leverage. So they either pay or the station leaves and people who want to continue to watch that station will go to DBS, FIOS if available or OTA and that number is higher than you wish to believe. If you need proof, just read the threads here on AVSForum about people leaving D* for E* or their local cable because D* doesn't offer VOOM or NGC HD or some other HD channel they want. This translates into the SD world too.

Wrong.

SpongeBob beats CW.
O'Reilly (gag) beats CW.
I bet even CSPAN beats MYTV. :rolleyes:

And America's Next Top Model on CW ended its series averaging 5.7 Million viewers per week - Almost 2x the numbers of the shows you listed.

Again, which cable shows outside of ESPN MNF average 5.7 Million viewers per season?

Sinclair SHOULD be getting desperate, it seems to me. It has become abundantly clear that cable systems are not going to knuckle under to Sinclair's demands. When HD achieves critical mass, which I believe it is close to doing, the heat on Sinclair to drop its unreasonable demands is likely to get hotter.

I suspect that either the FCC or the congress will require OTA stations to make their primary HD channels available to cable systems at no charge, just as they are now required to provide their SD transmissions at no charge. Note that nearly every OTA station operator but Sinclair does this already.


A big reason for Sinclair to be desperate: the new Democratic congress. I doubt the Dems have forgotten the company's Swift Boat mocumentary plans.

And maybe Missouri's new junior Dem senator might have an issue with Sinclair's St Louis ABC affiliate having no local news coverage at all. Sinclair just showing network news programs isn't enough public service programming to merit a free signal here.

For you to be like the Scarecrow and admit you don't have a brain for thinking that TV will feel financial impact and cry uncle while cable won't to a much more severe extent - as well as being clueless on advertising buys despite being told how advertising works.

Just because you live in what sounds like Hooterville with the Operator answering everyones phone, thats not the way it works in "the big cities" of say 25,000 population or more where everyone doesn't know everyone else's name.

Are intelligent people insulting? Why would they be? It has always seemed to me that intelligent people are only rarely insulting. You seem to make a habit of it.

On a different note, yesterday, the local "Bugle" had a notice from Time Warner that the Sinclair CBS analog channel may go off the cable January 1st unless negotiations are successful. I guess we won't have to wait for the digital channel issue to be settled. Sinclair is going to demonstrate its intentions immediately.

I'll let you know when the analog screen goes dark in January.

That's all from Hooterville for now.

I know that one person is very insignificant in the grand scheme of things... but that being said, in San Antonio the FOX station is owned by Sinclair. Of course that means no digital channel available on cable. And for me, that means I haven't tuned into a non NFL fox program in at least two years. And since I'm not a die-hard NFL fan, I'll probably just watch the CBS game if FOX goes off of cable.

It seems as if D* and E* give in to every provider demanding money (Sinclair, NFL network, ESPN, etc.). I can see the logic of "If cable doesn't have it and they do, then I'm switching." But can someone with some knowledge explain the economics of this to me? Is it just the number of subs that subscribe to DBS that allow them to throw more money around without affecting the monthly subscription rates as much? I know that my cable bill (TW) is astronomical as it is... How much more could they charge if they caved to the NFL, ESPN2, and the big four digitals?

A big reason for Sinclair to be desperate: the new Democratic congress. I doubt the Dems have forgotten the company's Swift Boat mocumentary plans.Ah yes, that's a great way to make media policy and ensure broad public debate - just punish the companies who even think about opoosing your politics.

Ah yes, that's a great way to make media policy and ensure broad public debate - just punish the companies who even think about opoosing your politics.

I'm shocked to find out that there is gambling in this casino :cool:

A big reason for Sinclair to be desperate: the new Democratic congress. I doubt the Dems have forgotten the company's Swift Boat mocumentary plans.

Believe me, Sinclair ISN'T desperate. Far from it. Mediacom and the rest of cable are.

Hate to break the bad news to you, but if a station's coverage area full emcompasses a cable systems coverage, the station is considered at "full audience" whether they are on the cable system or not. A stations audience is based on households within their coverage area, not the cable systems sub numbers. Never has been.Actually, what I meant was whether the ratings service chooses its sample proportionally based on how many folks have cable, how many have sat, etc. But unless an agreement is reached by February, there's the potential for trouble because viewers who lose a station on cable have five choices:

1) OTA, if they're willing to re-learn how to use an antenna.

2) Satellite, if they have a clear view of the southern sky and are willing to put up with contracts, equipment maintenance and occasional outages in heavy rain.

3) A competing cable company, an option unavailable to most viewers.

4) FiOS, which is just emerging and generally unavailable at this time. (The phone company in this area currently relies on DirecTV for the "bundle" it offers.)

5) Decide that the missing channel just isn't worth the trouble, and watch competitors for their local news and entertainment.

Those choosing the dreaded "fifth option" always have the option to go to their local bar to watch a sporting event if it's on the missing channel (if they're 21, anyway), and networks are increasingly putting shows online after they air -- a good use for your Mediacom high-speed connection. Unless a station has an excellent all-day operation, including its local time, that "fifth option" becomes much more viable. Maybe a chain of the stature of Hearst-Argyle will have better success than Sinclair.

I suspect there'll be a little of each of those things going on and that any station which chooses not to be on cable will lose at least some of its viewers. The station can charge as if it had "full coverage" if it wants -- after all, it IS putting out a signal over the air -- but that doesn't mean advertisers have to buy.

And there's still the unresolved lawsuit and "good faith" complaint with the FCC hanging over Sinclair, so it's unclear whether any other broadcaster will be allowed to go to the extent Sinclair is.

Ah yes, that's a great way to make media policy and ensure broad public debate - just punish the companies who even think about opoosing your politics.Well, like it or not, Sinclair is the poster child for deregulation, good or bad, just as Clear Channel is for radio deregulation, McDonald's for fast food, Wal-Mart for "big box" retailing, etc. So if there is a new debate in Congress about Big Media, you can expect Sinclair's decision to require all of its stations to air the documentary and "The Point" commentary segment (currently on hiatus) to be part of it.

It may not be fair, but it's just the way things are.

Actually, what I meant was whether the ratings service chooses its sample proportionally based on how many folks have cable, how many have sat, etc.

