Sinclair Cable Carriage [Text View] - Page 5

HDTVFanAtic

12-20-06, 10:23 PM

Just going by the number of shows selected for time shifting:
5 NBC
5 CW
1 ABC
11 Total

If these shows are indicitive of popularity and viewership, then, CBS and FOX don't have anything that is popular and creating viewership. ABC has next to nothing. CW and NBC rule the roost. CBS, FOX and ABC should be out of business soon because all advertising will switch to CW and NBC which have the most eyeballs.

At least one might think so. I didn't say which one.

You have 2 types of viewing

1) Casual Viewer - watching TV and just trying to find something to watch - settles on whatever they can find....

2) Appointment Viewer - Think Must See TV on Thursday - what NBC created for year - or American Idol and Dancing With The Stars - how they were able to move viewers from one night to the next.

The thing about the DVR stats shows Appointment viewers - where people had to plan ahead and go out of their way to TIVO something and watch it up to +7 days later. It shows more passion for the show than just a casual viewer.

Now, look at #1 Studio 60 - against CSI Miami - which held its big ratings. Thus the buzz on Heroes and Studio 60 made people want to check it out - but they went to CSI Miami - thus having to make plans to DVR the show because of other choices.

Obviously, a first choice was made that wasn't CW or NBC, as shown in these figures. Odds are it was CBS or FOX (think American Idol - see below) but they went to lengths to capture these shows for future viewing.

I'll go with passion over casual viewing anytime as it shows the lengths someone will go to making sure they get to see the show.

Top 10 TV Programs - Regularly Scheduled - 2006
Rank Programs Network % of Homes in U.S. (Rating)
1 AMERICAN IDOL-TUESDAY FOX 17.7 <<<<<
2 AMERICAN IDOL-WEDNESDAY FOX 17.2 <<<<<
3 DANCING WITH THE STARS ABC 12.7 <<<<<
4 CSI CBS 12.0
5 DANCING W/STARS RESULTS ABC 11.4 <<<<<<
6 NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL NBC 11.1
7 CSI: MIAMI CBS 10.3 <<<<<<<
8 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES ABC 10.2
9 HOUSE FOX 10.0
10 DEAL OR NO DEAL-MON NBC 9.8
10 WITHOUT A TRACE CBS 9.8
Source: Nielsen Media Research

Note: Data from Dec 26, 2005 - Dec 17, 2006. Household Ratings include Live and Same Day timeshifted viewing.

And with that you can see why the 2nd choice was timeshifted - and important enough to the viewer to make an appointment in advance to make sure they had it and watched it in the following week.

And simply for reference:

Top 10 TV Programs - Single Telecasts - 2006
Rank Telecast Network Date Aired % of Homes in U.S. (Rating)
1 SUPER BOWL XL ABC 2/5/2006 41.6
2 SUPER BOWL POST GAME ABC 2/5/2006 29.0
3 ACADEMY AWARDS ABC 3/5/2006 23.1
4 ROSE BOWL ABC 1/4/2006 21.7
5 GREY'S ANATOMY ABC 2/5/2006 21.0
6 FOX NFC CHAMPIONSHIP FOX 1/22/2006 20.8
7 AMERICAN IDOL-WED FOX 5/24/2006 20.5
8 AMERICAN IDOL-TUES FOX 1/24/2006 19.6
9 AMERICAN IDOL-TUES FOX 1/17/2006 19.3
10 AMERICAN IDOL-TUES FOX 3/21/2006 19.2
Source: Nielsen Media Research

Note: Data from Dec 26, 2005 - Dec 17, 2006. Household Ratings include Live and Same Day timeshifted viewing. Excludes telecasts under 5 minutes.

posg

12-21-06, 08:13 AM

HDTVFanAtic

12-21-06, 12:27 PM

Back to the Sinclair situation, when Sinclair is no longer available via cable, would it not follow that a large amount of what you call "casual" viewership will simply go away. Three handicaps will exist:

1) Channel will not be passed while "surfing"
2) It will NOT appear in the electronic program guide, so many people won't even be aware of what is on.
3) Programming cannot be time-shifted by a cable DVR.

Stations are made and broken by the strength of their local newscast. Since their competitors will continue to have their local newscast easily assessable via cable, many viewers, if not most, will simply choose another local newscast, and even if they eventually return to cable, they will never get many of them back.

But then Sinclair has a half hearted commitment to local news anyway. Perhaps this will be justification for getting out of the "local" business altogther.

Does local broadcasting still provide the service for which it was intended? I think less and less all the time. So why are we protecting these dinosaurs anyway? Perhaps it's time to rethink the whole model.

People have their favorite newscast. It's not casual viewership - its set appointments - which is why the news franchise is so important.

You should know how important these "dinasours" are in time of emergency as Eastern North Carolina has had its share in the last 5 years.

As noted over and over, the cable company feels immediate financial fallout - not the station. Look at Sinclair paying people to switch to D*. Those people are in for atleast a 2 year committment - and odds are - D* is paying the rebate - not Sinclair - a win win for the Sinclair Station and a loose-loose for cable.

Fitzie

12-22-06, 04:24 PM

HDTVFanAtic

12-22-06, 04:47 PM

Suggestion for resolving the Sinclair "problem."

When a local Sinclair station refuses to allow the local cable company to carry its broadcast signal free, the cable company should have the right to import a distant signal showing that network (e.g., CBS, NBC, etc.).

Don't forget that Sinclair is broadcasting on the public's airwaves. Part of Sinclair's responsibility under this circumstance is to provide a "public service"--not to be a public rip-off artist or corporation.

My views.

Regards, Fitzie

Except the Broadcast Station has purchased the legal copyrights to that program in the area - and no other Broadcast Station has the right to air those programs in that area.

Again, once the copyright holder has that right, they can do whatever they wish. It is no different than a book publisher deciding not to release the OJ Simpson Book after they paid for it. It's their book - its their right.

Do you really want to argue its a public service to be able to see Deal or No Deal on NBC?

If you want to argue that the cable companies can re-air without consent anything considered News or Public Affairs - and not Entertainment - so be it - but don't try a blanket statement over ALL things.

As noted by the Canadian Government in a different thread - Broadcasters are spending millions and millions on the transistion to digital and not receiving anything extra for it. As I have note, it cost at minimum $3 Million to go local HD News and to do it right cost $6Million plus.

The Cable Companies ARE making money off the programming - so they will end up paying for that right.

CPanther95

12-22-06, 05:53 PM

HDTVFanAtic

12-22-06, 06:11 PM

What is very interesting is to see how the people with money (which clearly are putting their money where their mouth is - unlike Stan54) are betting this will work out financially for all concerned.

Mediacom vs. Sinclair (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MCCC&t=3m&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=sbgi)

And how is Mediacom tracking compared to Other Cable Companies:

Mediacom vs Comcast (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=MCCC&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=cmcsa)

Mediacom vs Time Warner (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=MCCC&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=twx)

Mediacom vs Charter (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=MCCC&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=chtr)

Mediacom vs Cablevision (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=MCCC&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=cvc)

Sure looks like everyone in the know is betting against Mediacom - thinking they will take the financial hit here compared to it's peers - and certainly not Sinclair.

Of course, these people are only playing with real money - not giving the views of their so called "reality" on the internet.

dline

12-22-06, 09:01 PM

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.
It is already starting to get interesting.

I've been to a lot of "straddling" towns and noticed that often times, the cable just goes ahead and carries the duplicates. Fort Madison, Iowa, for instance, gets CBS from the Quad Cities and Hannibal, Fox from the Quad Cities and Ottumwa, NBC from the Quad Cities and Quincy, and ABC from the Quad Cities, Kirksville and Cedar Rapids. There did not appear to be any attempt to black out any programming, even though the most "local" stations in the area are clearly from the Hannibal-Quincy-Keokuk market.

In fact, there are already reports that Mediacom is piping in the Quad Cities CBS affiliate to replace Sinclair's KGAN in Iowa City, where reception of KGAN's channel 2 is difficult. Whether this will succeed, I don't know. I've heard that past owners of many of these systems used to carry neighboring market stations whose signals overlap ours, only to later determine that duplicate network affiliates were eating up too much bandwidth.

dline

01-01-07, 08:31 PM

Well, it's been a while since anyone posted here, but the battle rages on:

* The deadline for a retransmission consent deal between Sinclair and Mediacom cable is this Friday, Jan. 5. It was to have expired Dec. 1 until the two sides agreed to a last-minute extension, but there does not appear to be any progress.

* The ad wars have resumed.

Mediacom has begun running anti-Sinclair cable ads again, making liberal use of a newspaper quote from VP and General Counsel Barry Faber, in which he allegedly said, "We do not tend to change our business practices because the public doesn't like it." A companion web site, www.befairsinclair.com, expands on that campaign and also contains information on how to hook up an antenna and A/B switch to get Sinclair stations over the air without switching providers.

Sinclair has also started running newspaper ads again in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, although the new ads tend to make bigger mention of the fact that the stations can be received over the air as well as through their preferred provider, DirecTV.

* In Cedar Rapids, according to The Gazette, Sinclair has reached a deal with a competing cable company and said they'd be willing to accept a deal with Mediacom similar to the one they've reached with competitor McLeod USA, soon to become Imon (pronounced "i'm on"). How these two could be treated similarly is anyone's guess. Remember, Mediacom claims Sinclair is demanding an "all-or-nothing" deal involving all 22 Sinclair stations in Mediacom's territory, whereas McLeod, to the best of my knowledge, only has to deal with one -- KGAN CBS 2.

* As reported earlier in this thread, Mediacom is getting around the loss of CBS in parts of eastern Iowa by striking deals with nearby stations whose signals overlap that of KGAN. Some AVS viewers are even reporting that they can get CBS-HD from the Quad Cities -- which they have never received from KGAN -- on cable in Iowa City, even though it is technically part of the Cedar Rapids-Waterloo market.

* The deadline for a retransmission consent deal with Time Warner was to have expired on New Year's Day, but the web site for Sinclair's Columbus, OH stations (http://www.wsyx6.com) is reporting that the two companies have agreed to extend the current deal to January 12 -- enough time to get viewers through the college bowl season. (Sinclair owns ABC6 and Fox 28 in Columbus.)

dline

01-02-07, 03:24 PM

And this just in from Sinclair: a press release (http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_200712_195.shtml) announcing plans to extend the DirecTV rebate offer to February 6. It was to end December 31, 2006, but with no deal with Mediacom in sight, the company decided to keep the customer-plucking offer alive.

The rebate is $150 for Mediacom customers in the Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Minneapolis markets, and $100 other markets served by Sinclair stations -- payable as a $10-a-month rebate on their future DirecTV bills.

"It is unfortunate that we apparently will not be able to reach agreement with Mediacom," Sinclair Vice President and General Counsel Barry Faber said in the press release. "But we again want to remind our viewers in Mediacom markets that alternative means for watching our great programming continue to exist. These alternatives include both over-the-air and direct broadcast satellite."

Mediacom's www.befairsinclair.com website warns that customers who switch to satellite could face a one-year contract obligation, a handling fee, an extra fee for extra receivers, and the loss of such services as high-speed internet, VOD and community-oriented cable programming.

HDTVFanAtic

01-02-07, 03:54 PM

Interesting, again, Sinclair is giving money to people to switch to D* - Mediacom is not saying they will cut people's bill to stay :D - but warning you might have to sign up for a 1 year deal - oh my!!!!

Again, I suspect D* is actually paying the $10 - but regardless, this sure doesn't look like Sinclair is worried - though Mediacom seems to be by their statements.

HDTVFanAtic

01-03-07, 06:30 PM

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?

As pointed out numerous times over the last 60 days, Mediacomm's accountants will inform them the moment has arrived much sooner than the time it takes for Sinclair to feel any bump.

As shown here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MCCC&t=3m&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=sbgi

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9248655&&#post9248655

People with real money are betting on Sinclair

And now today, as fred posted, they are really verbal about it.

Sinclair is sitting pretty. Mediacomm is in a world of trouble, exactly as I have tried to tell you for the last 60 days.

Considering what is about to happen to shareholder value, the Management of Mediacomm had better cut their losses quickly or face their fate as this drags out - as they better accept the realities of 2007 and beyond.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9343881&&#post9343881

The Business of Televisiony
Analyst Downgrades Mediacom
By Linda Moss Multi Channel News 1/3/2007

Predicting that Mediacom Communications retransmission-consent dispute with a broadcaster will end badly, Pali Research downgraded the cable company's stock to sell Wednesday.

In his report, which details the aggressive promotions Mediacom has been offering, Pali analyst Richard Greenfield said he believes Sinclair Broadcast Group will go ahead and pull its TV stations off the cable company's systems this weekend.

Mediacom has very little leverage, given how important Sinclair stations are across MCCCs [Mediacoms] footprint, compared with how unimportant Mediacoms subscriber base is to Sinclair, Greenfield wrote.

To maintain growth despite negative press from the Sinclair standoff, the cable operator has been offering new customers a monthly $59.95 triple-play bundle, increasing to $115 after six months and $136 after 12 months, according to Greenfield's report.

He said he expected the Sinclair situation to end badly for Mediacom, with the midsized cable company forced to pay significantly more than management was budgeting in 2007 [or risk losing subscribers to the multichannel-video competitors].

Greenfield also wrote that he is worried about the precedent the Sinclair dispute could set for Mediacom in its future negotiations with other broadcasters.

In November, Sinclair granted Mediacom an extension to continue carrying roughly two dozen of its TV stations until Jan. 5. Mediacom officials have said that about 700,000 of its subscribers would be affected if Sinclair pulls its signals, although Greenfield put the number at 550,000 in his report.

He outlined several aggressive promotional offers Mediacom kicked off in December. In addition to the $59.95 offer to new subscribers, existing Mediacom customers were able to add digital-voice service for only one penny per month for the first six months, increasing to $29.95 per month after that.

And customer-service representatives sometimes combined the promotions, according to Greenfield's report, allowing Mediacom subscribers to have video, voice and high-speed data for only $49.96 per month for six months, increasing to $110 after six months and $136 thereafter.

Greenfield said he doesn't expect the promotions to impact Mediacom's fourth-quarter results.

However, the company's ability to convert deeply discounted subscribers into full-paying subs during mid- to late-2007 is a meaningful risk to our 2007 estimates, he wrote.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6403827

dline

01-04-07, 03:23 PM

THIS JUST IN FROM THE FCC:

The FCC has denied Mediacom's "good faith" complaint against Sinclair Broadcast Group and won't intervene.

In their order (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3A1.pdfhttp://) the FCC Media Bureau ruled against Mediacom on all counts, including the arrangement with DirecTV. However, the bureau did encourage all sides to consider binding arbitration to settle the matter.

HDTVFanAtic

01-04-07, 04:58 PM

you beat me to it.....options running out for Mediacom....who again, look to be in the panicing position here.