Actually, no, that is NOT how you become a Nielsen Family. Nielsen determines population size by Zip Code in each market. They then pick from random X number of houses that they deem is the proper sample size per Zip Code. You can then agree or disagree to be a Nielsen Family. They continue to look for random households until they reach the number for each Zip Code. How you receive a station is not in the mix of whether you are picked as a Nielsen Familty.

But unless an agreement is reached by February, there's the potential for trouble because viewers who lose a station on cable have five choices:

1) OTA, if they're willing to re-learn how to use an antenna.

HD has shown that people ARE willing to go the OTA route.

2) Satellite, if they have a clear view of the southern sky and are willing to put up with contracts, equipment maintenance and occasional outages in heavy rain.

30 million households do

3) A competing cable company, an option unavailable to most viewers.

That isn't an option for everyone.

4) FiOS, which is just emerging and generally unavailable at this time. (The phone company in this area currently relies on DirecTV for the "bundle" it offers.)

Yes.

5) Decide that the missing channel just isn't worth the trouble, and watch competitors for their local news and entertainment.

Some will but most will want to receive their programs and if something as simple as an indoor antenna will work, they will do that. If you have two stations not on the cable system, people will leave in droves.

And there's still the unresolved lawsuit and "good faith" complaint with the FCC hanging over Sinclair, so it's unclear whether any other broadcaster will be allowed to go to the extent Sinclair is.

Most believe the courts will continue to rule in Sinclair's favor. If so, the FCC complaint is moot.

Remember, the outcome of this has little to do with SInclair but the industry as a whole. If Sinclair wins, every TV station will ask for compensation or pull out. You have stations pulling out all over the country, cable has to cry uncle. They don't have a choice. For the cable industry, that is why it is important for Sinclair to loose. Down the road, they loose big in more ways than the broadcasters.

If Sinclair wins, every TV station will ask for compensation or pull out. You have stations pulling out all over the country, cable has to cry uncle. If Sinclair wins, then the cable companies may finally see the wisdom of a-la-carte.

And there's still the unresolved lawsuit and "good faith" complaint with the FCC hanging over Sinclair, so it's unclear whether any other broadcaster will be allowed to go to the extent Sinclair is.


Get real. The FCC is so understaffed they are still handing out NALs from 2003. When do you think they will rule on this? 2007?


Well, like it or not, Sinclair is the poster child for deregulation, good or bad, just as Clear Channel is for radio deregulation, McDonald's for fast food, Wal-Mart for "big box" retailing, etc.

Again, get real - name one part of the Entertainment Industry that hasn't consolidated.

But then again, Wireless Companies have consolidated, Auto Makers have consolidated, Credit Cards have Consolidated, Grocery Stores have consolidated, Banks have consolidated, Airlines have consolidated, Hotel Chains have consolidated, Rental Card Companies have consolidated, Drug Stores have consolidated....need I go on?

The only thing that hasn't consolidated is the Government and we see how efficient that is :rolleyes:

If Sinclair wins, then the cable companies may finally see the wisdom of a-la-carte.

I doubt it. If wasn't cable's idea in the first place.

I doubt it. If wasn't cable's idea in the first place.

Cable operators would be more than happy to put broadcast channels on a tier. Just like they would be more than happy to carry NFL Network on a tier.

Cable operators are NOT the hold out on tiering of high priced channels. It's the program providers dummy. (not meant personal :) )

Sorry, but tiering isn't a la carte, no matter how hard and how loud cable says it is.

And where do you even get a 10% radiated figure. Again, you assume only 1 cable system per DMA - which is another downfall for your argument.

The largest cable system in America is Houston with roughly 750,000 subs and a market of roughly 2 Million households.

http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=72

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=719690

There are only 12 systems in America with over 300,000 subs.

The DMA's go well past a city line - or a county line.

Time Warner in NYC only has 325,000 subs in a market of 7.3 Million households.

Cablevision's various systems has roughly 1 Million subs in the NY DMA in a market of 7.3 Million households.

Think about it.

I have to stick up for my friend from Hooterville:

"Francis Ackerman, an assistant attorney general, said Friday that Adelphia's 54 percent market share is already among the highest in the country for a single cable provider. If Time Warner were to assume that entire market and add it to the company's existing 31 percent share, it would control 85 percent of Maine's cable market and more than 279,000 subscribers. It's unclear how the sale might affect Comcast's 6.4 percent market share in Maine"
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-maine-argues-that-time-warner-cable-will-have-/2006/03/08/1441889.htm

There's about 1.2 Million people in Maine. That over 20% of the pop using TWC. I'm sure no one at Sinclair gives a damn about us up here in Hooterville, but the we're looking at it from the perspective damage to a small broadcaster.
My question is this for the advertising experts: What % of advertising dollars does the local station get from local sources? This is what will determine if my local hooterville CBS/Sinclair affliate will get through this.

edit - didn't mean to add the whole quote from HDTVFanAtic

Sorry, but tiering isn't a la carte, no matter how hard and how loud cable says it is.

Exactly. What we have now is basically tiering. You want 2 or 3 channels, you get 50. That's no different than being forced to buy 10 news channels or 20 sports channels when you only want one of each.

Exactly. What we have now is basically tiering. You want 2 or 3 channels, you get 50. That's no different than being forced to buy 10 news channels or 20 sports channels when you only want one of each.

OK OK OK, cable operators would be happy to sell broadcast stations A LA CARTE !!!

Ironically, I just got back from a presentation that, while I can't divulge the details, has a direct relation to two of the topics of discussion.

First, MediaCom's potential loss of a Big Four affiliate in a area that: A) clearly has NO off-air reception (terrain), and B) has no local service from either D* or E*. Further, much of the community is blind to any satellite exposure anyway.

Second, that MediaCom's service is so poor that the local franchise authority is hoping that the loss of the Sinclair affiliate can precipitate a cancellation of the MediaCom franchise.

One of the REQUIREMENTS of the franchise is for MediaCom to provide service from the Big Four. Talking about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

This is perhaps a case where you hope both sides lose.

OK OK OK, cable operators would be happy to sell broadcast stations A LA CARTE !!!

Ah, you mean the tier called "basic cable"? Even that isn't a la carte. And no cable DOESN'T want a la carte. That is why they are fighting so hard in the halls of Congress to KEEP from doing it. You know that.

First, MediaCom's potential loss of a Big Four affiliate in a area that: A) clearly has NO off-air reception (terrain), and B) has no local service from either D* or E*. Further, much of the community is blind to any satellite exposure anyway.

That isn't true in EVERY Sinclair/MediaCom market.

Can't comment on the rest of your post. (but I would like too! :) )

Ah, you mean the tier called "basic cable"? Even that isn't a la carte. And no cable DOESN'T want a la carte. That is why they are fighting so hard in the halls of Congress to KEEP from doing it. You know that.

The real reason cable operators don't support A La Carte is more of a technical one than an economic one. A La Carte requires a massive deployment of set-top boxes. Cable would become as dependant on set-top boxes as satellite. The industry is quietly waiting for OCAP to eventually eliminate the need for set-tops. They are not excited about investing billions on a stop gap solution.

The future will be more of an IPTV model. Not only will the bundled channel model become obsolete, but so also the linear programming service. Just as iTunes has changed the landscape from an "album" based purchase to a "single" based purchase, viewers may watch watch American Idol on their cell phone for 5 cents rather than having to buy the whole Fox network.

In other words, be careful what you wish for. ;) ;) ;)

The real reason cable operators don't support A La Carte is more of a technical one than an economic one. A La Carte requires a massive deployment of set-top boxes. Cable would become as dependant on set-top boxes as satellite. The industry is quietly waiting for OCAP to eventually eliminate the need for set-tops. They are not excited about investing billions on a stop gap solution.

So has the storied changed??!!

First cable didn't want to do it because it would cause programming costs to rise. Now you saying cable doesn't want to do it because it will cost cable MORE for a box that they already rent in the first place?

Someone needs to get their stories straight.

Just as iTunes has changed the landscape from an "album" based purchase to a "single" based purchase, viewers may watch watch American Idol on their cell phone for 5 cents rather than having to buy the whole Fox network.

Sorry but that boat has already sailed. Even the phone companies have admitted they don't see people watching full length TV shows on their cell phones on a regular basis and surveys prove that out.

If cable companies go ala carte, no one will select the channels that pay to be carried. Costs stay the same and revenue decreases.

Make people "opt out" or de-select any free channels. The vast majority will allow any free channels to be added to their line up.

Problem solved.

If cable companies go ala carte, no one will select the channels that pay to be carried. Costs stay the same and revenue decreases.

Not according to the NCTA. They say it will cause programmers to stop bundling channels and the cost per channel to them will increase, something they say they will pass to the consumer.

So has the storied changed??!!

First cable didn't want to do it because it would cause programming costs to rise. Now you saying cable doesn't want to do it because it will cost cable MORE for a box that they already rent in the first place?

Someone needs to get their stories straight.

Well actually it's both. No, they don't want to pay additional programming costs, and they don't want to deploy millions of boxes. Those greedy bastards.

Sorry but that boat has already sailed. Even the phone companies have admitted they don't see people watching full length TV shows on their cell phones on a regular basis and surveys prove that out.

However, an iPod or a cell phone easily connects to a larger monitor. It's like a mini DVR. Quality is reasonable, and will only improve. I doubt many would like to carry around a 4228 as a signal source however. ;) ;) ;)

I've seen too many technologies become obsolete in my lifetime to believe anything is immune, including multichannel linear TV as a principle source of TV viewing.

And while no one talks much about it, ordinary web surfing has taken a seriuos toll on TV viewership.

Who'd a' thunk ???

Well actually it's both. No, they don't want to pay additional programming costs, and they don't want to deploy millions of boxes. Those greedy bastards.

You said it, not me! :)

Not according to the NCTA. They say it will cause programmers to stop bundling channels and the cost per channel to them will increase, something they say they will pass to the consumer.

Of course in that case, consumers will be able to refuse the generous offer of the cable companies by simply choosing fewer networks to watch.

Since the average household watches only about 15-17 channels, that shouldn't be difficult.

And in an era when most households will have a choice between OTA, cable, satellite and telco (and who knows what else in the next few years?) the chances are great that one or more providers will come up with a value-driven offer.

And for once in the subscription TV business, the actual market would be allowed to work.

You said it, not me! :)

At the end of the day, we're all greedy bastards.

Well almost all of us. There are still a few folks like Capital Broadcasting who go above and beyond the call of duty serving their markets.

I'm just cynical because I recall days when that type of approach was the rule rather than the exception. Seems like today everybody's a whiner. Myself included.

I tried searching the forum for an answer to this but couldn't find anything, but my apologies if this has been asked and answered.
Is there anything legal, technical, or administrative stopping the cable companies from fitting the cable boxes with "Antenna In" for OTA reception? Would that help solve the "Sinclair problem" for TWC, at least for some?
I guess it wouldn't solve the "TWC problem" for Sinclair though. :)

There is no reason that cable companies couldn't do that, jkurlanski.

At the end of the day, we're all greedy bastards.

Well almost all of us. There are still a few folks like Capital Broadcasting who go above and beyond the call of duty serving their markets.



You mean the Capitol Broadcasting (not Capital Broadcasting) which is holding out on some systems until they are paid?

I tried searching the forum for an answer to this but couldn't find anything, but my apologies if this has been asked and answered.
Is there anything legal, technical, or administrative stopping the cable companies from fitting the cable boxes with "Antenna In" for OTA reception? Would that help solve the "Sinclair problem" for TWC, at least for some?
I guess it wouldn't solve the "TWC problem" for Sinclair though. :)

That's also the last thing they want to do - make you believe you can get a good signal through an antenna.

Years ago there was a big fight over cable companies providing "A/B" switches to customers to allow them to switch to an antenna.

Let me remind everyone that an A/B switch does not recofigure your tuner to the "Antenna" or "VHF/UHF" mode. It's a little more complicated than just the switch for many installations. A/B switches cause an unbelievable amount of technical problems and subscriber confusion. Bad solution. We had to use them for a while back in the San Francisco Bay area when we had a 12 channel system with 16 must carries. Yeah, I've been doing this for that long.