HDTVFanAtic

01-04-07, 05:19 PM

And for the naysayers, here goes the arguement you have tried for months - rejected by the FCC:

The record also indicates that Sinclair seeks compensation at or below levels that
Mediacom already pays other less highly rated programmers.52 For illustration, Sinclair is the licensee of two stations – KGAN (CBS, Cedar Rapids, Iowa) and KDMS-TV (FOX, Des Moines, Iowa) -- and asking for [REDACTED] per subscriber, per month for carriage of each station. KGAN is assigned to the Cedar Rapids-Waterloo, Iowa DMA. In May 2006, KGAN had a Sunday-Saturday Primetime rating of 8.53 Even assuming that the cable networks for which Mediacom pays the most are those that achieve the highest levels of viewership, none of the twenty-five cable networks for which it pays [REDACTED] or more (i.e., the 25 networks for which it pays the most) achieved more than a rating of 1 for this same period in the Cedar Rapids-Waterloo, Iowa DMA.54 Similarly, in May 2006, KDSM, which is assigned to the Des Moines-Ames, Iowa DMA, had a Saturday-Sunday Primetime rating of 4.55 Only one of the twenty-five cable networks for which Mediacom pays [REDACTED] or more (i.e., the twenty-five cablenetworks for which it pays the most) achieved a rating of 2. The remainder achieved ratings of no more than 1 for this same period.56

18. Mediacom argues that the price paid for cable programming that is only available through subscription services is not an appropriate measure of the value of broadcast signals that are available free and over-the-air. Mediacom appears to characterize as inconsistent with competitive marketplace considerations the fact that Sinclair seeks compensation commensurate with other programmers carried by Mediacom that are generally lower rated than the Sinclair stations. We disagree. It seems reasonable that the fair market value of any source of programming would be based in large part on the measured popularity of such programming. Therefore, seeking compensation commensurate with that paid to other programmers of equal, or lower, ratings is not per se inconsistent with competitive marketplace considerations.

foxeng

01-04-07, 10:33 PM

With all the due respect and humility, all I can say is "I told you so." And I hold no ill will towards anyone on this subject. And there were some who were really nasty to me.

HDTVFanAtic

01-04-07, 11:00 PM

I may be on the wrong side of an argument on occassion, but I am smart enough to constantly re-examine the facts as presented and know when to admit the mistakes, cut my losses and get off that train instead of going down with the ship :D

foxeng

01-04-07, 11:04 PM

Guilty conscience? ;) Naw, not you. The ones I am thinking of were a while ago, not in this thread, but they know who they are. And I forgive them because they really didn't have a clue as to what could happen or how the FCC and Congress act on things like this. This is a first for them.

SnakeEyes

01-04-07, 11:18 PM

So what does Mediacom do now?

keenan

01-05-07, 02:21 AM

So what does Mediacom do now?
Simple, pay Sinclair what they want.

HDTVFanAtic

01-05-07, 02:40 AM

The interesting thing is, if you read the FCC document, it appears that Sinclair apparently would have settled for 50 cents per sub. That price has apparently increased dramatically - as Mediacom has forced all this legal expense. Of course Mediacom has objected to that, but the FCC states the market conditions changes so Sinclair has every right to adjust their demands for compensation based on market conditions.

It's also interesting, as I speculated, that D* is paying the rebate for new D* customers - and that apparently it is a National Fox Network program for referrals that ANY company can take advantage of. The FCC also ruled that Sinclair had EVERY RIGHT to inform viewers where they could continue to pick up the signal if Mediacomm could not come to an agreement with them.

I have read through this twice - and I don't see anything that Mediacom even came close to winning (and thus NO GOOD NEWS) in this ruling.

Marcus Carr

01-05-07, 03:51 AM

svsneo

01-05-07, 04:25 AM

Sorry if this has been discussed before and I did a quick search and didn't find anything about this.

But IF/WHEN Mediacom and Sinclair come to an agreement does anyone know if they will start carring the HD feeds too?

HDTVFanAtic

01-05-07, 05:33 AM

I would suspect after all this that any agreement will be for everything.

HDTVFanAtic

01-05-07, 05:35 AM

I just got this message on my cable box:

"The Comcast/Sinclair Agreement for WBFF-HD (FOX) and WNUV-HD (CW) expires shortly. By law, Comcast may be required by Sinclair to suspend carriage of channels 206, 213, 214 as early as 2/5. Our goal is to resolve this."

I suspect they will give them a 30 day extension, just as they did Mediacom, to get them through the February sweeps. If Comcast wanted to play hardball, they could refuse - but then again, Comcast then will look pretty bad to their customers for refusing to take the extension.

Then you have 60 days to get it solved prior to May Sweeps. However, when American Idol and 24 are not on Comcast - especially midseason - it won't be pleasant for their business or CSRs.

Clearly Sinclair knew it had Comcast coming up in 1Q 2006 and that's why it's drawn the line with Mediacom to set the precedent.

foxeng

01-05-07, 08:22 AM

Then you have 60 days to get it solved prior to May Sweeps. However, when American Idol and 24 are not on Comcast - especially midseason - it won't be pleasant for their business or CSRs.

Talk about a strategic move!!

I am not sure when the CBS retrans comes up, but that will be ugly too. You are right, we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. Cable has no leg to stand on with this issue. I think we will see the dominos fall now.

foxeng

01-05-07, 08:24 AM

Simple, pay Sinclair what they want.

Or don't carry the channels. Same options they had before all of this mess started.

Stan54

01-05-07, 01:46 PM

Does anyone actually know if cable companies ARE paying fees to Sinclair or other owners of television stations?

HDTVFanAtic

01-05-07, 01:51 PM

Yes, as noted in the FCC documents.

svsneo

01-05-07, 03:04 PM

Any new news today between Sinclair and Mediacom?

HDTVFanAtic

01-05-07, 03:14 PM

Any new news today between Sinclair and Mediacom?

http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/3/76023.html

Just that Mediacomm's CEO has a lisp and likes attacking the FCC while tap dancing - sounds like he'd like to slap someone silly....and turn off the signal at midnight tonight.

Stan54 and POSG might be smarter than this guy!!!!

"Sinclair made it clear they want to be paid like cable networks, while they want to be paid like cable networks, they don't behave like cable networks."

He's never negotiated with ESPN I guess?

"As you know cable networks provide independently produced or acquired programming. Except for some local news, Sinclair is nothing more than a middleman of someone else's programming".

LOL!!!!!

Has this guy ever heard of HBO, SHOWTIME, STARZ, TNT, TBS, CARTOON NETWORK, NICK?

This guy is an idiot - now I know why Sinclair is out to make an example of him. I wouldnt be surprised if the Stockholders end up giving this guy the boot eventually after this.

svsneo

01-05-07, 03:29 PM

Haha he sounds like a gubber.

HDTVFanAtic

01-05-07, 03:40 PM

The funniest thing about this idiot - he says that its going to lead to higher cable rates (like NFL Network wouldn't) and thus Congress will get involved and it will be very bad for Sinclair and Broadcast Stations in General.

HELLO YOU IDIOT.....IT WILL MEAN A LA CARTE - WHICH ISN'T GOING TO BE GOOD FOR YOU.

Virtually everyone will pick up Broadcast Stations - as seen by the ratings.

"All the trades this morning reported that the FCC ruled for Sinclair - that is not true - it was the FCC Mass Media Bureau - that is not the FCC!!!!"

oh my god........

"Chairman Martin is for us - just last week they voted to let Telephone Systems get into video to increase competition and bring prices down. This will clearly increase prices, which is the opposite of what Chairman Martin wants - so he is for us!"

This guy must have Swammi for an advisor!!!

Too Funny....later on the legal advisor says "we have appealled to the FCC Commissioners and thus far they have ignored us" "there is no indication they are going to act on it"

Yep......he's on your side!!!!!!

Paraphrase "As we went through this process....the price kept going up"

DUH....guess what, settlement price always goes up as legal expenses increase - just like any court case - and your legal fees are much less if you don't go to trial (which normally doubles legal fees at the very least).

"Sinclair increased what they wanted in the last few days saying that the Media Bureau wasn't going to rule in our favor - and they were right. Maybe they knew something we didn't know"

Yep....you have the FCC in your pocket bud!!!

HDTVFanAtic

01-05-07, 04:15 PM

This guy should have read this forum - they think that all Sinclair's leverage is gone once they pull the signal and the initial people leave Mediacomm - that its done. He doesn't realize that others will leave as it continues who get fed up waiting.

If he had read AVS he would have realized that his thinking is single dimension and not on the multidimensional scale he better be thinking about when the next company's retransmission rights come up.

"Is Mediacomm going to cut their price if the station goes dark?"

"No, we don't pay for the stations now - so we won't cut the price per channel - we don't price that way - besides, since we aren't paying for it now, we won't cut our price"

Yeah Right - Try telling the customer he's not paying for it in basic cable.

HDTVFanAtic

01-05-07, 04:22 PM

"People who take up Sinclair on their offer for other ways of receiving their stations - there are lots of strings attached - you won't be able to come back -you'll be locked in for a while :eek:"

:rolleyes:

If I were running Sinclair, I would just pull the plug on this guy for a good long while.

svsneo

01-05-07, 04:37 PM

Yeah, doesn't look like anything is going to change today. Looks like Sinclair is going to pull the stations. New notes have been put up on www.befairsinclair.com asking for people to wait while they work out a deal and not to switch.

SnakeEyes

01-05-07, 05:15 PM

In every story here in Des Moines, on radio or TV, the primary Mediacom talking point is now that the "important" part to come out of the FCC ruling was the recommendation for binding arbitration which "we suggested over a month ago".

svsneo

01-05-07, 05:26 PM

Its just a recommendation though, so who knows what will actually happen. Sinclairs price is probably just going keep going up with their rising legal costs of drawing this out even further. If they would have reached an earlier agreement all sides would have been much better off.

HDTVFanAtic

01-05-07, 05:39 PM

Comical that the Mediacom says he will pay the same as TWC Cable - lets see - if we use the first .50 rate, Mediacom can bring in $697,000 and TWC can bring $6,735,500 a month to the table - and Mediacom expects the same rate/volume discount as TWC, lol.

fredfa

01-05-07, 05:39 PM

Since Sinclair seems to hold almost all the cards, why should it agree to binding arbitration?

As has been noted previously, fact is that the DBS companies, along with the telcos, already pay for carriage -- and somehow manage to have lower rates than most cable operators.

So why should the cable companies continue to get a free ride?

Does anyone truly believe that when the CBS, Fox and NBC demand O&O carriage fees from cable that they won't get them?

Stan54

01-05-07, 07:54 PM

Yes, as noted in the FCC documents.

Would you identify the major cable companies that pay local stations for carriage? Would you identify a few of the stations that receive payment?

hondo21

01-05-07, 09:20 PM

I too noticed a new channel 217 on Comcast here (Greensburg, PA) tonight, LOC (Local Access Programming). All it is right now is a blue screen with this unwelcome text:
The Comcast/Sinclair agreement for WPGH-DT (FOX) and WPMY-DT (MY NETWORK) expires shortly. Comcast may be required by Sinclair to suspend carriage of channels 213 and 214 as early as 2/5. We will try to avoid service disruption.I am no fan of cable companies like Comcast, but I truly despise Sinclair and their tactics as well. Just please work it out guys.

HDTVFanAtic

01-05-07, 11:26 PM

Would you identify the major cable companies that pay local stations for carriage? Would you identify a few of the stations that receive payment?

Everything you need to know is documented in the FCC decision and also stated in the conference call today - both links above.

Do your own homework and maybe the next time after researching this you will be able to give us better informed and thought out posts.

If a man is hungry and you give him a fish, it will feed him for one meal. Teach him to fish and he can feed himself the rest of his life.

But I will throw you this sardine to get started - according the Mediacom conference call today, Mr. Lisp stated that TWC's analog retransmission ran out on 12/31/2006 and that TWC and Sinclair have come to an agreement for retransmission that will most likely be announced next week.

And Mr. Lisp also states another cable company that has an agreement with Sinclair - but we'll let you mine those nuggets.

Ken H

01-05-07, 11:36 PM

From Multichannel News

Sinclair to Pull Stations from Mediacom

By LINDA MOSS & DAVID COHEN
1/5/2007, 11:19 p.m.

Mediacom Communications announced late Friday night that Sinclair Broadcast Group refused to extend the cable operator’s right to carry its stations and ordered their removal as of midnight.

Earlier Friday, Mediacom said it planned to appeal to the full Federal Communications Commission with hopes of keeping those outlets from going dark.

During a conference call Friday morning, Mediacom officials also said they were still hoping that Sinclair would finally agree to their request that their ongoing retransmission-consent dispute be submitted to binding arbitration and that the stations stay on in the interim.

For more: http://email.multichannel.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/htlf0GXKMn0OZJ0C6gW0EC

afiggatt

01-06-07, 01:13 AM

Marcus Carr

01-06-07, 07:16 AM

Sinclair Could Pull 30 Stations Off Comcast

By Anne Becker -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/5/2007 7:05:00 PM

Sinclair Broadcast Group could end up yanking 30 stations off of Comcast because of an ongoing battle over retransmission consent - leaving some 3 million customers without their broadcast signal.

Sinclair's carriage deal with Comcast is up Feb. 5 and the broadcaster is demanding cash from the cable operator to carry its stations in 23 markets. Comcast, the nation's biggest cable operator, is refusing to pay cash and says Sinclair is the only broadcaster with which it can't reach a deal.

But in an interesting twist, many of its stations can't go black then due to a federal law that says no in-market station can be pulled from cable during a sweeps period.

By demanding cash, Sinclair becomes the latest broadcaster to assert its legal right to demand money in exchange for allowing the cable operator to retransmit their signal. Last month, fellow station owner Northwest Broadcasting Corp. pulled Fox stations on Time Warner Cable in three states because the two couldn't reach an agreement.

So far, stations have accepted advertising time from major cable operators or carriage of sister cable networks and have only gotten cash from satellite and small cable operators. Kagan Research projects that station owners stand to collect some $225 million in retransmission fees this year from cable and satellite operators and telcos, and $1 billion in 2009, the year some station owners’ cable deals, notably CBS, come due then.

The cable operators have historically said that they do not want to pay cash because they do not want to create higher bills for their customers, bills already getting hammered by the FCC as too high. Comcast would not say how much Sinclair was seeking and Sinclair did not return calls at press time.

In a statement, Comcast Corporation Executive Vice President David Cohen said: "Sinclair Broadcast Group, one of the nation’s largest broadcast television station owners, has demanded large cash payments from Comcast, and ultimately consumers, so that these customers can continue to view broadcast television stations that are available over-the-air for free. We do not believe that our customers should have to pay extra to watch free TV.

"We are currently negotiating with Sinclair to reach a fair agreement, but are not legally allowed to carry these channels without Sinclair’s permission. We will do everything in our power to avoid service interruptions without adding Sinclair’s proposed fees to customers’ bills."