As far as the Capitol/DirecTV situation, the flap is alledgedly an issue about DirecTV not being able to support the entire DMA. I don't know the specifics, or whether it's a temporary situation based on satellite capacity, but that's the word on the street.

Let me remind everyone that an A/B switch does not recofigure your tuner to the "Antenna" or "VHF/UHF" mode. It's a little more complicated than just the switch for many installations. A/B switches cause an unbelievable amount of technical problems and subscriber confusion. Bad solution. We had to use them for a while back in the San Francisco Bay area when we had a 12 channel system with 16 must carries. Yeah, I've been doing this for that long.

As far as the Capitol/DirecTV situation, the flap is alledgedly an issue about DirecTV not being able to support the entire DMA. I don't know the specifics, or whether it's a temporary situation based on satellite capacity, but that's the word on the street.

Shows you the BS the street believes.

The satellite capacity excuse is total BS - as is the entire DMA excuse. There was a reason why D* launched 2 new Ka birds for LIL - and in 99% of the cases, only 4 local max have been turned on - and that is not in every market. There is plenty of capacity in both instances.

Shows you the BS the street believes.

The satellite capacity excuse is total BS - as is the entire DMA excuse. There was a reason why D* launched 2 new Ka birds for LIL - and in 99% of the cases, only 4 local max have been turned on - and that is not in every market. There is plenty of capacity in both instances.

Everybody, is "the street" except you, Mr. FanAtic.

Everybody, is "the street" except you, Mr. FanAtic.

Thanks Stan54. :D :D :D

Gosh, Directv spent over a Billion dollars to put up 2 satellites at 99W and 103W which will supply 1500 HD LIL channels (Remember the commercials?).

They have about 50 markets active with 4 Network stations or less depending on agreements. They hope to have 65 markets by 1/1/2007.

65x4 = 260.

They have a 5th channel active in 7 markets = 267.

They don't have agreements with about 50 stations in these top 65 market = 217 stations.

Capacity 1500. On Air 217.

So now you say that with 217 stations they don't have any additional capacity, yet they turned Greensboro on 10 days ago.....

And you are still going to believe that they don't have the capacity to do WRAL.

ROFLMAO. What idiots you and POSG are that you can't see the forest for the trees.

And lets see, if they REALLY didn't have the HD capacity, would you 1) leave off 4th ranked NBC or 2) leave off WRAL with local HD Newscasts and the #1 ranked Prime Time?

I have a bridge in NYC I'd like to sell the both of you because I know you are dumb enough to buy it.....

Gosh, Directv spent over a Billion dollars to put up 2 satellites at 99W and 103W which will supply 1500 HD LIL channels (Remember the commercials?).

They have about 50 markets active with 4 Network stations or less depending on agreements. They hope to have 65 markets by 1/1/2007.

65x4 = 260.

They have a 5th channel active in 7 markets = 267.

They don't have agreements with about 50 stations in these top 65 market = 217 stations.

Capacity 1500. On Air 217.

So now you say that with 217 stations they don't have any additional capacity, yet they turned Greensboro on 10 days ago.....

And you are still going to believe that they don't have the capacity to do WRAL.

ROFLMAO. What idiots you and POSG are that you can't see the forest for the trees.

And lets see, if they REALLY didn't have the HD capacity, would you 1) leave off 4th ranked NBC or 2) leave off WRAL with local HD Newscasts and the #1 ranked Prime Time?

I have a bridge in NYC I'd like to sell the both of you because I know you are dumb enough to buy it.....

I've got a better idea for what you can do with that bridge. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Make people "opt out" or de-select any free channels. The vast majority will allow any free channels to be added to their line up.

Problem solved.

If what you're suggesting here is that the channels that would be included on "basic" service would only be those that aren't charging a monthly fee...well, that would solve the problem.

All channels and networks would have a choice between collecting those monthly fees or having near-universal distribution. But they wouldn't be able to have both unless they could convince everyone to pay an extra buck or two per month for just their channel. This would apply to your local broadcast network affiliates...and it would also apply to ESPN, USA, TNT, etc.

Under this model, I suspect that broadcasters would quickly lose interest in using retransmission consent to extract money from local cable systems. But, in compensation, they would also no longer have to worry about being outbid for programming by so-called basic cable networks that transfer the costs of their program acquisitions onto the viewer by jacking up montly fees every year.

I've got a better idea for what you can do with that bridge. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Nice comeback when THE WHOLE TRUTH (as your signature falsely implies you expect) comes to smack you squarely in your face.

Nice comeback when THE WHOLE TRUTH (as your signature falsely implies you expect) comes to smack you squarely in your face.

Without divulging my "secret identity", I can tell you that I have a close business relationship with DirecTV and a neighbor who works at WRAL.

This is an situation related to issues with the integrity of the signal, not compensation, but that's all I can divulge.

Now about that bridge.

Without divulging my "secret identity", I can tell you that I have a close business relationship with DirecTV and a neighbor who works at WRAL.

This is an situation related to issues with the integrity of the signal, not compensation, but that's all I can divulge.

Now about that bridge.

lol...first it was capacity issues.....now its integrity issues, what will it be in your next post?

While I won't divulge my "secret identity" I can tell you that Jim Goodmon is a personal friend and has personally tried to hire me several times.....

About that bridge.....how do you want to pay.

OK. I have NO secret identity and Jim Goodman has NEVER tried to hire me, so there!! :P

Here's my next post. A direct reponse from WRAL:


Here is where we stand with DirecTV.



WRAL and WRAZ are in the final discussions with DirecTV to reach an agreement that will provide all viewers in the Raleigh market our HD signals within a year. The sticking point has been DirecTV's inability to provide our HD programming to all of the homes within the Raleigh DMA market. DirecTV's current system will only allow the WRAL and WRAZ HD signals to be seen by less than 75% of the TV households in our market, which we find unacceptable. Again, we are continuing to negotiate in good faith with DirecTV and look forward to wrapping this up shortly.



Respectfully,



Chuck deCourt

lol...first it was capacity issues.....now its integrity issues, what will it be in your next post?

While I won't divulge my "secret identity" I can tell you that Jim Goodmon is a personal friend and has personally tried to hire me several times.....

About that bridge.....how do you want to pay.

It's capacity because until 103 is fully operational, there are still some shuffling to be done. Sorry to confuse you, but the current capacity compromises the integrity of their signal delivery.

Anticipating the usual smart ass reply......

It's capacity because until 103 is fully operational, there are still some shuffling to be done. Sorry to confuse you, but the current capacity compromises the integrity of their signal delivery.




BS - again if capacity they could not be adding on more markets and they have added on about 25 markets since they updated to this configuration on 103W - and turned off 99W.

Of course, they had other transponders working on 103W as well as 99W this Summer, so if they wanted they could simply turn those back on.

I'd tell you to use common sense, but we've seen your lack of it.

BS - again if capacity they could not be adding on more markets and they have added on about 25 markets since they updated to this configuration on 103W - and turned off 99W.

Of course, they had other transponders working on 103W as well as 99W this Summer, so if they wanted they could simply turn those back on.

I'd tell you to use common sense, but we've seen your lack of it.

Thanks for straightening me out. I'll pass your contact information along to DirecTV and WRAL so that you can straighten them out as well.

I enjoy a heated discussion as well as the next guy, but you seem to want to make it personal. And that makes you out of line, at least in my opinion.

The name calling is childish, and only weakens your credibility. So with all due respect, keep your bridge.

Here's my next post. A direct reponse from WRAL:


Here is where we stand with DirecTV.



WRAL and WRAZ are in the final discussions with DirecTV to reach an agreement that will provide all viewers in the Raleigh market our HD signals within a year. The sticking point has been DirecTV's inability to provide our HD programming to all of the homes within the Raleigh DMA market. DirecTV's current system will only allow the WRAL and WRAZ HD signals to be seen by less than 75% of the TV households in our market, which we find unacceptable. Again, we are continuing to negotiate in good faith with DirecTV and look forward to wrapping this up shortly.



Respectfully,



Chuck deCourt

How large, geographically speaking, is the Raleigh market? I don't understand that "less than 75%" number at all. The San Francisco market, geographically speaking, covers the same area as New York, Boston and half a dozen other markets in the northeast combined and there doesn't seem to be a problem here.

That wording is odd, does he mean that some of the market doesn't have line-of sight? Curious...

How large, geographically speaking, is the Raleigh market? I don't understand that "less than 75%" number at all. The San Francisco market, geographically speaking, covers the same area as New York, Boston and half a dozen other markets in the northeast combined and there doesn't seem to be a problem here.

That wording is odd, does he mean that some of the market doesn't have line-of sight? Curious...

The spot beam which is the permanent home for the Raleigh stations may not be currently available for a variety of technical reasons, and the stations are temporarily housed on an adjacent spot beam that only has partial DMA coverage.

This has happened before. The transition over to the permanent slot is seamless for installed subscribers, but in the meantime, some viewers wouldn't get signal.

Spot beams vary in size. Obviously out west where markets like Denver, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix are huge, the spot beams cover much more geography. They are less "spotty" :D

The spot beam which is the permanent home for the Raleigh stations may not be currently available for a variety of technical reasons, and the stations are temporarily housed on an adjacent spot beam that only has partial DMA coverage.

This has happened before. The transition over to the permanent slot is seamless for installed subscribers, but in the meantime, some viewers wouldn't get signal.

Spot beams vary in size. Obviously out west where markets like Denver, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix are huge, the spot beams cover much more geography. They are less "spotty" :D
Okay, that makes sense, although I would think that 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

The spot beam which is the permanent home for the Raleigh stations may not be currently available for a variety of technical reasons, and the stations are temporarily housed on an adjacent spot beam that only has partial DMA coverage.

This has happened before. The transition over to the permanent slot is seamless for installed subscribers, but in the meantime, some viewers wouldn't get signal.

Spot beams vary in size. Obviously out west where markets like Denver, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix are huge, the spot beams cover much more geography. They are less "spotty" :D

Wow, for someone with a "close business relationship" with Directv, you sure don't know jack about these birds.

On 99W and 103W, the spots are configurable on the fly - just for circumstances such as the one you describe - and they could use the 99W spotbeams if they are really in a crunch, which they are not.

Again, the truth is in the pudding.

Wow, for someone with a "close business relationship" with Directv, you sure don't know jack about these birds.

On 99W and 103W, the spots are configurable on the fly - just for circumstances such as the one you describe - and they could use the 99W spotbeams if they are really in a crunch, which they are not.

Again, the truth is in the pudding.

O.K. I'm a liar, and the spokesman for WRAL is a liar, and only you know the truth. Good for you. I bet I know what state you're from. ;) ;) ;)

O.K. I'm a liar, and the spokesman for WRAL is a liar, and only you know the truth. Good for you. I bet I know what state you're from. ;) ;) ;)

We know what you are, the spokesman for WRAL does exactly what he's told to do and god knows those people are ALWAY right (remember, 100 HD Channels by Xmas from Rupert), anyone here with a mind that hasn't turned to mush can put 2+2 together for the truth so I am not the only one that knows it and you still can't figure out the truth when it's starring you in the face.

Capitol is a private company and does not have the same disclosure laws that a public company does, btw.

D* is a public company and would have to disclose any issues with their 99W and 103W satellite immediately if they are not working properly as well - Check the issues on the Quarterly reports and see if you can find any.

Wow!!!! Everything is working - except for little ole Raleigh - right ;)

We know what you are, the spokesman for WRAL does exactly what he's told to do and god knows those people are ALWAY right (remember, 100 HD Channels by Xmas from Rupert), anyone here with a mind that hasn't turned to mush can put 2+2 together for the truth so I am not the only one that knows it and you still can't figure out the truth when it's starring you in the face.

Capitol is a private company and does not have the same disclosure laws that a public company does, btw.

D* is a public company and would have to disclose any issues with their 99W and 103W satellite immediately if they are not working properly as well - Check the issues on the Quarterly reports and see if you can find any.

Wow!!!! Everything is working - except for little ole Raleigh - right ;)

And that's totally inconceivable ???? That perhaps one of the actuator arms is sticking, or GASP, some engineer miscalculated an angle ???