Sinclair, which owns mostly Fox and MyNetworkTV stations, has had similar battles with Time Warner and Mediacom. Time Warners rights to carry the Sinclair' station in Buffalo was up Dec. 31, according to Sinclair, but was extended until Jan. 12 when an agreement couldn't be reached, according to a Time Warner spokesperson. And Sinclair's contentious retransmission dispute with Mediacom - with Sinclair scheduled to pull 22 stations Jan. 5 - resulted in the cable operator filing a complaint with the FCC .

In a similar standoff, Nexstar pulled its stations off cable systems in four small markets in December 2004 after the operators refused to pay the 30¢ per subscriber rate Nexstar was seeking. Most of the disputes have been resolved, and Nexstar says the majority of cable operators are paying cash (however, CableOne and Cox, two of the biggest operators Nexstar fought, are not).

Nexstar says retransmission payments will go from almost zero to some 15% of the company’s cash flow over the next five years

http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6404747.html?display=Breaking+News

foxeng

01-06-07, 08:23 AM

I have a question: are either the Sinclair stations involved in this or Mediacom publicizing the OTA reception option for most of the cable subscribers in this situation? Are the stations using their evening news shows to present segments on digital reception and antennas?

Sinclair has been telling people that they are available on DirecTV and they will help pay for the change over as well as their stations are available OTA.

On the surface one might think so, but if people were to switch to OTA reception and drop cable, that would actually reduce income for the Sinclair station as Mediacom might have fewer subscribers should Mediacom eventually cave.

Earlier in the thread that was debunked and the FCC admits in their ruling that won't happen.

Sinclair collecting a viewer fee from the cable company only gives them incentive to downplay the OTA reception option going forward. Some interesting peculiar conflicts of interest here. If Mediacom goes out of it's way to publicize OTA digital reception option, are they then admitting that with digital OTA reception, many people can get clear pictures, so they don't really need cable for the local stations. Does Mediacom play hardball by saying, stay with us for ESPN and USA networks, but go ahead and put up an antenna to get the Sinclair station?

Most people will go with Dish or DirecTV before they do OTA/cable.

If I were Mediacom, I would be tempted to get a few truckloads of Silver Sensor antennas and hand them out for free. Push the local CC and BB stores to publicize how they have all these digital TVs with built-in ATSC tuners. But this won't happen because BB and CC are so deeply in bed with DirecTV and don't spend any time, from what I can tell, training their sales force about ATSC. Oh well, maybe the avsforum members in those cities can start educating their friends about OTA digital reception.

You will not see ANY cableco doing that. Their whole premise is OTA is bad, you can't live without cable. Acknowledging OTA is a killer to cable.

Bottom line, interesting game of chicken. Odds are Mediacom will blink first and the trend towards ever higher monthly cable rates will continue.

Even Wall Street is betting on Sinclair and has downgraded Mediacom to "sell".

As has been pointed out, sat and FIOS can provide the same content as cable cheaper while still paying local stations. That statement holds no water. I would recommend you start at the first of the thread and reread it. The points you have made here have already been debated ad nauseum.

posg

01-06-07, 10:36 AM

jtbell

01-06-07, 11:18 AM

In our area, that wouldn't be a factor for Sinclair. They own two stations here. On one of them, the only extra subchannel is an SD version of the other station. The other station has no extra subchannels. Both stations carried "The Tube" as an extra subchannel until New Year, when Sinclair dropped it from all their stations, as discussed in another thread.

Stan54

01-06-07, 01:41 PM

foxeng

01-06-07, 01:51 PM

While cable operators generally "pass" all the digital side-car channels, satellite operators don't, and may never. That in and of itself makes me think Sinclair is shooting itself in the foot trying to move it's audience to satellite. Just a thought.

With Sinclair pulling out of The Tube, most (if not all) of their stations do not have subchannels at this time so it isn't an issue.

foxeng

01-06-07, 01:55 PM

Word from the family in a Mediacom market with a Sinclair ABC is it isn't a pretty sight this morning. It seems Mediacom has made a feeble attempt at handing out rabbit ears in an area that doesn't get OTA TV and when it came time to hand them out, they didn't and the long line of subs let their feelings be known of the whole situation. Trying to find a Dish or DirecTV system is getting harder and harder. The dash to leave Mediacom in that area has started in mass.

HDTVFanAtic

01-06-07, 03:28 PM

Mr. FanAtic, I didn't think you would want to provide an actual response to my question and I was correct. Here is an article that will help you understand the situation a little more clearly.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6404747.html?display=Breaking+News

Too bad you didn't read post http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9362456&&#post9362456 in this thread.

And you are right - I am not going to spoon feed you like the little baby you are so you continue in Stansworld which isnt the real world.

Keep trying. Maybe if you do your homework one day you will be able to form correct analysis based on facts and not other people's summaries.

fredfa

01-06-07, 03:43 PM

...Even Wall Street is betting on Sinclair and has downgraded Mediacom to "sell"...

Many, on Wall Street, perhaps, but not all.

http://www.americanbulls.com/StockPage.asp?CompanyTicker=MCCC&MarketTicker=NASD&Typ=S

HDTVFanAtic

01-06-07, 03:59 PM

Many, on Wall Street, perhaps, but not all.

http://www.americanbulls.com/StockPage.asp?CompanyTicker=MCCC&MarketTicker=NASD&Typ=S

Fredfa, in all due respect, thats nothing more than a Daytrading Site. Looking at the 2 year history of their buy/sell they have reveresed their positions in days.

I mean:
12.29.06 8.080 Sell 319
12.21.06 7.980 Buy 31

They buy and sell for 2 cents profit. You can do that daytrading it in an hour. In fact, while that might look "good" on paper, with slippage you could NEVER get filed at those numbers anyway.

If you pay a cheap $9.99 to buy a stock and then trade it away - that's mean you needed a 1,000 shares just to break even - no with SEC fees, you would actually need more. So even with 5,000 shares, thats less than a $40 profit.

This is nothing more than for scalping pennies - not people interested in the long term viability (heck, even short term of a quarter or two) of the company.

dline

01-06-07, 03:59 PM

Thomas Desmond

01-06-07, 04:47 PM

You will not see ANY cableco doing that. Their whole premise is OTA is bad, you can't live without cable. Acknowledging OTA is a killer to cable.

Yes, I can imagine it would be a very bad thing for cable if a sizeable number of their subscribers had to switch to an antenna for OTA -- and realized that they were watching the free OTA channels more than the cable channels that they pay for.

the public at large is very ignorant about OTA television reception nowadays, and I would expect that cable's interest is to keep it that way. That ignorance is compounded when it comes to HDTV -- I've been amazed at the number of times that I've had people express surprise and amazement when I tell them that I receive HDTV programming off the air without paying any monthly fees. But then considering those idiotic tags that retailers are placing underneath their HDTV displays advising viewers to contact their "cable or satellite provider for HDTV programming options", I guess that isn't a surprise.

HDTVFanAtic

01-06-07, 05:10 PM

Stan54

01-06-07, 05:26 PM

Too bad you didn't read post http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9362456&&#post9362456 in this thread.

And you are right - I am not going to spoon feed you like the little baby you are so you continue in Stansworld which isnt the real world.

Keep trying. Maybe if you do your homework one day you will be able to form correct analysis based on facts and not other people's summaries.

Yeah, I had already read that post. Is there supposed to be some big revalation in it?

Look, if your point is that Sinclair is going to win, I would say that you are probably correct. My point is something different and for some reason you seem to disagree with it.

I am simply saying that it would be to the consumer's financial advantage if Sinclair did NOT win. Do you really and truly disagree with me?

HDTVFanAtic

01-06-07, 05:45 PM

Yeah, I had already read that post. Is there supposed to be some big revalation in it?

The only piece of information in the link you posted that had not been set forth as fact was that FCC says staitons cannot be pulled off cable during sweeps - again - look to my post a day earlier.

There was nothing new in the rest of the story that had not been covered in other external links already.

If you take the internet generation mentality of the last 10 years that everything is public domain and owners have no rights - yes, it will be bad for the Consumers.

If you believe that the USA is a Free Nation where people own private property and not a Communist Nation where the Government owns everything, I guess it would be good news for Consumers - that owners actually have rights to do what they want to with things they own.

posg

01-06-07, 05:46 PM

And it would even be MUCH WORSE if they actually could get a ghost free Analog signal to compare the other Analog OTA Stations to the Analog OTA Cable Quality - and realize that analog cable has ALWAYS looked worse than OTA because of the noise generated through all the amplifiers along the path.

At that point, when they have a true comparison, they won't realize its analog only - they don't understand the technical side of it - they will ASSUME that all cable channels are inferior in quality.

In the best case scenerio, an analog OTA signal can be better than a cable delivered signal. However, in most real world cases, OTA reception is problematic, especially in markets where stations are not co-located.

If you are in a strong signal area, UHF signals are plagued with reflections. If you're more than 30 miles out, expect to see electrical noise on low band VHF. Rabbit ears pretty much guarantee compromised reception.

But why are we even discussing analog anyway ?????

HDTVFanAtic

01-06-07, 05:50 PM

In the best case scenerio, an analog OTA signal can be better than a cable delivered signal. However, in most real world cases, OTA reception is problematic, especially in markets where stations are not co-located.

If you are in a strong signal area, UHF signals are plagued with reflections. If you're more than 30 miles out, expect to see electrical noise on low band VHF. Rabbit ears pretty much guarantee compromised reception.

Guess you didn't read what I posted, as I chose my words carefully.

And it would even be MUCH WORSE if they actually could get a ghost free Analog signal to compare the other Analog OTA Stations to the Analog OTA Cable Quality

But why are we even discussing analog anyway ?????

Because if you haven't noticed, less than 20% of the households have ATSC tuners and probably 9 out of 10 people that will receive a Sinclair Station OTA in a Mediacom market will view it on an Analog NTSC signal.

posg

01-06-07, 05:58 PM

Yes, I can imagine it would be a very bad thing for cable if a sizeable number of their subscribers had to switch to an antenna for OTA -- and realized that they were watching the free OTA channels more than the cable channels that they pay for.

the public at large is very ignorant about OTA television reception nowadays, and I would expect that cable's interest is to keep it that way. That ignorance is compounded when it comes to HDTV -- I've been amazed at the number of times that I've had people express surprise and amazement when I tell them that I receive HDTV programming off the air without paying any monthly fees. But then considering those idiotic tags that retailers are placing underneath their HDTV displays advising viewers to contact their "cable or satellite provider for HDTV programming options", I guess that isn't a surprise.

Let's see, you live in Plano. You watch Dallas TV. All the majors are VHF signals. All the towers are co-located. Most of the electrical grid is underground. The towers are close to the market. There is no terrain. There isn't much residential close to high rise buildings. There are NO trees, just giant bushes.

Pretty much at the "easy" end of the TV reception scale. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And what better reason to have an HD TV than Discovery HD Theatre and HDNet Movies??? With a view bright exceptions, most broadcast TV is for idiots. How many crime dramas and reality shows can one watch ????

Stan54

01-06-07, 06:07 PM

The only piece of information in the link you posted that had not been set forth as fact was that FCC says staitons cannot be pulled off cable during sweeps - again - look to my post a day earlier.

There was nothing new in the rest of the story that had not been covered in other external links already.

If you take the internet generation mentality of the last 10 years that everything is public domain and owners have no rights - yes, it will be bad for the Consumers.

If you believe that the USA is a Free Nation where people own private property and not a Communist Nation where the Government owns everything, I guess it would be good news for Consumers - that owners actually have rights to do what they want to with things they own.

Quote from FanAtic:
"........................yes, it will be bad for the Consumers."

Since you actually agree with the point I have been trying to make, you have been lashing out against ................ NOTHING. .......... It appears that you are no where near as smart as you claim to be.

HDTVFanAtic

01-06-07, 06:09 PM

Let's see, you live in Plano. You watch Dallas TV. All the majors are VHF signals. All the towers are co-located. Most of the electrical grid is underground. The towers are close to the market. There is no terrain. There isn't much residential close to high rise buildings. There are NO trees, just giant bushes.

Pretty much at the "easy" end of the TV reception scale. :rolleyes:

And it's so EASY, thats why people are constantly bitching in the Dallas Local Thread and on to the main thread of how hard it is to pick up one of the key network stations:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And what better reason to have an HD TV than Discovery HD Theatre and HDNet Movies??? With a view bright exceptions, most broadcast TV is for idiots. How many crime dramas and reality shows can one watch ????

Yes, play PBS and give the people what they don't want - instead of what they have already decided they really want to watch:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And I am sure you are the grand master of what people SHOULD watch :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Might you like to apply to be the next leader of North Korea?

HDTVFanAtic

01-06-07, 06:18 PM

....you actually ..........appear..... as smart as you claim to be.

Thanks, you have finally learned the truth!!!!

Amazing what you can do when you when leave parts of a post out and take things out of context.

I see that you believe that owners have no rights and everything should be available free - so at least we know what your moral gauge is in this discussion.

Let me guess, I suppose its also ok to steal cable service at your place as well, lol.

You know what, I'll even meet you half way. If Mediacomm wants to connect up EVERY LOCATION in their service area and give free service for ALL the local OTA stations at no cost and obligation - just like OTA TV, I will agree with you that they should not pay the OTA TV Station because at that point they REALLY WILL MAKE NO MONEY from OTA TV.

That means they could get their locals from Mediacomm at no cost and buy Directv service for everything else if they so desired.

Seems fair.

Dark Rain

01-06-07, 10:13 PM

Out here, where we lost CBS 2, they're not only giving out antennas and A/B switches, they're airing a demonstration on how to hook them up ... ON CHANNEL 2!

They've been alternating it with other programming, including at times a competitor's Weather Plus channel.

I stopped into my local Mediacom office today and seen that they had a bunch of antennas laying on the front counter. I found it laughable. I realize that they don't want to lose customers, but all this does is add support for Sinclair's TV stations.

Mediacom just needs to realize that they aren't going to win this one. I'll gladly accept a small increase in my cable bill if this is all they are worried about.

PhillyGuy

01-06-07, 10:38 PM

I stopped into my local Mediacom office today and seen that they had a bunch of antennas laying on the front counter. I found it laughable. I realize that they don't want to lose customers, but all this does is add support for Sinclair's TV stations.

Mediacom just needs to realize that they aren't going to win this one. I'll gladly accept a small increase in my cable bill if this is all they are worried about.

It's the principle in this case. I don't see why cable co. has to pay for signals that are already readily available for free via antenna. In face, I think Mediacom is doing Sinclair a service by making their programs and hences commercials more accessible to the mass. Without their retransmission, a lot fewer people would watch the digital broadcast leading to loss of advertising revenue.

HDTVFanAtic

01-06-07, 10:42 PM

It's the principle in this case. I don't see why cable co. has to pay for signals that are already readily available for free via antenna. In face, I think Mediacom is doing Sinclair a service by making their programs and hences commercials more accessible to the mass. Without their retransmission, a lot fewer people would watch the digital broadcast leading to loss of advertising revenue.

I could offer you the same argument that I don't see the consumer should have to pay the cable company for a signal that is already available free via antenna.

This has already been discussed ad naseum here with the reasons you are wrong on your assumptions. You might try reading the thread.

fredfa

01-06-07, 10:44 PM

Wait until those Mediacom subs start losing their NFL playoffs, CSI, Grey's Anatomy, 24, and American Idol episodes.

Cable has mostly had a free ride because there was no competition at all. From day one, Dish and DirecTV have paid for carriage, as has Verizon and AT&T. Cable has had a free ride all these years. It is becoming time to pay. While we are talking about paying, at least one Mediacom system I know of charges about $10 for its HD tier, which consists mainly (in terms of ratings) of the local TV HD signals. So what principle are you talking about?

Mediacom may well try to tough it out with these relatively small markets, but when CBSW demands $$$ for carriage of its O&Os, the cable guys will start to blink.

Back to your point about Mediacom and "principle". Frankly, I find even hinting at "principle" when dealing with these companies is amusing. They don't want to pay for stations which give them far higher ratings than cable networks they gladly pay for -- and, by the way, force us (like those networks or not) pay for, too.

Dark Rain

01-07-07, 12:01 AM

It's the principle in this case. I don't see why cable co. has to pay for signals that are already readily available for free via antenna. In face, I think Mediacom is doing Sinclair a service by making their programs and hences commercials more accessible to the mass. Without their retransmission, a lot fewer people would watch the digital broadcast leading to loss of advertising revenue.
Which makes no sense to me because they're supporting the company that they say is greedy. Last I heard, Sinclair wanted something like $.38 per subscriber for one TV station. Do you really think people would complain about this added charge?

svsneo

01-07-07, 05:07 AM

While we are talking about paying, at least one Mediacom system I know of charges about $10 for its HD tier, which consists mainly (in terms of ratings) of the local TV HD signals.

You don't have to pay for the HD tier to get your locals in HD via Mediacom(at least in Cedar Rapids). My sister has Mediacom and doesn't pay for the HD tier but gets the locals in HD along with Starz-HD. What you pay ($10/month) for is the other HD channels (currently: ESPN, ESPN2, Universal, Discovery, HDNet, HDNet Movies, and INHD).

Someone in another thread made a good comment that I thought I would put out there. If Sinclair doesn't care about us insignificant Mediacom customers than why are they asking for all this money?

Last I heard, Sinclair wanted something like $.38 per subscriber for one TV station. Do you really think people would complain about this added charge?
I know I wouldn't complain about a $.38 increase and maybe more, especially if it means I'll get CBS in HD.

HDTVFanAtic

01-07-07, 05:47 AM

Someone in another thread made a good comment that I thought I would put out there. If Sinclair doesn't care about us insignificant Mediacom customers than why are they asking for all this money?

Principle.

It's clear that Mediacom has been a pain in arse to them.

From all accounts they have been able to renegoiate a TWC contract which is 10x bigger than Mediacom without any aggrevation - and if one believes Cosmo Lisp, Comcast is probably just about a done deal as well - both with little problem.

Yet, Mediacom has made a circus of this thing - with threats, legal action, FCC filings and all kinds of name calling on their conference call Friday.

Look at Mediacom's "quotes" on Saturday in what could be described as literally calling the Sinclair Attorney incompetent. Now they are raising hell that Sinclair won't work to get them an answer on the weekend - making Sinclair out to be the bad guy for not wanting to give them an answer!!!! LOL...they've had plenty of weekdays to get it fixed - so I'd do the same and sa FU if I were Sinclair as well at this point.

And then they called out the FCC Mass Media Bureau and said they made an error.

Mediacom has so shot themselves in the foot with about everyone they need to deal with in the future, I am 100% certain that Sinclair is doing this because they suspect, as I do, Management changes will be forthcoming at Mediacom if they hold out -and again - they are out to teach these guys a lesson.

Of course, this helps Sinclair when the next small company Mr. Lisp wants to pull a stunt like this as well.

dline

01-07-07, 06:00 PM

Principle.

It's clear that Mediacom has been a pain in arse to them.

From all accounts they have been able to renegoiate a TWC contract which is 10x bigger than Mediacom without any aggrevation - and if one believes [the Mediacom rep], Comcast is probably just about a done deal as well - both with little problem.You mean Time Warner Cable's paying several dollars a sub for Sinclair stations?

Oh, well ... I guess Mediacom is just a little more picky than that.

Or maybe Time Warner is just a much bigger cable company than Mediacom making the TOTAL value of the deal "10x."

Yet, Mediacom has made a circus of this thing - with threats, legal action, FCC filings and all kinds of name calling on their conference call Friday.

Look at Mediacom's "quotes" on Saturday in what could be described as literally calling the Sinclair Attorney incompetent. Now they are raising hell that Sinclair won't work to get them an answer on the weekend - making Sinclair out to be the bad guy for not wanting to give them an answer!!!! LOL...they've had plenty of weekdays to get it fixed - so I'd do the same and sa FU if I were Sinclair as well at this point.
Well, he did allegedly tell a newspaper reporter in Columbus that the company doesn't "change its business practice because the public doesn't like it." The company's record -- shutting down its news operations in some cities and cutting back significantly in others -- also plays right into Mediacom's hands.

And then they called out the FCC Mass Media Bureau and said they made an error.First, it's now just the Media Bureau.

Second, Thursday's opinion was only a Media Bureau staff opinion on Mediacom's emergency request. It can always be appealed to the full FCC.

Third, that statement is nothing more than any good attorney or politician worth his salt would say. Heck, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its eminent domain ruling, I don't think there were many politicians who DIDN'T say that the Supreme Court "made an error."

Of course, this helps Sinclair when the next small company [the Mediacom rep] wants to pull a stunt like this as well.
What do you mean "next small company?" Sinclair is no "small company."

fredfa

01-07-07, 07:26 PM

Here is what a representative collection of cable channels now get paid per month, for each subscriber, by cable operators:

ESPN $2.96
TNT $ 0.89
Disney Channel $ 0.79
Fox News Channel $ 0.75
USA $ 0.60
CNN $ 0.44
Discovery $ 0.25
A&E $ 0.22
National Geographic $ 0.20
MSNBC $ 0.15
Court TV $ 0.11
(Source: Kagan Research 10/06)

So given those numbers, what are local CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox and CW stations worth?

CPanther95

01-07-07, 08:01 PM

Don't forget MNTV affiliates - or does that not help prove your point? ;)

GeorgeLV

01-07-07, 08:05 PM

MNTV affiliates should have to pay for carriage. :)

fredfa

01-07-07, 08:07 PM

Sure add, MNTV if you like -- even its anemic ratings would be trumpeted by all but a few cable nets.

Add in Univision and Telemundo, too. Here in LA, Univision routinely has 7-9 of the week's top-10 programs.

dline

01-07-07, 09:09 PM

Here is what a representative collection of cable channels now get paid per month, for each subscriber, by cable operators ... So given those numbers, what are local CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox and CW stations worth?
I'd argue, quite a bit. However, as Mediacom pointed out this weekend in its "fill" programming, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, in that the cable networks must pay for or produce all of their own exclusive programming while the broadcast stations have much of their schedule filled for them by their networks. But you do have to admit, the broadcast stations still have the eyeballs even though few people rely on them exclusively.

Today, the Des Moines Register had a photo showing a hundred or more folks lined up outside Mediacom's Des Moines office to pick up their free antennas so they can keep watching their Fox station.

Now you may have noticed that I left my Sinclair Fan Club card in the pocket of my other pair of pants, which I seem to have lost at the laundromat in the last week (of 1999. :D ) However, I do understand the frustration they're probably feeling as TV manufacturers, TV retailers, TV station equipment suppliers, and yes, cable and satellite companies all seem to be making money off the same transition that they're being forced to spend money on. The stations are spending a ton of money to improve on something they're still expected to put out for free, yet their role in the food chain is pooh-poohed by a consumer electronics industry which seems to want to minimize that role because it can't make a monthly fee off basic television.

So come to think of it, both Mediacom AND Sinclair can take heart in that massive line outside that office on Ingersoll Avenue in Des Moines. These are customers who aren't yet leaving Mediacom, and yet they realize that the free-to-air product still has some value.

It also underscores the need to get those digital tuners in the sets and in the stores as 2-17-09 approaches!!!!!

generalpatton78

01-07-07, 10:27 PM

I'm just glad i can lol at all this with my big ch4228 outside. However there may be a day with OTA affiliates where if they choose not to be carried via cable because they want cash, That one day somebody in the government might wake up and let other national programing from fox,abc,nbc,cbs be brought in. If this was FOX asking for payment then thats one thing, but this is a affiliate company being protected because their suppose to provide local news. In my market they don't do that on either of their channels. Who knows maybe this will spark cable co's interest in building some transmitters in sinclair markets and bidding on the broadcast right when they are due again. I'd love to see that for kicks and giggles.

HDTVFanAtic

01-07-07, 10:45 PM

...That one day somebody in the government might wake up and let other national programing from fox,abc,nbc,cbs be brought in. If this was FOX asking for payment then thats one thing, but this is a affiliate company being protected because their suppose to provide local news. In my market they don't do that on either of their channels. Who knows maybe this will spark cable co's interest in building some transmitters in sinclair markets and bidding on the broadcast right when they are due again. I'd love to see that for kicks and giggles.

Your understanding of this business is laughable.

HDTVFanAtic

01-07-07, 10:48 PM

MNTV affiliates should have to pay for carriage. :)

On the Wednesday night that we went through the subject of National Ratings in the NFLN thread, even MNTV beat NFLN on 12/19 - the night we have National Ratings from Nielsen for - and NFLN wants 80 cents or more per sub on basic?

HDTVFanAtic

01-07-07, 11:04 PM

You mean Time Warner Cable's paying several dollars a sub for Sinclair stations?

Oh, well ... I guess Mediacom is just a little more picky than that.

Or maybe Time Warner is just a much bigger cable company than Mediacom making the TOTAL value of the deal "10x."

Yes, as everyone acknowledges, the people that can bring you bigger numbers get deeper discounts - as TWC can as they have 10x the subs of Mediacom.

That is no different than any other business - INCLUDING CABLE - which gives volume discounts to High Rise Condos etc. where everyone gets their service.

Well, he did allegedly tell a newspaper reporter in Columbus that the company doesn't "change its business practice because the public doesn't like it." The company's record -- shutting down its news operations in some cities and cutting back significantly in others -- also plays right into Mediacom's hands.

Mediacom decided to play this out in the public - unlike any of the other retransmission agreements that have taken place in the last 90 days as witnessed here (Comcast, TWC, McLeod) or elsewhere (Belo/Charter).

The Sinclair Execs was obviously talking about Mediacom not liking it (if it really did get said - noting your allegedly description), which he would not have been questioned about if Mediacom had not decided to make this a public dog and pony show - thinking that it would turn out in their favor if they did. They decided to play it publicly - and they will pay severely for it.

First, it's now just the Media Bureau.

Second, Thursday's opinion was only a Media Bureau staff opinion on Mediacom's emergency request. It can always be appealed to the full FCC.

Third, that statement is nothing more than any good attorney or politician worth his salt would say. Heck, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its eminent domain ruling, I don't think there were many politicians who DIDN'T say that the Supreme Court "made an error."

First, its the FCC Media Bureau. You go tell them they are not the FCC.

Now, every request and application one makes to the FCC in the future goes through the Media Bureau. I am sure that the Media Bureau will go to great lengths to expedite future applications from Mediacom after being told they are not the FCC and that they made a mistake by Mediacom.

I have been in situations where small fines of $10k - $20k have come down and the DC Lawyers say we can fight it and get it overturned - but advise against it because of exactly what Mediacom is about to go through on any future filings - as the Media Bureau are Career employees - not FCC Comissioners that change ever few years.

The legal bills at the FCC for Mediacom have increased so much in the future that their Washington DC Legal Firm will probably be popping Champagne this weekend.

And the even more hilarious part of this is if your DC Attorneys are any good, they keep in CONSTANT CONTACT with the Media Bureau along the way so you have a VERY GOOD IDEA the thoughts and questions taking place while any application is in front of them. That way you can gauge their thinking along the process and submit additional information if needed along the way.

Clearly Sinclair's Attorneys understood this and had full confidence the ruling was to be in their favor (as noted by Mediacom in their conference call). Mediacom on the other hand had no gauge to their thinking prior to the ruling (as noted on the Mediacom Conference Call).

You think those statements open up a warm working relationship with the Media Bureau in the Future - ROFLMAO. Mediacom is so screwed by this in future FCC dealings its not even funny. Simple telephone questions that might be able to be answered in 30 seconds might take hours, days or even weeks before they get answer :D

What do you mean "next small company?" Sinclair is no "small company."

There are probably a thousand smaller cable companies then Mediacom - and the next time one of those wants to play this out in public as Mediacom has chosen to do so - clearly will think twice.

DoubleDAZ

01-07-07, 11:22 PM

I think we are forgetting that Sinclair and others ARE compensated, just not in cash. Me thinks the cableco should be able to sell that space if they end up having to pay Sinclair and others, and they probably WILL have to, so I'm not sure the bottomline will be affected much.

Also, don't forget that CBS is preparing to demand cash too, their current contracts just don't run out until 2009.

I don't know what is right, but if satellite pays Sinclair $.80 per basic sub, then cable should probably pay the same AND get the same digital feed vice an OTA feed. My problem is I don't believe that to be the case and I don't see why cable (or we consumers) should sit idly by while DirecTV incites this whole affair. :) If this were all based on what is fair and right, I don't think there'd be so much controversy. But we all know that is not the case, it's pure politics and no different than the NFL wanting payment based on all subscribers vice only those truly interested in sports who pay for the added sports tier. The only thing I see int he NFL's favor is that ESPN already gets what the NFL wants (even though it's kind of apples and oranges), top dollar from all subs. But, one of these days, that too shall change. :)

generalpatton78

01-08-07, 12:10 AM

Your understanding of this business is laughable.

Your need to try and put people down is laughable. Give Dr Phil a call and work out some of those mommy issues :eek: . I made a casual post and you act like people posting should thank you for taking up the space on your screen. I guess the thought Cable Co's might be interested in building their own channels like comcast sports is so crazy that they would never work together to build a set of affiliates to take on other affiliates who yanked major channels off their stations. Because it's just beyond the possibility they might be interested in fighting these tactics with competition. Because we all know cable co's gladly paid ESPN the money they wanted. They didn't even bother in building several brand new local and national sporting channels. Heck they didn't even bother buying several sporting franchises.