I'm not saying what DID happen, but WRAL has been consistant in their response. WRAL has always been distribution friendly. They understand how broadcasters are SUPPOSED to make their living.

I guess if we are looking for someone who is always right, we only have to look to you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Texas perhaps ???

And that's totally inconceivable ???? That perhaps one of the actuator arms is sticking, or GASP, some engineer miscalculated an angle ???

I'm not saying what DID happen, but WRAL has been consistant in their response. WRAL has always been distribution friendly. They understand how broadcasters are SUPPOSED to make their living.

I guess if we are looking for someone who is always right, we only have to look to you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Texas perhaps ???

No, North Carolina.

And if any of the scenarios you put forth happened, again, or anything affecting those 2 new birds was wrong, they would be forced to IMMEDIATELY disclose those in the Company's 10-Q filings with the SEC - of which you can see they have not.

When you have touted what those birds mean for D* for 3 years now, when you have put that much expense into those 2 birds, anything that would affect their normal operation over the normal announced life expectancy of the 2 birds must be disclosed to ALL investors as it has financial impact on the bottom line, even if its a problem they are trying to correct.

The birds were placed in space. They have a life expectancy and an expiration date. Every day that passes they are one day closer to the end of their life. And considering they had both birds up and operational this Summer as can be seen from other threads on this and other forums, the problems are truly not there.

But let's considering that the last 10-Q filing was made November 9th and it notes no material changes since the 2005 10-K year end report, where is it?

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?dcn=0001047469-06-013758&Type=HTML

To help you out, here's the 10-K. Check under section Item 1A, Risk Factors or Item 21: Commitments and Contingencies (again, of which nothing has changed sinced the 10-K from 2005) - and please tell us where these problems with the new satellites are noted.

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=4270303&Type=HTML

But why do we need the SEC filings to tell us the scenarios you put forth have not happened because I am sure that you and your "close business relationship with Directv" you would know if any of the scenarios were REALLY true, right? :rolleyes:

Mr. FanAtic, are you as big a jerk in real life as you are on the internet?

Mr. FanAtic, are you as big a jerk in real life as you are on the internet?

Absolutely and its why I get paid very well from people that want strategic thinking and to know what is really happening instead of getting smoke blown up their butts by the likes of you that are clueless. Now, are you as much of an idiot in real life that thinks he knows everything about things you know nothing about as you are on the internet?

You might not like the facts that I have presented, but unlike yours and Posg's position, anyone with half a brain can see there is a problem with the facts supporting your positions.

Mr. FanAtic, are you as big a jerk in real life as you are on the internet?
Coming from the guy that thinks TWC should not have MHD because he does not like it.

Coming from the guy that thinks TWC should not have MHD because he does not like it.

lol!

Remember, Stan54 will tell us the way it is according to the way he thinks we think.

That how people loose large amounts of money - listening to people that don't have a clue to how people REALLY think, thinking everyone is like them in their thinking.

Absolutely and its why I get paid very well from people that want strategic thinking and to know what is really happening instead of getting smoke blown up their butts by the likes of you that are clueless. Now, are you as much of an idiot in real life that thinks he knows everything about things you know nothing about as you are on the internet?

You might not like the facts that I have presented, but unlike yours and Posg's position, anyone with half a brain can see there is a problem with the facts supporting your positions.

Wow !!! "Strategic Thinking" !!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

OK guys. I like a good throw down as good as anyone else (who ME? NAW!! ;) ), but I think the personal attacks, funny in the beginning, have gotten away from the thread. Can we kiss and make up and move on to more important issues, like debating the facts?

Just a thought.

OK guys. I like a good throw down as good as anyone else (who ME? NAW!! ;) ), but I think the personal attacks, funny in the beginning, have gotten away from the thread. Can we kiss and make up and move on to more important issues, like debating the facts?

Just a thought.

Thanks !!! I mentioned in an earlier post that I thought things were getting a little personal, which just seemed to accelerate it.

Foxeng. while we are on different sides of the fence on many issues, I have respect for you and your positions and only express an opposing viewpoint.

I lay down my sword. :o :o :o

OK guys. I like a good throw down as good as anyone else (who ME? NAW!! ;) ), but I think the personal attacks, funny in the beginning, have gotten away from the thread. Can we kiss and make up and move on to more important issues, like debating the facts?

Just a thought.


That's the problem - the facts didn't matter to him - only speculation that falls apart when one looks at the evidence.

Mr. FanAtic are you as insulting to people in real life as you are to people on the internet? (might as well be specific with my question)

This will be interesting to see what they are trying. It clearly could fall under significant viewed category for the Cedar Rapids DMA - but network programming should be pre-empted from the Quad City DMA - but of course this is only one County in the larger DMA - not something that could be done in the other Mediacom locations.

I also bet CBS is not going to be happy at all with their Quad City Affiliate and will love to see how that plays out.

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061212/NEWS01/612120309&SearchID=73265837036274

Mediacom finds a new CBS affiliate

Company working to add Quad Cities-based WHBF

The Mediacom cable company will add another CBS affiliate to its lineup as a back-up plan in case negotiations with Sinclair Broadcast Group go sour, a company official said Monday.

Mediacom spokeswoman Phyllis Peters said plans are in place to offer Quad City-based WHBF-CBS 4 on channel 19, starting on or about Jan. 2. The TV Guide Channel, currently on channel 19, will move to channel 75. The company announced the plan in an advertisement in the Press-Citizen last week but has been in negotiations with the station since the end of November, she said.

Mediacom and Sinclair are deadlocked over an agreement for the cable company to carry 22 of Sinclair's local stations. In the past, cable companies have carried the local stations without paying, but a recent change in the law allows the stations to charge the cable companies for their content. Mediacom and Sinclair haven't agreed on a deal, and Sinclair said it would pull its stations on Dec. 1. The CBS affiliate, KGAN-TV, channel 2 in Cedar Rapids is part of the deal.

On Nov. 30, Sinclair delayed shutting off its service and set Jan. 5 as a new deadline for an agreement. The two companies are still working through an agreement, Peters said, so the plan to offer WHBF is "fluid." She said the service would not cost customers more and the only change they might see is a Quad-Cities-based news program. If Sinclair decides to leave KGAN alone, WHBF will still be offered, she said.