It's also crazy to think local and national legislatures might get pissed about locals pulling their signals off cable because they want cash. I mean who cares if the US citizens allow them to broadcast OTA for virtually free. It's just crazy to think a local rep might be upset that a local channel that provides no local or even national news is yanked off cable.He/She also won't mind that the cable co is prevented from bringing in another feed of that programming,because locals are protected because they provide local services like local news. It woudn't bother them that sinclair doesn't provide local services in many areas it serves.

Well I hope your response to this makes you feel better but you might just want to take some paxil. It won't help your post count but I'm sure it's more healthy in the long run. :D

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 02:20 AM

Your need to try and put people down is laughable. Give Dr Phil a call and work out some of those mommy issues :eek: . I made a casual post and you act like people posting should thank you for taking up the space on your screen. I guess the thought Cable Co's might be interested in building their own channels like comcast sports is so crazy that they would never work together to build a set of affiliates to take on other affiliates who yanked major channels off their stations. Because it's just beyond the possibility they might be interested in fighting these tactics with competition. Because we all know cable co's gladly paid ESPN the money they wanted. They didn't even bother in building several brand new local and national sporting channels. Heck they didn't even bother buying several sporting franchises.

It's also crazy to think local and national legislatures might get pissed about locals pulling their signals off cable because they want cash. I mean who cares if the US citizens allow them to broadcast OTA for virtually free. It's just crazy to think a local rep might be upset that a local channel that provides no local or even national news is yanked off cable.He/She also won't mind that the cable co is prevented from bringing in another feed of that programming,because locals are protected because they provide local services like local news. It woudn't bother them that sinclair doesn't provide local services in many areas it serves.

Well I hope your response to this makes you feel better but you might just want to take some paxil. It won't help your post count but I'm sure it's more healthy in the long run. :D

I only put people down when they post something so far out there its clearly from a parallel universe, as you have shown with your posts. As stated before you have sh*t for brains when it comes to any sense of reality.

1) There is no bidding for FCC licenses.

2) The FCC will not allow crossownership of a Broadcast TV license in the same market as they also own a dominant cable system - which is why only Cox really owns both cable and TV - and none in the same markets.

3) Despite what Captain Lisps says, if Sinclair provides no local input in the markets it served, it would be stripped of it's license for not broadcasting in the public interest, convenience and necessity.

Thus every other statement is laughable as you were so out of touch with reality the rest doesn't matter.

However, Cable also has access to the public right of way. They distribute their signal through every town (and to every house) on a public right of way. They don't pay me or you for the cable they run under my front yard and if I try to exert my right and cut their cable out of my front yard I will be arrested and must pay to have it repaired.

So get off your fricken high horse about free OTA as cable has MORE FREEBIES of public (AND PRIVATELY) OWNED RIGHTS than Broadcasters ever have.

Again, let cable give every house/building/dwelling free basic OTA service in exchange for their access to public right of ways and I will agree that Networks TVs should not charge them. Until that happens, ESAD with your limited knowledge of the real world.

generalpatton78

01-08-07, 04:02 AM

I only put people down when they post something so far out there its clearly from a parallel universe, as you have shown with your posts. As stated before you have sh*t for brains when it comes to any sense of reality.

Do you feel better now has that eased your self loathing a little.
1) There is no bidding for FCC licenses.
I have no idea where you got the idea i was speaking of bidding on a FCC license

2) The FCC will not allow crossownership of a Broadcast TV license in the same market as they also own a dominant cable system - which is why only Cox really owns both cable and TV - and none in the same markets.
Does not TWC own some locals? Could not several cable co invest and start a new company to buy small religious, MNTV,CW stations. Then turn around and try to acquire the rights to be a cbs,abc.fox,nbc broadcaster when sinclair contracts are up. it would seem to me just the threat of this would make sinclair shake in their boots.

3) Despite what Captain Lisps says, if Sinclair provides no local input in the markets it served, it would be stripped of it's license for not broadcasting in the public interest, convenience and necessity.
Go to WDKA and KBSI website and see for yourself. WDKA broadcasts zero news and never has. KBSI never broadcasted any news just more Simpsons in that timeslot. Then this fall they made a deal with WPSD to rebroadcast their news.

Thus every other statement is laughable as you were so out of touch with reality the rest doesn't matter.

Hey when this guy posts does anybody else picture him like this???http://www.rit.edu/~smn1104/409/midterm/josh.jpg

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 04:34 AM

Do you feel better now has that eased your self loathing a little. I have no idea where you got the idea i was speaking of bidding on a FCC license

Oh, I guess you just forgot that you posted:

Who knows maybe this will spark cable co's interest in building some transmitters in sinclair markets and bidding on the broadcast right when they are due again. I'd love to see that for kicks and giggles.

And that you think that there are TV Frequencies available to just build a transmitter, ROFLMAO.

Of course, you still have not addressed crossownership issues.

Does not TWC own some locals?

You don't know if TWC owns stations, lol....what a great knowledge of the Industry you have, ROFLMAO.

Could not several cable co invest and start a new company to buy small religious, MNTV,CW stations. Then turn around and try to acquire the rights to be a cbs,abc.fox,nbc broadcaster when sinclair contracts are up. it would seem to me just the threat of this would make sinclair shake in their boots.

No and No. What part of Crossownership don't you understand? Oh, I forgot, this is your idea of Utopia - not the real world.

Go to WDKA and KBSI website and see for yourself. WDKA broadcasts zero news and never has. KBSI never broadcasted any news just more Simpsons in that timeslot. Then this fall they made a deal with WPSD to rebroadcast their news.

News is not a requirement for any station that does not have 3 hours of network programming per night without a waiver. Again - you knowledge of the Industy Industry is just boggles the mind. There are specific reasons why Fox, UPN and WB all set up their networks with only 2 hours of Programming per night, but your vast expanse of knowledge would not know this.

In fact, news is not a station license requirement. Public Affairs is and if you cared to go to the station and ask to view the public file you would find out exactly what they have done to address community problems and issues.

Again, learn the law - not your opinion of Utopia land.

Hey when this guy posts does anybody else picture him like this???http://www.rit.edu/~smn1104/409/mid
term/josh.jpg

We'll no matter what I look like, we see where you get your information.

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/7261/headupzs4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 08:39 AM

Keep in mind that after all the BS that Mediacom has thrown out about Sinclair asking for more, more and more - Sinclair is talking no more than 50 cents per sub - that's 30 cents less than NFLN is asking from a much bigger Time Warner (Mediacom could be looking at more than $1 for NFLN) - and FOX has ALOT more live NFL Games and other Sports and Entertainment.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2007-01-08-blackout-usat_x.htm?csp=34

Broadcast dispute could lead to higher cable fees
Posted 1/8/2007 12:44 AM ET

By David Lieberman, USA TODAY
NEW YORK — A battle is underway which, no matter how it's resolved, could set a precedent affecting nearly all cable subscribers.
Sinclair Broadcast Group over the weekend yanked 22 of its TV stations off Mediacom Communications cable systems that reach 700,000 subscribers.

If the standoff continues, those cable customers could miss network TV shows including American Idol, CSI and Desperate Housewives while the companies squabble about how much cash cable systems should pay to retransmit a station's free over-the-air signals.

After years of getting no cash, Sinclair is asking for "no more than 50 cents" per subscriber a month for each station Mediacom carries on cable in a market, says Sinclair general counsel Barry Faber. That's about what many operators pay for CNN and USA Network.

"If you ask people, 'What do you think they pay more for: your Fox station or Animal Planet?' — I've never heard anybody say Animal Planet," Faber says.

But Mediacom says that Sinclair is playing economic hardball to set benchmarks for station compensation that, if applied throughout the cable industry, could raise cable prices by up to $6 billion a year.

"It will have a dramatic effect," says Mediacom CEO Rocco Commisso. "If the No. 4 or 5 station gets away with getting paid, what happens to the No. 1 or 2?"

Until recently, cable operators won the right to carry ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC stations by agreeing to carry their parent companies' cable channels such as Disney's ESPN2 or NBC Universal's MSNBC.

Broadcasters didn't have much leverage. Cable was a virtual monopoly. That started to change a few years ago, when satellite companies DirecTV and Dish Network deployed technology to offer local stations. They agreed to pay stations to retransmit their signals. Now Verizon, which is building a rival fiber-optic TV service, has agreed to pay cash.

While many cable operators, including Mediacom, accept that they'll have to pay for broadcast TV, they say that the stations now have the upper hand with control in their market of a national network's shows.Unlike satellite services, which can charge extra for local channels, federal law requires cable to offer the stations in their cheapest package.

DoubleDAZ

01-08-07, 09:13 AM

Unlike satellite services, which can charge extra for local channels, federal law requires cable to offer the stations in their cheapest package.And that to me is the crux of the matter. Level the playing field and let the cards fall where they may.

And AFAIK, cableco's pay to use the Right Of Way. The problem is that even though that property is in "your" yard, the city keeps the Right Of Way and it's not cable (or the phone company, etc.) who is "stealing" from us. :)

BTW, I liked the come-back picture. :D

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 09:37 AM

And that to me is the crux of the matter. Level the playing field and let the cards fall where they may.

And AFAIK, cableco's pay to use the Right Of Way. The problem is that even though that property is in "your" yard, the city keeps the Right Of Way and it's not cable (or the phone company, etc.) who is "stealing" from us. :)

BTW, I liked the come-back picture. :D

Let's put it this way - they pay the licensing municipality a small fee in most cases for right of way. This fee is nothing compared to what it would cost if they had to go out and actually lease the right of way in the open market.

This is identical to Broadcast Licenses who are subjected to a high number of regulations and costs to use the Public Airways.

Dark Rain

01-08-07, 09:43 AM

But Mediacom says that Sinclair is playing economic hardball to set benchmarks for station compensation that, if applied throughout the cable industry, could raise cable prices by up to $6 billion a year.

"It will have a dramatic effect," says Mediacom CEO Rocco Commisso. "If the No. 4 or 5 station gets away with getting paid, what happens to the No. 1 or 2?"
Cable prices go up every year anyway and very few (if any) channels get added. I've seen my broadband connection go from $30 to $50 in four years time. But they have increased download speeds quite a bit, making it worth it to me. On the TV end, Mediacom's Family Cable package and other fees have gone up every year. These aren't huge increases, but you do pay more because of operating costs.

If you can even afford to have cable TV then you can afford another price increase.

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 10:03 AM

Let's put the whole thing in perspective.

He claims it could raise cable prices by up to $6 billion a year - up to - not $6 Billion - but up to.

But let's take $6 Billion and divide it by the number of basic cable subs in the USA at the end of 2006 65,400,000 http://i.ncta.com/ncta_com/PDFs/NCTAAnnual%20Report4-06FINAL.pdf

That gives you $91.74 a year - divided by 12 = $7.64 a month

Less than the cost of HBO, Starz, Showtime etc etc etc.

My cable bill went up $5 this year and I didn't see any new channels to speak of.

All this for $7.64 a month IN AN EVENTUAL WORST CASE SCENARIO.

Simply amazing.

Dark Rain

01-08-07, 10:42 AM

All this for $7.64 a month IN AN EVENTUAL WORST CASE SCENARIO.
I say add it to my bill and put back CBS in my channel listing on my DVR. While I can live with getting it OTA, I'm not always home at night and can't record my favorite shows to watch when I get back. They forget that some people work or do other things during prime time. Watching shows via CBS.com is an option, but not really ideal.

Stan54

01-08-07, 11:44 AM

It's the principle in this case. I don't see why cable co. has to pay for signals that are already readily available for free via antenna. In face, I think Mediacom is doing Sinclair a service by making their programs and hences commercials more accessible to the mass. Without their retransmission, a lot fewer people would watch the digital broadcast leading to loss of advertising revenue.

Absolutely! You hit it right on the head. On the other hand, you can't blame a broadcaster for using every legal means to maximize revenue. It's just business after all.

fredfa

01-08-07, 11:44 AM

Let's dispense with the personal attacks. It makes the thread seem like a sixth-grade recess argument.

(And there is no need for endless posts about who started the personal mud-slinging. Let's just say many of us have been guilty and leave it at that.)

If someone posts wrong information, or believes something based on faulty (to you) analysis, make your point -- and note your sources -- and move on.

In a civil manner, please.

Stan54

01-08-07, 11:50 AM

I could offer you the same argument that I don't see the consumer should have to pay the cable company for a signal that is already available free via antenna.

This has already been discussed ad naseum here with the reasons you are wrong on your assumptions. You might try reading the thread.

The cable company incurs a cost for bringing us that "free" signal. We choose to reimburse the cable company for that cost PLUS as much profit as the cable company wants and we are willing to pay. ........... Again, it's just business.

Stan54

01-08-07, 12:25 PM

I'd argue, quite a bit. However, as Mediacom pointed out this weekend in its "fill" programming, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, in that the cable networks must pay for or produce all of their own exclusive programming while the broadcast stations have much of their schedule filled for them by their networks. But you do have to admit, the broadcast stations still have the eyeballs even though few people rely on them exclusively.

Today, the Des Moines Register had a photo showing a hundred or more folks lined up outside Mediacom's Des Moines office to pick up their free antennas so they can keep watching their Fox station.

Now you may have noticed that I left my Sinclair Fan Club card in the pocket of my other pair of pants, which I seem to have lost at the laundromat in the last week (of 1999. :D ) However, I do understand the frustration they're probably feeling as TV manufacturers, TV retailers, TV station equipment suppliers, and yes, cable and satellite companies all seem to be making money off the same transition that they're being forced to spend money on. The stations are spending a ton of money to improve on something they're still expected to put out for free, yet their role in the food chain is pooh-poohed by a consumer electronics industry which seems to want to minimize that role because it can't make a monthly fee off basic television.

So come to think of it, both Mediacom AND Sinclair can take heart in that massive line outside that office on Ingersoll Avenue in Des Moines. These are customers who aren't yet leaving Mediacom, and yet they realize that the free-to-air product still has some value.

It also underscores the need to get those digital tuners in the sets and in the stores as 2-17-09 approaches!!!!!

Local stations are little more than "relay stations" for a service that no longer requires a "relay." They did have to spend big money to provide for digital transmission, however, the cable companies had to expend huge sums of money as well to accomodate digital.

Stan54

01-08-07, 01:30 PM

posg

01-08-07, 02:59 PM

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 03:38 PM

The cable company incurs a cost for bringing us that "free" signal. We choose to reimburse the cable company for that cost PLUS as much profit as the cable company wants and we are willing to pay. ........... Again, it's just business.

The TV Station incurs a cost for bringing us that "free" signal. The TV Station should be reimbursed for that cost PLUS as much profit as the TV Station wants and the Cable Company is willing to pay.......Again, it's just business.

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 03:40 PM

Mr. FanAtic, here is the answer to the question which I posed some time ago. You were unable to provide a response even though it was contained in an article in Broadcasting Cable.com that I gave you and you claimed to have read.

"........................So far, stations have accepted advertising time from major cable operators or carriage of sister cable networks and have only gotten cash from satellite and small cable operators. .................."

Incorrect - and thus again another wrong statement.

Even Mediacom was PAYING CASH for carrying the Sinclair Stations for the last 30 days before they were pulled according to the conference call you would not listen to.

Once again, the reason I told you to start doing some homework and so you do not have to rely on accounts of others - especially those who have tried the easy way out like you.

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 04:07 PM

Here’s how the world ought to work:

1) Broadcasters should be required to publish a retransmission rate card. These rates should be available without prejudice to any retransmitter. The broadcaster should be free to negotiate bulk discounts, etc., but could not deny service to any party willing to pay full rate card.

Great, my rate card is $100 per sub, but I am willing to negotiate volume discounts.

2) Retransmitters should not be required to “buy-through” unwanted product of any type to secure retransmission of a single television station in a single market.

Was offered to Mediacom from Sinclair.

3) A broadcasters exclusivity rights should be restricted to transmitting free OTA programming to its DMA. Anytime financial consideration is applied in the use or reuse of their signal, exclusivity rights should be surrendered.

They won't do that. They purchased the product for use in their market as they see fit. That is the Free Enterprise System. Just like any other franchise in America, it is for a given geographic region.

4) Retransmitters should be free to offer broadcast channels “a la carte”. Broadcasters in turn should be free to impose a penalty rate if the retransmitter chooses to do so.

Cable Companies are against a la carte. In most cases, that is impossible in the basic tiers anyway as that means every channel would need to be digital - and Consumers are against having an extra box for their basic channels.

5) Broadcasters should be prohibited from rewarding viewers for choosing a particular retransmitter over another.

Based on that logic, cable should be prohibited from paying unequal amounts for different viewers levels - and cables retransmission rates should be 100% based on viewership.

All of above are indicative of how a fair and free market should operate. Anything less puts one or the other of the parties in an unfavorable negotiating position, which is where we are.

Free market is alive and well. You are just mad because you don't understand the free market allows TV Stations to obtain transmission rights to the networks for a given area. This is no different than having rights to Pizza Hut for a certain geographical location - no matter if the delievery is made by vehicle or instore.

bfoster

01-08-07, 04:09 PM

The TV Station incurs a cost for bringing us that "free" signal. The TV Station should be reimbursed for that cost PLUS as much profit as the TV Station wants and the Cable Company is willing to pay.......Again, it's just business.

So, the station owners have two classes of viewers. The cable/sat homes are expected to cover the expense of the OTA homes. :D :)

Stan54

01-08-07, 04:12 PM

The TV Station incurs a cost for bringing us that "free" signal. The TV Station should be reimbursed for that cost PLUS as much profit as the TV Station wants and the Cable Company is willing to pay.......Again, it's just business.

It is and has been for more than 50 years. (by advertisers)

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 04:14 PM

So, the station owners have two classes of viewers. The cable/sat homes are expected to cover the expense of the OTA homes. :D :)

No different than cable. You think they make the same profit on every tier they sell? One tiers subsidizes the other.

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 04:33 PM

It is and has been for more than 50 years. (by advertisers)

Cable systems sell advertising as well and also pays for the channels.

So cable can charge "for that cost PLUS as much profit as the cable company wants and we are willing to pay. ........... Again, it's just business."
and TV cannot.

LOL

It's just business!!!!!

Your argument falls apart again with your single dimension thinking that revenue means advertising.

Stan54

01-08-07, 04:36 PM

Incorrect - and thus again another wrong statement.

Even Mediacom was PAYING CASH for carrying the Sinclair Stations for the last 30 days before they were pulled according to the conference call you would not listen to.

Once again, the reason I told you to start doing some homework and so you do not have to rely on accounts of others - especially those who have tried the easy way out like you.

You've gotta admit that your Mediacom 30 day example is pathetically weak. My quote from Broadcasting Cable.com stands as accurate.

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 04:39 PM

You've gotta admit that your Mediacom 30 day example is pathetically weak. My quote from Broadcasting Cable.com stands as accurate.

You mean that fact that other companies have paid - or the fact that Mediacom is the #8 Cable System in America so everything below #8 is smaller?

Or do you mean that System #1 - #7 have not had their retransmission argeements come up yet - and those that are expiring in this window, including TWC, if we believe the CEO of Mediacom, have already come to an agreement to pay cash - but not yet signed the papers yet?

The funny thing when I read that same article was the first thing I thought was "there is a reporter who is much like Stan54 and did not think through what they reported as they were too busy trying to get out the door for the weekend - and the editor who oversaw it was already gone as well" - and look who quotes it, lol.

posg

01-08-07, 04:40 PM

Free market is alive and well. You are just mad because you don't understand the free market allows TV Stations to obtain transmission rights to the networks for a given area. This is no different than having rights to Pizza Hut for a certain geographical location - no matter if the delievery is made by vehicle or instore.

Market exclusivity is not purchased in the free market per se. Network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity are defined by FCC Rules and Copyright Law.

I understand free market. I also understand the difference between free market and regulated market. Broadcasting is a regulated market. As long as there is a limited amount of spectrum, and licenses are in the hands of "the few" out of necessity, there needs to be a higher level of "oversight" than in the pizza business.

Comparing broadcasting to pizza is not a fair comparison at all.

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 04:57 PM

Market exclusivity is not purchased in the free market per se. Network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity are defined by FCC Rules and Copyright Law.

I understand free market. I also understand the difference between free market and regulated market. Broadcasting is a regulated market. As long as there is a limited amount of spectrum, and licenses are in the hands of "the few" out of necessity, there needs to be a higher level of "oversight" than in the pizza business.

Comparing broadcasting to pizza is not a fair comparison at all.

Because it doesn't suit your needs?

What do you want to compare it to? Car Dealers or any other franchise in America?

posg

01-08-07, 08:13 PM

Because it doesn't suit your needs?

What do you want to compare it to? Car Dealers or any other franchise in America?

You either completely missed my point, or you can't deny that it has some validity, because your response is nonsense.

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 08:21 PM

You either completely missed my point, or you can't deny that it has some validity, because your response is nonsense.

It has validity in the free market that you propose.

Cable is highly regulated as well.

Automakers are highly regulated.

Airlines are highly regulates and there are landing slots and gates at airports that keep anyone from just deciding to start flying.

A number of businesses are highly regulated and are in the free market.

If you want to get technical, yes the resturant business is HIGHLY regulated on several levels

That has no bearing on the argument.

Fact is, the networks cannot make their $8 Billion a year doing it the way you suggest so they will stay with exclusivity and not allow their affiliates into other areas in retransmission agreements - no matter what you may want.

As was stated by Ed Asner in a recent Studio 60 - the network is the machine - but no money is made without that distribution arm that is the affiliates.

You might not like the business model, but that is the way it is, and unless you have the funds to go buy on of the networks and destroy it with your idea of Utopia, the change will not happen anytime soon.

Thomas Desmond

01-08-07, 10:03 PM

Sure add, MNTV if you like -- even its anemic ratings would be trumpeted by all but a few cable nets.

Actually, I suspect that the anemic ratings at MNTV would be like a dream come true to many, many cable networks. It would be intesting to see where MNTV would actually rank for prime time audience if ranked against cable networks -- and the results would probably be embarassing for all except the top 20 or so cable nets.

Thomas Desmond

01-08-07, 10:05 PM

If this was FOX asking for payment then thats one thing, but this is a affiliate company being protected because their suppose to provide local news.

If local broadcasters succeed in gaining substantial retransmission consent payments from cable, does anyone doubt that the national networks will eventually be looking for their cut of what the local stations make?

Thomas Desmond

01-08-07, 10:10 PM

1) There is no bidding for FCC licenses.

Okay, I know that this is off-topic, but I'm wondering what you mean by this.

While it is true that most existing broadcasters did not have to bid for their licenses, it certainly is the case that the FCC does auction off new broadcast station allocations to the highest bidder.

HDTVFanAtic

01-08-07, 10:19 PM

Okay, I know that this is off-topic, but I'm wondering what you mean by this.

While it is true that most existing broadcasters did not have to bid for their licenses, it certainly is the case that the FCC does auction off new broadcast station allocations to the highest bidder.

Google it. There aren't any TV licenses available for the most part in the Top 100+ DMAs and havent been for years.

About the only bidding item has been for Cellphone type frequencies - which are not bringing in near as much as they were 8-10 years ago when dropping TV analog first came up - and some low power drop in FMs ( Class A Signals for the most part) in non-metropolitan areas.

posg

01-09-07, 07:17 AM

HDTVFanAtic

01-09-07, 07:23 AM

And yet we have more and more pizza joints and car dealers every day. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Pizza joints as the same franchisee opens in his area.

Car Dealers are contracting, another thing you have wrong.

posg

01-09-07, 08:46 AM

Pizza joints as the same franchisee opens in his area.

Car Dealers are contracting, another thing you have wrong.

Question:

If NBC can show "Deal or No Deal" on CNBC, and can simulcast New Year's Eve coverage on the parent broadcast network and it's cable siblings, and all the networks can stream their more popular shows, doesn't it appear that perhaps long term the local broadcaster will be squeezed out of the equation, at least as far as exclusivity goes?

I see local broadcasting as a dimming light. In fact, as you mention, with the proliferation of franchised everything, I see local anything as an endangered species.

posg

01-09-07, 10:31 AM

Actually, I suspect that the anemic ratings at MNTV would be like a dream come true to many, many cable networks. It would be intesting to see where MNTV would actually rank for prime time audience if ranked against cable networks -- and the results would probably be embarassing for all except the top 20 or so cable nets.

A cable network can be profitable with small ratings. A broadcast network has a much larger infrastructure to support. Ratings mean nothing. Profits mean everything.

CNBC, for example, is an advertiser's dream. As is HGTV. MNTV, on the other hand, is utter nonsense. The future is microcasting, not broadcasting. The cable networks are not embarrased by their ratings. They simply position themselves as efficient buys for boutique advertisers and laugh their way to the bank, while the big guys overspend on marquee programming and are losing ground.

mach_71

01-09-07, 01:13 PM

here is an email i received from mediacom today fwiw:

Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc, owner of WYZZ, WICD and WICS, has instructed Mediacom to remove these stations from our local cable system lineup. We have been working hard to keep this from happening and we regret that Sinclair has taken this drastic step. They continue to demand that we pay far more than we are paying any other broadcaster and, we believe, more than they are currently demanding from other large cable companies.

We have asked Sinclair to enter into binding arbitration where an impartial third party will listen to both sides and make a final ruling. To date, Sinclair has not agreed to binding arbitration.

You can help by contacting your elected officials, listed below to urge Sinclair to enter into binding arbitration so that we can bring back these stations.

Senator Barack Obama
(202) 224-2854
http://obama.senate.gov/contact

Senator Richard Durbin
(202) 224-2152
http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Illinois House Members

District 8
Melissa Bean
(202) 225-3711
http://www.house.gov/bean/issue_subscribe.htm

District 12
Jerry Costello
(202) 225-5661
www.house.gov.writerep/

District 14
.J. Dennis Hastert(202) 225-2976
http://www.house.hastert/write1.shtml

District 15
Timothy V. Johnson
(202) 225-2371
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

District 16
Donald A Manzullo
(202) 225-5676
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

District 17
Phillip Hare
(202) 225-5905
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

District 18
Ray LaHood
(202) 225-6201
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

District 19
John Shimkus
(202) 225-5271
www.house.gov/shimkus/emailme.shtml

In some areas we are able to bring in other Fox or ABC programming from another station so that you will not miss your favorite shows. In all markets, these channels are available, free over the air we are offering you TV antennas to pick up this signal. Go to www.befairsinclair.com to order the free antenna. When you are at this web site you can also see how you can view some of your favorite network shows on your computer with Mediacom Online, please click on the Watch TV tab for instructions

We sincerely appreciate the support you have shown us throughout this surprisingly long public negotiation with Sinclair, and we apologize for any temporary inconvenience this dispute may cause you.

Sincerely,

Ed Pardini Jim Carey
Senior Vice President Senior Vice President

HDTVFanAtic

01-09-07, 02:23 PM

Question:

If NBC can show "Deal or No Deal" on CNBC, and can simulcast New Year's Eve coverage on the parent broadcast network and it's cable siblings, and all the networks can stream their more popular shows, doesn't it appear that perhaps long term the local broadcaster will be squeezed out of the equation, at least as far as exclusivity goes?

I see local broadcasting as a dimming light. In fact, as you mention, with the proliferation of franchised everything, I see local anything as an endangered species.

Again, advertising works on the tv networks because they can get in front of the pairs of eyeballs of MULTIPLE MILLIONS in 30 seconds and MULTIPLE TIMES in 1 day and/or 1 week. Obviously the BIG MONEY is paid for advertising when you can deliever 10 Million pairs of eyeballs multiple times in several days.

Obviously the CPU and bandwidth to accomplish that in real time or even a short period of time doesn't exist - and won't for sometime - especially in 1920x1080/30fps at 19.3Mbps.

Furthermore, as people surf TV looking for something to view, they are more likely to settle on a so-so show - something they will not do online.

Streaming is used right now to try and hook people on shows so they WILL WATCH the affiliates in realtime.

Now, when we get closer to being able to deliever 30 Million Viewers in 1 night from a streaming website in high quality, then yes, there might be issues.

But as Networks own TV Stations that broadcast to upwards of 40% that of the population that are worth untold tens of Billion$ of dollars - if not hundreds of Billion$ - much more than their Network, don't expect them to do things to kill off the assets THAT REALLY MAKE THEM MONEY.

HDTVFanAtic

01-09-07, 02:27 PM

A cable network can be profitable with small ratings. A broadcast network has a much larger infrastructure to support. Ratings mean nothing. Profits mean everything.

CNBC, for example, is an advertiser's dream. As is HGTV. MNTV, on the other hand, is utter nonsense. The future is microcasting, not broadcasting. The cable networks are not embarrased by their ratings. They simply position themselves as efficient buys for boutique advertisers and laugh their way to the bank, while the big guys overspend on marquee programming and are losing ground.

Again you are showing your ignorance for the Industry - regardless of what you claim to know about it.

You have major buys that advertisers do to get the tonage and then you have the fill in buys. Learn what reach and frequency is in Advertising. It's only what has been used in Advertising for the last half decade :D . I don't see how you could have missed it in your lifetime. Cable only sells frequency - they don't have reach.

Cable isn't competing for the same "buys" that the major networks are - as I have pointed out over and over and over and over. Cable cannot move people to weekend sales for example - the reach isnt there. Cable is essentially the add on.

posg

01-09-07, 03:02 PM

Again you are showing your ignorance for the Industry - regardless of what you claim to know about it.