"This way, we're doing what we said -- to get programming out to our viewers; that when they pay for our service, they expect we'll provide," Peters said.

Peters said allowing KGAN and WHBF on the same lineup follows federal regulations because the Iowa City area falls between transmitters for the two stations. Dubuque is an example of this: it carries KGAN-TV and Madison, Wis.-based WISC-TV. Additionally, she also said WHBF and KGAN aren't considered competition by the Federal Communications Commission, based on Nielsen ratings.

The Mediacom-Sinclair battle has ended up in federal court, with Mediacom alleging in a lawsuit that Sinclair broke antitrust rules by insisting that Mediacom pay $1 million more than the cable provider wants to carry Sinclair's stations. In October, U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt denied Mediacom's motion seeking a preliminary injunction to allow it to continue to carry Sinclair's channels.

Mr. FanAtic are you as insulting to people in real life as you are to people on the internet? (might as well be specific with my question)

already asked and answered - but then again, that assumes you have a brain and can read - which we have already figured out the answer to.

You know what, Mr. FanAtic? I flat out don't believe you. If you were as insulting to people in real life as you are on the internet, you wouldn't be in any condition to work the keys on your keyboard. Somebody would have taken care of you a long time ago.

So why do you tell us something we all know isn't true and thereby cast doubt on everything else you write?

This will be interesting to see what they are trying. It clearly could fall under significant viewed category for the Cedar Rapids DMA - but network programming should be pre-empted from the Quad City DMA - but of course this is only one County in the larger DMA - not something that could be done in the other Mediacom locations.

I also bet CBS is not going to be happy at all with their Quad City Affiliate and will love to see how that plays out.

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061212/NEWS01/612120309&SearchID=73265837036274

Mediacom finds a new CBS affiliate

Company working to add Quad Cities-based WHBF


Who knows if what Mediacom is doing will pass muster, but if I'm not mistaken, there are a few markets situated between Sacramento CA and San Francisco CA that Comcast carries some dual network/affiliate feeds for both cities. Or at least they have the option to choose one or the other, I can't remember the details.

Mediacom said it dropped an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a preliminary injunction to allow the cable provider to continue carrying the signals of some Sinclair stations

You know what, Mr. FanAtic? I flat out don't believe you. If you were as insulting to people in real life as you are on the internet, you wouldn't be in any condition to work the keys on your keyboard. Somebody would have taken care of you a long time ago.

So why do you tell us something we all know isn't true and thereby cast doubt on everything else you write?

Sorry, I don't post products of my imigination as you do on the internet or in real life.

Who knows if what Mediacom is doing will pass muster, but if I'm not mistaken, there are a few markets situated between Sacramento CA and San Francisco CA that Comcast carries some dual network/affiliate feeds for both cities. Or at least they have the option to choose one or the other, I can't remember the details.

Typically in these areas, the other station passes the local newscasts and blacks out network programming such as 8pm-11pm.

The examples that come to mind are the Palm Springs Market where LA stations are on until Prime Time Programming begins and then they go to local infomercials - blacking out the LA stations on the cable until the 11pm news.

When I was in Salina Kansas about 2 years ago for the GlobalFlyer, I noticed the same thing there - Wichita and Topeka Stations - the Significantly Viewed stations were blacked out during nightly primetime.

Thus, this one will be interesting.

Are you sure the systems between systems between San Francisco and Sacramento carry both stations 24/7? Or do they black out the non-DMA station during nightly network programming?

Sorry, I don't post products of my imigination as you do on the internet or in real life.

OK, I think this is your way of saying that you are much more mild mannered in everyday life for safety's sake and you only let loose on the internet where it is much safer and far less likely to cause problems that you can't avoid.

I'm sure that's what we all expected.

OK, I think this is your way of saying that you are much more mild mannered in everyday life for safety's sake and you only let loose on the internet where it is much safer and far less likely to cause problems that you can't avoid.

I'm sure that's what we all expected.

As Dr. Don and Ken H can tell you and vouch for me, again, you are 100% incorrect.


I am reminded just last month I was laughing with a member of the Board of Directors of a Wall Street Traded Broadcast Company that in the Board Meeting the Co-COO was complaining I told him to F off. The President of the Broadcast division said I do it to everyone and done it to him the week before - that he should get used to it and just shut up.

Of course the Co-COO was upset that I had pointed out to the Board how he had made a debacle of things and he has since had his power "shifted" away from him.

And that's why I make a handsome living - I will tell it the way it is - not what people want to hear - but what they need to hear.

As for some, just like you, as Jack Nicholson said, "You can't handle the truth".

Off topic comments deleted. Keep on topic, eliminate the personal comments.

T

Are you sure the systems between systems between San Francisco and Sacramento carry both stations 24/7? Or do they black out the non-DMA station during nightly network programming?
I'm not positive, I'd have to check with a couple of the subs in the area, and now that I think about it, it may have been a case where the towns/cities in question were in the Sac DMA, boundary-wise, but actually received SF DMA programming. The cities were Fairfield, Suisin City, etc. which fall mid-point between Sac and SF and which in fact are much closer to the Sac OTA transmitter farm than they are to Sutro Tower, but they get SF stations from a Sac-based Comcast cable system.

Negotiations With Mediacom Unsuccessful
Monday December 18, 3:58 pm ET
Mediacom's Carriage of Sinclair Stations Scheduled to End on January 6, 2007


BALTIMORE, Dec. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SBGI - News) announced today that negotiations with Mediacom Communications Corp. (Nasdaq: MCCC - News) are not likely to result in an agreement being reached between the two companies. The parties have attempted to reach agreement without success during the extension the parties had entered into prior to the originally scheduled termination date of December 1, 2006. As a result Sinclair expects Mediacom to discontinue carriage of a number of television stations when that extension ends at 12:01 a.m. on January 6, 2007.


"Although Sinclair has attempted to reach agreement with Mediacom," commented Barry Faber, Sinclair's Vice President and General Counsel, "we do not believe we are any closer to a deal now than we were when we agreed to the short-term extension. We had hoped the extension would allow us sufficient time to come to an agreement, but we no longer believe that will be the case. It is unfortunate that no agreement has been reached, but this merely reflects a failure of a buyer and a seller to agree on terms."