You have major buys that advertisers do to get the tonage and then you have the fill in buys. Learn what reach and frequency is in Advertising. It's only what has been used in Advertising for the last half decade :D . I don't see how you could have missed it in your lifetime. Cable only sells frequency - they don't have reach.

Cable isn't competing for the same "buys" that the major networks are - as I have pointed out over and over and over and over. Cable cannot move people to weekend sales for example - the reach isnt there. Cable is essentially the add on.

Cable sells specific demographics. Broadcast sells tonage. There always seems to be plenty of money to go around. Cable networks seem to be profitable with smaller audiences. Hell, even MSNBC is profitable. I understand reach and frequency and cume and all that agency speak. Yawn. What is it that I don't get?

HDTVFanAtic

01-09-07, 04:34 PM

Cable sells specific demographics. Broadcast sells tonage. There always seems to be plenty of money to go around. Cable networks seem to be profitable with smaller audiences. Hell, even MSNBC is profitable. I understand reach and frequency and cume and all that agency speak. Yawn. What is it that I don't get?

Reach - not showing the commerical to the same 0.1 rating on a cable channel and actually having a prayer of reaching someone who might be in the market to buy.

Cable sells Frequency which is a fill in and not even close to the bulk of the advertising budget. They can claim to sell demos all they want, but the audience so small to begin with, disecting it even further is for naught.

posg

01-09-07, 04:42 PM

Reach - not showing the commerical to the same 0.1 rating on a cable channel and actually having a prayer of reaching someone who might be in the market to buy.

Cable sells Frequency which is a fill in and not even close to the bulk of the advertising budget. They can claim to sell demos all they want, but the audience so small to begin with, disecting it even further is for naught.

Hey, they're making money. ;) ;) ;)

HDTVFanAtic

01-09-07, 04:53 PM

Hey, they're making money. ;) ;) ;)

Hell, even a bad preacher can make money on cable. That isn't saying anything.

I thought you said you understood the Industry. Again, you are talking about making money in a niche market - let me know when they have $8 Billion or so in Revenue a year like the real networks as they have no way to get there.

posg

01-09-07, 05:03 PM

Hell, even a bad preacher can make money on cable. That isn't saying anything.

I thought you said you understood the Industry. Again, you are talking about making money in a niche market - let me know when they have $8 Billion or so in Revenue a year like the real networks as they have no way to get there.

Revenue does not equal profit. Any airline or domestic auto manufacturer can confirm that.

Cable networks have much better return on investment than broadcast networks. And maybe the bad preachers aren't so dumb. :cool: :cool: :cool:

HDTVFanAtic

01-09-07, 05:03 PM

http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/3/76173.html

Sinclair's conference call responding to Mediacom - not that Stan54 would ever take the time to listen and think about it.

HDTVFanAtic

01-09-07, 05:09 PM

No Resolution Seen in Cable TV Dispute
Tuesday January 9, 4:58 pm ET
By David Pitt, AP Business Writer
Frustrated Mediacom Subscribers Scramble to Find Alternatives

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Thousands of central Iowa cable subscribers lined up Tuesday for free television antennas because they couldn't get the local FOX network affiliate, the result of a dispute between Mediacom Communications Corp. and Sinclair Broadcast Group.

At Mediacom's office about a mile from downtown Des Moines, the rush to get the small rabbit-ear units caused a traffic jam as hundreds of cars pulled up curbside to get the antennas.

Mediacom hired two off-duty police officers to direct traffic.

Customers voiced their displeasure with the dispute that has left subscribers in Des Moines without their FOX affiliate and those in Cedar Rapids in eastern Iowa without a CBS station.

"I was disappointed," said construction worker Gary Seaney, who lives on the east side of Des Moines. "It upsets me a lot because I'm paying the same price, but now I've got to get up and flip my TV every time I want another channel."

The company replenished its supply of the small set-top antennas Tuesday after distributing more than 4,000 antennas last week. The company declined to say how many more antennas were ordered or how much the effort had cost.

Hunt Valley, Md.-based Sinclair pulled 22 of its television stations from Mediacom cable systems in 13 states at midnight Friday, leaving about 700,000 cable subscribers without access through their cable subscriptions to network affiliated stations.

Sinclair took the action because it couldn't reach an agreement with Mediacom on how much the cable provider would pay to carry Sinclair's stations. Court documents filed early in the dispute indicated the difference between Sinclair's asking price and Mediacom's offer was about $1 million.

Sinclair General Counsel Barry Faber would only say Tuesday that the company is asking for very low compensation compared to what cable companies pay other networks, such as ESPN. Faber said some networks receive up to $3 per month per subscriber.

Faber said cable companies in general pay more than 50 cents a month per subscriber for stations with lower ratings than some of the Sinclair stations.

"We're asking for far less than that," he said.

Mediacom officials said they viewed the rush for antennas as a sign that their customers do not want to cancel their cable subscription and opt for satellite television. Sinclair has encouraged such a switch.

"We really view this as a strong vote from our customers that they prefer this option," said Mediacom spokeswoman Phyllis Peters. "They absolutely do not want to see a broadcaster like Sinclair go for excessive fees for what is free over the air."

The Sinclair stations pulled from Mediacom include six Fox affiliates, four ABC affiliates, four CW affiliates, one CBS affiliate, one NBC affiliate and six affiliates of MyNetworkTV -- a network formed by News Corp. for stations left out when the WB and UPN networks merged to create CW.

Many subscribers in Des Moines had to scramble Monday night to see second-ranked Florida beat the Ohio State Buckeyes 41-14 in college football's national championship aired on the FOX network.

Some customers picking up antennas Tuesday had missed the game.

"My concern is the sports channel," said Larry Helton, of Des Moines. "Like last night that bowl game, they didn't have it in the paper, so I didn't think it was on and I missed it."

Sandy Hull, of Des Moines, said she would cancel her Mediacom subscription if she wasn't satisfied with reception on the antenna.

"They want us to pay the full price, they should have to pay what they have to pay," she said.

Iowa has the largest concentration of customers effected by the dispute. Mediacom said about 400,000 subscribers in Iowa have at least one Sinclair station on their cable system. However, the number of customers affected by the dispute is significantly lower because many cable subscribers have more than one network affiliate available to them on their cable system.

Mediacom has pushed Sinclair to agree to binding arbitration to settle the differences.

Sinclair said it's considering arbitration, but isn't leaning toward a quick resolution.

"There is a very real chance this will continue for a long, long time," Faber said. He said arbitration is an unusual way for businesses to settle differences.

Faber said his company is not concerned about loss of advertising revenue if its stations affected by the dispute lose viewers.

He said Mediacom's distribution of antennas helps keep its customer base intact.

In addition, he said slightly more than half of the television viewers in Des Moines are cable subscribers. About 30 percent get their television stations through satellite television and 20 percent watch through an antenna over the air. That means half the viewers in Des Moines are unaffected by the Mediacom situation, he said.

Middletown, N.Y.-based Mediacom said it has filed documents with the Federal Communications Commission, asking for a review of a decision last week in which the FCC's media bureau concluded Sinclair's actions "were not indicative of a lack of good faith."

A Washington cable industry trade group, the American Cable Association, asked Congress to rewrite laws authorizing retransmission agreements so they cannot be used by television station owners as "a mechanism to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from smaller market consumers."

"The American Cable Association believes Congress must act now to right these wrongs. As the Sinclair decision makes painfully clear, the FCC will not intercede," the ACA said.

It said Congress should immediately ask Sinclair to restore its television signals and stop pulling them from cable customers.

fredfa

01-09-07, 06:41 PM

Sinclair Updates on Mediacom Retrans Spat
(The Evening Bridge)

This afternoon, executives with Sinclair Broadcast Group updated the media and Wall Street on the company's ongoing retransmission consent skirmish with Mediacom.

The broadcast giant called "unusual" a proposal floated by the Federal Communications Commission to take the companies into binding arbitration, but said it would further consider the proposal, and that "we owe them (Mediacom) an answer on arbitration," a Sinclair executive said.

Also, Sinclair executives said Mediacom's various public statements and efforts tied to its arguments about the retrans spat are "desperate" and may be an attempt to influence regulators. Mediacom dropped Sinclair stations from its lineup during the weekend after the sides couldn't reach an agreement on retransmission consent.

fredfa

01-09-07, 07:06 PM

If anyone would care to take some time to try to understand (not necessarily agree with, just understand) the Sinclair position, here is part of an interview its CEO, David Smith, did with TVNewsday.com:

The Business of Television
There’s More to Sinclair Than Retrans
TVNewsday.com Jan. 9, 2007

Best known these days for his public battles with cable operators, the CEO of the nation's ninth-largest TV station group is more excited about developing a whole new business—broadcasting pay programming to viewers on the go.

The Sinclair Broadcast Group has been much in the news lately, mostly for the hard line it is taking with cable operators on retransmission consent negotiation. It wants cash, and has shown a willingness to fight on any ground—the market or the FCC—to get it. Right now, it is engaged in battles with Mediacom and Time Warner. For the latest, simply plug “Sinclair” into the TVNEWSDAY search engine.

For this edited interview with TVNEWSDAY Editor Harry A. Jessell, Sinclair’s CEO David Smith declines to talk about current retrans negotiations, but explains why he is willing to do battle and lives up to his reputation for outspokenness in commenting on other broadcasters’ limp retrans efforts.

It is also clear from this interview that retrans is not what Smith is most excited about these days. That would be the prospect of using digital TV to broadcast subscription-supported programming directly to consumers with laptops, cell phones or other portable or mobile devices.

According to the BIA Financial Network, the publicly traded Sinclair Broadcast Group in the ninth largest U.S. TV station group with 2005 revenue of $678 million. Its 39 full-power stations reached 22% of U.S. TV homes and include mostly affiliates of Fox and My Network TV.

Here, Smith also explains why he isn’t interested in buying more TV stations right now, even though the company stock has enjoyed a nice upward ride over the past quarter, and why he’s not worried about the networks’ fascination with the Internet or with the poor performance of MNT.

Why are you taking such an aggressive posture on retrans?

David Smith: I don’t really see it as an aggressive stance. I see it as nothing more than if I have content and you’d like to package it and resell it to your consumers so you can make a buck off of it, why can’t I share in that? That’s all. It’s nothing more complex than that.

My signals are valuable because everybody’s watching them. I mean that’s kind of the definition of value, isn’t it? The satellite companies have been paying a lot of us in the industry for a reasonable period of time now, and the phone companies are now gearing up.

In the neighborhood where I live in Baltimore, the phone company is saying they’re going to have everything Comcast has and they make no bones about what’s necessary for them to launch their competitive business. They recognize they have to have content and they have to have the content that everybody wants. Our dilemma as an industry is nothing more than a legacy issue. We’ve been giving it away for free for so long we don’t know how to ask for money. That’s all.

If you know cable is paying 25 cents for channel 250 that six people watch and if you know that you have a channel that has 60,000 people watching, wouldn’t you think it's worth at least 20 cents?

The cable guys argue that shouldn’t have to pay because you get to use the public airwaves for free.

David Smith: Let me just set the record straight on a couple of points. No. 1, I paid as a company billions of dollars for my television licenses. I pay annual fees to keep them. Nobody talks about that. What I do in dealing with the network, I give up inventory in those television shows in exchange for the show. I am paying for that content with my own inventory. Nobody wants to talk about that. Nobody on the cable side wants to recognize that as a cost of doing business. And, as a company, we’ve invested $150 million in equipment just to be able to do digital.

I don’t see other broadcasters being so aggressive on retrans? Why do you think that is?

David Smith: Companies like Nexstar are getting retrans. Hearst is getting retrans. LIN just announced a retrans deal yesterday. I think it was with one of the phone companies. I don’t think we’re the only ones who are doing this.

When I say retrans deals, I’m talking cable operators. Everybody is getting telco and satellite deals.

David Smith: If you get them, then it’s just a matter of time before you get everybody else.

Well, that may be true for you, but it doesn’t seem to be true for everybody else. Nexstar had some success in ’05, but other than that only you seem to be willing to battle for retrans. Does that surprise you that broadcasters aren’t more aggressive?

David Smith: It doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Why not?

David Smith: Because the broadcast industry, fundamentally, lacks leadership in certain areas. This is not meant as a negative to the guys in the business or the girls in the business, but, generally speaking, the people who run television stations don’t own them. They have no skin in the game and as a function of that, the last thing they want to do is see themselves strewn across the trades being sued in federal court, attacked in Congress, attacked in front of the FCC. Name me one general manager who’s working for a paycheck who would like to see that happen.

I’m hoping that CBS sticks to its guns and says, “We’re going to get paid because cable doesn’t have the leverage it used to have when we had all the Viacom channels.” They have every reason now to say this is what I want, and I hope they get it. Now maybe that’s the dam buster for the CBS affiliate body. I don’t know.

Everybody is watching that closely. You talk about leadership. Broadcasters are looking to [CBS CEO Les] Moonves to raise a flag that they can all rally behind.

David Smith: Well, that means they’re a bunch of sheep. They’re a bunch of followers. Why don’t they go lead?

You’ve had a big run up on your stock since October, 40% to around $11 now. Do you think that has anything to do with your retrans stand?

David Smith: No I don’t think so. I think it’s recognition by the analysts that the stock at $7 or $8 was a gift and that the relevant numbers that they need to focus on are free cash flow per share. Interestingly enough, when you go back and look at free cash flow per share in 2004 versus 2006 and compare their to the stock prices, you find that the stock should be about $18 now. Our free cash flow is just staggering. It’s so much more than it was in 2004 that it’s scary.

Well, it’s not scary. I mean we’re just running a slightly different business than we were in 2004. We continue to tell Wall Street that you shouldn’t focus on us as a broadcast company or anything else. You should just focus on what our free cash flow per share is, period, because at the end of the day all that’s relevant to the shareholders is how much money is being pushed out the door. Whether you have a TV station in Des Moines, Iowa, or Timbuctoo really isn’t important. It’s just a free cash flow analysis for us.

I read somewhere that one of the other broadcasters has said that they’re going to find other places to go spend their capital other than the broadcast business. That’s a valid notion only because at this point I kind of look at broadcasting as an industry in transition. For people who have significant balance sheet capacity, it’s time to go find other places to deploy capital that can produce significant rates of return for you.

But isn’t this the time you should be putting money into the broadcasting industry because it is, as you say, in transition? It needs capital.

David Smith: We’ve put all the money we can into it from a standpoint of infrastructure and things of that nature. We’re just waiting now for the rest of the world to catch up to us….

….Getting back to DTV for a moment. I take it that you’re a believer in HDTV, too.

David Smith: If they give it to me, I play it.

What about producing it locally?

David Smith: I think we’ll produce it to the extent that we need to in the context of news. I think the world will transition that way. Yes.

Beyond HD and beyond mobile, is there anything else that you can do with that digital signal?

David Smith: To be honest with you, I’m not smart enough to have conceived it all. All I can tell you is that when you have a pipeline that’s as big as ours, people are going to figure out how to use it to make a buck off of it and all I have to do is stand back and wait for them to call me.