"We apologize for any inconvenience to our viewers," stated Sinclair's President and CEO, David Smith, "and trust that these viewers will continue to watch our stations through alternative means. With such alternative distribution means as direct broadcast satellite and over-the-air, we think viewers will find it easy to continue to enjoy programming such as NFL football, American Idol, Gray's Anatomy, CSI, 24 and locally produced news that appears on many of the affected stations."

As previously announced, to compensate its viewers for the inconvenience of having to make alternative arrangements Sinclair is offering to pay new subscribers to DirecTV a rebate of either $150 or $100 in most of the impacted markets. This offer, which was originally scheduled to terminate on December 1, 2006, has been extended to subscribers who sign up by December 31, 2006.

The stations and markets impacted are listed below (with the availability and amount of the DirecTV rebate noted after each market name). Subscribers in markets with a $150 rebate must call 1-800-376-4388 and subscribers in markets with a $100 rebate must call 1-800-341-4388. In order to qualify for the rebate, which will be paid in the form of a $10 bill credit each month until the full amount of the rebate has been paid, potential subscribers must meet certain qualifications, which will be described when the applicable 800 number is called.

Des Moines/Ames (KDSM-FOX) - $150, Cedar Rapids (KGAN-CBS) - $150, Mobile- Pensacola (WEAR-ABC/WFGX-MNT) - $100, Peoria/Bloomington (WYZZ-FOX) - $100, Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville (WLOS-ABC/WMYA-MNT) - $100, Lexington (WDKY- FOX) - $100, Madison (WSMN-FOX), Nashville (WZTV-FOX/ WUXP-MNT/WNAB-CW) - $100, Minneapolis (WUCW-CW) - $150, Paducah/Cape Girardeau (KBSI-FOX/WDKA-MNT) - $100, Springfield/Champaign/Decatur (WICS-ABC/WICD-ABC) - $100, St. Louis (KDNL-ABC) - $100, Tallahassee (WTWC-NBC) - $100, Birmingham (WTTO-CW/WABM- MNT) - $100, Norfolk (WTVZ- MNT) and Milwaukee (WCGV-MNT /WVTV-CW).

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., one of the largest and most diversified television broadcasting companies, currently owns and operates, programs or provides sales services to 58 television stations in 36 markets. Sinclair's television group reaches approximately 22% of U.S. television households and is affiliated with all the major networks.

Forward-Looking Statements:

The matters discussed in this press release include forward-looking statements regarding, among other things, future operating results. When used in this press release, the words "outlook," "intends to," "believes," "anticipates," "expects," "achieves," and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results in the future could differ materially and adversely from those described in the forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including and in addition to the assumptions identified above, the impact of changes in national and regional economies, successful integration of acquired television stations (including achievement of synergies and cost reductions), FCC approval of pending license transfers, successful execution of outsourcing agreements, pricing and demand fluctuations in local and national advertising, volatility in programming costs, the market acceptance of new programming and our news central strategy, our local sales initiatives, and the other risk factors set forth in the Company's most recent reports on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There can be no assurances that the assumptions and other factors referred to in this release will occur. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly release the result of any revisions to these forward-looking statements.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

I can tell you this much. There is absolutely NO viewship in our household for the Sinclair owned CW and MYTV affiliates in my market. There are at least a dozen cable networks that get watched regularly.


Top 10 "Timeshifted" Primetime TV Programs - 2006

Rank Programs % Increase Network in Viewership
1 STUDIO 60 NBC 10.9
2 HEROES NBC 9.1
3 GILMORE GIRLS CW 7.9
4 AMERICA'S NEXT TOP MODEL CW 7.7
5 30 ROCK NBC 7.5
5 FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS NBC 7.5
7 NINE, THE ABC 6.7
7 SUPERNATURAL CW 6.7
9 KIDNAPPED NBC 6.6
9 ONE TREE HILL CW 6.6
9 SMALLVILLE CW 6.6


Note: Data from Dec 26, 2005 - Dec 3, 2006. Percent Increase in viewership is based on difference between Live Household Ratings and Live+7.


5 out of the Top 10 (or 11 in case of a tie)

Top 10 "Timeshifted" Primetime TV Programs - 2006

Rank Programs % Increase Network in Viewership
1 STUDIO 60 NBC 10.9
2 HEROES NBC 9.1
3 GILMORE GIRLS CW 7.9
4 AMERICA'S NEXT TOP MODEL CW 7.7
5 30 ROCK NBC 7.5
5 FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS NBC 7.5
7 NINE, THE ABC 6.7
7 SUPERNATURAL CW 6.7
9 KIDNAPPED NBC 6.6
9 ONE TREE HILL CW 6.6
9 SMALLVILLE CW 6.6


Note: Data from Dec 26, 2005 - Dec 3, 2006. Percent Increase in viewership is based on difference between Live Household Ratings and Live+7.


5 out of the Top 10 (or 11 in case of a tie)

CW must be rivaling the big 4 in the ratings, if this is any indication.

CW must be rivaling the big 4 in the ratings, if this is any indication.Yeah, must be real big in the 12-17 year old girl demographic. :)

Top 10 "Timeshifted" Primetime TV Programs - 2006

Rank Programs % Increase Network in Viewership
1 STUDIO 60 NBC 10.9
2 HEROES NBC 9.1
3 GILMORE GIRLS CW 7.9
4 AMERICA'S NEXT TOP MODEL CW 7.7
5 30 ROCK NBC 7.5
5 FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS NBC 7.5
7 NINE, THE ABC 6.7
7 SUPERNATURAL CW 6.7
9 KIDNAPPED NBC 6.6
9 ONE TREE HILL CW 6.6
9 SMALLVILLE CW 6.6


Note: Data from Dec 26, 2005 - Dec 3, 2006. Percent Increase in viewership is based on difference between Live Household Ratings and Live+7.


5 out of the Top 10 (or 11 in case of a tie)

Most time shifting is done with the cable company provided DVR, which doesn't work so well if your channels aren't on cable. :D :D :D