If I can’t figure out how to make a buck off of it where I get a hundred cents off every dollar, I’m happy to take 50 cents off of every dollar and act as a pipeline.

http://tvnewsday.com/articles/2007/01/09/daily.4/

fredfa

01-09-07, 07:31 PM

Sinclair Fires Back at Mediacom
By Mike Farrell MultiChannel News 1/9/2007

Sinclair Broadcast Group fired back in its long-standing retransmission-consent battle with Mediacom Communications, holding a press conference Tuesday blasting the cable operator and stating that a resolution to their dispute is not likely to come soon.

The Sinclair press conference came one day after Mediacom held its own conference call regarding its appeal of a Federal Communications Commission ruling last week that found that Sinclair was negotiating with the cable operator in good faith.

On Tuesday, Sinclair general counsel Barry Faber said the TV-station owner was holding the conference call in response to calls it received over the past few days on the matter.

“The parties do not appear to be any closer,” Faber said on the call. “This may continue for a long period of time.”

Faber also cast doubt on Mediacom’s assertion that Iowa state legislators will step in to resolve the dispute. Mediacom and the Iowa Cable & Telecommunications Association asked the Iowa General Assembly to look into the dispute and pass legislation that would prohibit any programmer from “discriminating against Iowans.”

“Mediacom, the company that is predicting that legislators will step in to help them, is the same company that incorrectly predicted that they would receive help from a federal court, which denied their motion for an injunction, and from the FCC, which also denied all of their filings,” Faber said on the call.

In a phone interview, Mediacom chairman and CEO Rocco Commisso said he believes the threat of legislation is worrying Sinclair. He added that Iowans are “very upset” about the dispute.

“I can’t tell you when the solution to this thing will be, because it does take two to tango,” Commisso said. “But I feel better than I did yesterday.”

Faber said Sinclair still intends to respond to Mediacom’s request for binding arbitration to settle the matter, although he did not say when the company will provide that response. But he hinted that such arbitration is unlikely.

“We’re still considering it,” Faber said. “We have reason to believe that even if we were willing to do it, the parameters under which we would be prepared to do it are different than the parameters under which Mediacom would be willing to do it … If you were selling your house, ask yourself if some buyer wanted to offer you less than you were willing to sell it for, and the buyer said ‘Let’s go find an arbitrator,’ would you really be willing to put yourself in a position where some arbitrator could force you to sell your house at a price that you didn’t think was appropriate?”

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6406043

dline

01-09-07, 09:20 PM

If anyone would care to take some time to try to understand (not necessarily agree with, just understand) the Sinclair position, here is part of an interview its CEO, David Smith, did with TVNewsday.com:
...
Well, it’s not scary. I mean we’re just running a slightly different business than we were in 2004. We continue to tell Wall Street that you shouldn’t focus on us as a broadcast company or anything else. You should just focus on what our free cash flow per share is, period, because at the end of the day all that’s relevant to the shareholders is how much money is being pushed out the door. Whether you have a TV station in Des Moines, Iowa, or Timbuctoo really isn’t important. It’s just a free cash flow analysis for us.
...
http://tvnewsday.com/articles/2007/01/09/daily.4/While that may sound like a good thing to tell Wall Street, there's a good chance that a quote like this will be used against Mr. Smith's company in a future Mediacom commercial.

I guarantee you, it's important to the people of Des Moines, Iowa.

HDTVFanAtic

01-09-07, 09:31 PM

While that may sound like a good thing to tell Wall Street, there's a good chance that a quote like this will be used against Mr. Smith's company in a future Mediacom commercial.

I guarantee you, it's important to the people of Des Moines, Iowa.

After hearing the quotes from Mediacom, its not surprising that Wall Street has deserted him like rats jumping off a sinking ship.

In all due respect, if that wasn't Mr. Smith's focus, then Congress would have him in a committee room asking why he was following in the steps of Enron, Worldcomm and the others who did not look after their stockholders.

fredfa

01-09-07, 09:31 PM

I am sure you are right about the Mediacom ads, dline.

Having had a few marginal dealings with Mediacom, and watching Sinclair's conduct for years, it is hard for me to pick anyone to root for in this fight.

To be honest, I just feel sorry for anyone who lives in an area served by either of them. And to live where both exist must be horrible.

DoubleDAZ

01-09-07, 09:37 PM

HDTVFanAtic

01-09-07, 09:42 PM

I still think folks forget that Sinclair and others already get paid, just not in cash. They apparently now feel that free advertising, etc., is no longer enough and now they want cash. I'm still not sure there is any impact on the cableco bottomline as long as they can sell the ad space now given to Sinclair and others. Maybe now we can get that last 5 minutes of Headline News back instead of having to endure a local news snipet every half-hour. :)

You'd think given POSG post a few hours ago MEDIACOM WOULD BE SCRAMBLING TO GET THAT PRIME COMMERCIAL TIME BACK that they could sell for much more than 50 cents that Sinclair is asking !!!!!!! :D

Of course, considering Mediacom often offers advertisers 1,000 spots for $1,000 in many of their markets, it seems that the Advertisers just haven't figure out how REALLY VALUABLE IT IS!!!! :p

HDTVFanAtic

01-10-07, 04:20 AM

lol....what a great group of statements and thinking points from the Sinclair Conference Call.......

"Mediacom has claimed to be losing very few subscribers, and although we would question the accuracy of this claim, if this is the case, it raises the question in our mind of why does Mediacom seem to care so much?"

and

"In an attempt to maintain it's subscriber base, Mediacom is handing out antennas to their subscribers and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them publicly for helping to make sure that our viewership levels do not fall"

and

"on their call, Mediacom was talking about how they were sponsoring events at Bars - bars that have satellite tv - so people can watch the games on our stations"

and

"They (the Citizens of Iowa) might also want to consider that despite Mediacom's numerous statements about how much it cares about their subscribers, a recent survey of consumers by J.D. Power of Cable and Satellite Providers consistently gave Mediacom its lowest possible rating in such categories as Overall Satisfaction, Performance and Reliability, Image, and most importantly, Customer Service."

posg

01-10-07, 07:24 AM

You'd think given POSG post a few hours ago MEDIACOM WOULD BE SCRAMBLING TO GET THAT PRIME COMMERCIAL TIME BACK that they could sell for much more than 50 cents that Sinclair is asking !!!!!!! :D

Of course, considering Mediacom often offers advertisers 1,000 spots for $1,000 in many of their markets, it seems that the Advertisers just haven't figure out how REALLY VALUABLE IT IS!!!! :p

Actually not a bad idea. As a value added extra, Sinclair might donate some of their unsold inventory to Mediacom to use at its discretion.

Much of Sinclair's unsold inventory in my and the adjacent market are filled with per inquiry spots for sex chat rooms. Very sleezy.

But whatever delivers money to Wall Street, because in this day and age, I ask you, what else really matters. :mad: :mad: :mad:

HDTVFanAtic

01-10-07, 08:04 AM

Actually not a bad idea. As a value added extra, Sinclair might donate some of their unsold inventory to Mediacom to use at its discretion.

Much of Sinclair's unsold inventory in my and the adjacent market are filled with per inquiry spots for sex chat rooms. Very sleezy.

But whatever delivers money to Wall Street, because in this day and age, I ask you, what else really matters. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Better than unsold positions...Might as well get whatever you can for it.

And you are right, cable would never have PPV Porn :p

posg

01-10-07, 09:14 AM

Better than unsold positions...Might as well get whatever you can for it.

And you are right, cable would never have PPV Porn :p

I just personally find it offensive to see these ads on broadcast TV, and I'm not easily offended. I can't believe these spots could generate any significant cash flow for the station.

posg

01-10-07, 09:41 AM

SugarBowl

01-10-07, 10:06 AM

Time Warner certainly markets their local HD channels as an advantage, so cable companies should have to pay a little bit.

GoIrish

01-10-07, 10:20 AM

Time Warner certainly markets their local HD channels as an advantage, so cable companies should have to pay a little bit.

Just keep in mind that whatever the outrcome of this, us subscribers will pay for it. If TW pays, your bill will incrementally reflect it.

GoIrish

CPanther95

01-10-07, 11:51 AM

D* manages to keep pricing competitive despite paying for locals. True that the subs will end up paying, but if we can pay for the other 50 channels, certainly the Big4 are worth some compensation.

foxeng

01-10-07, 12:55 PM

I just personally find it offensive to see these ads on broadcast TV, and I'm not easily offended. I can't believe these spots could generate any significant cash flow for the station.

Oh come on! The T-W adds running here about how they can do TV, phone and internet better and do it cheaper than none bundled services is also a shame and I am offended by that because I can show how VoIP isn't the greatest, how their PQ on TV isn't the best and how my BellSouth DSL smokes Road Runner and how I am paying equal or slightly more for better service.

Bottom line is, it is all marketing and as such, "let the buyer beware."

HDTVFanAtic

01-10-07, 12:56 PM

I just personally find it offensive to see these ads on broadcast TV, and I'm not easily offended. I can't believe these spots could generate any significant cash flow for the station.

And another person on AVS is offended by the Bose ads on UHD and HDNET.

Change the channel and take some personal responsibility. The off button and channel button were put there for a reason. I guess you want ads regulated now as well :rolleyes:

jjallou

01-10-07, 12:56 PM

HDTVFanAtic

01-10-07, 01:01 PM

Currently I have Dish Network. If I want the local channels I would need to pay an additional $5.00. Since I have good off air reception I choose not to get the "locals" vis Dish. I'm assuming that the $5.00 that goes to Dish for the locals is being used to pay for whatever contracts they have with the local broadcasters.

If Sinclair wants to be paid per subscriber why can't Mediacom pass that charge directly to the customer and give them the choice if they want the Sinclair station or not? Sinclair would only get payment from those who choose that channel.

Also assuming other broadcasters go for retransmisson consent just start a "paid" local tier on the cable system.

Just a thought.

Has to do with FCC law. Also, to encrypt so only subscribers could receive, you must take the channel digital and consumers are upset that they need to pay for a digital STB as their TV has a cable tuner and has always done channels 1-99 without one - and they do not want the extra charge of the STB - or to be forced to use the STB (remember a STB is a charge of $6 or so dollars a month).

It also kills their PIP, fwiw.

posg

01-10-07, 01:13 PM

Has to do with FCC law. Also, to encrypt so only subscribers could receive, you must take the channel digital and consumers are upset that they need to pay for a digital STB as their TV has a cable tuner and has always done channels 1-99 without one - and they do not want the extra charge of the STB - or to be forced to use the STB (remember a STB is a charge of $6 or so dollars a month).

It also kills their PIP, fwiw.

I don't understand the FCC rational that says that if a station elects retransmission consent status, the cable operator is not required to carry the station at all, but if he does, it has to go to everybody. Somehow seems a little inconsistant.

posg

01-10-07, 01:23 PM

And another person on AVS is offended by the Bose ads on UHD and HDNET.

Change the channel and take some personal responsibility. The off button and channel button were put there for a reason. I guess you want ads regulated now as well :rolleyes:

I hate regulation. I just miss personal pride and responsibilty.

HDTVFanAtic

01-10-07, 01:27 PM

I don't understand the FCC rational that says that if a station elects retransmission consent status, the cable operator is not required to carry the station at all, but if he does, it has to go to everybody. Somehow seems a little inconsistant.

Bottom line, Congress wants it that way.

Political Rates exists as law. TV and Radio must sell spots to Politicians for the lowest rate of any spot run in the months prior to the election.

In other words, if you were an airline and someone flew from NY to LA fo $99 on your airline 2 months earlier purchasing the ticket 11 months in advance during a price fare war but now the airplane is almost sold out - you have to let the Politician fly for $99 even though J6P would have to pay $1000 for that walk up ticket.

The Politician is in a tough race and wants to buy more spots in the week before the election pays the Political Rate - not the market value.

And just as I have tried to get across to you about Reach and Frequency, they need the Reach - and get it - at the lowest rate its ever been for a months earlier.

So Politicians WANT to have that low cost Election Buster available to the masses for their personal benefit.

I hate regulation. I just miss personal pride and responsibilty.

Then take personal responsibility and change the channel when ads offend you.

posg

01-10-07, 01:46 PM

Bottom line, Congress wants it that way.

Political Rates exists as law. TV and Radio must sell spots to Politicians for the lowest rate of any spot run in the months prior to the election.

In other words, if you were an airline and someone flew from NY to LA fo $99 on your airline 2 months earlier purchasing the ticket 11 months in advance during a price fare war but now the airplane is almost sold out - you have to let the Politician fly for $99 even though J6P would have to pay $1000 for that walk up ticket.

The Politician is in a tough race and wants to buy more spots in the week before the election pays the Political Rate - not the market value.

And just as I have tried to get across to you about Reach and Frequency, they need the Reach - and get it - at the lowest rate its ever been for a months earlier.

So Politicians WANT to have that low cost Election Buster available to the masses for their personal benefit.

Then take personal responsibility and change the channel when ads offend you.

Why then do not the same rules apply to the DBS guys? If you want a free market, you need a fair playing field.

HDTVFanAtic

01-10-07, 01:59 PM

Why then do not the same rules apply to the DBS guys? If you want a free market, you need a fair playing field.

First, your statement isn't clear - as all DBS or Cable does is retransmit the local Network Stations. So in that respect, the same rules DO APPLY....Politicians get to anyone watching the local station - be it via Cable, DBS, OTA or Slingbox.

I don't have an issue with a level playing field. Of course, that would just mean that cable companies could charge $5 for locals like DBS - but knowing what people really watch, it would have a 99.9999% sub rate for cable.

The difference is that any satellite sub ALREADY has a STB. Many people have cable BECAUSE they don't need a STB on a number of their TVs.

So you really have not gotten past the issue of paying $6 for an extra STB for every TV in your house - which again - most cable subs do NOT want.

If you are stating that Cable and DBS are unequal because people can sub to locals on DBS and not Cable, there are 2 points.

1) Cable claims that you are not paying for locals so why would you care? :D
Though again, I have no problem making locals a $5 option on cable to level the playing field. However, you still have not addressed the STB issue - and that is required to do that - forcing a $11 upgrade - not $5 - and again - a large portion of people DO NOT WANT AN EXTERNAL STB ON THEIR TV.

Think about this - if they don't want an External STB - DBS forces them to have it - then that rules DBS out for them as a choice. If cable ALSO FORCES THEM TO HAVE A EXTERNAL STB, they might compare and go to DBS - so that is another thing the cable companies fear - and its a very real concern.

2) OTA channels was what was available - in fact the only thing available to cable in the beginning - thus it has always been the base of cable. Not so with DBS - people invest to put up an OTA Antenna prior to LIL. Thus, I suppose the FCC decided they could make it an option because of the years when LIL was not available.

Bottom line, if DBS doesn't want to carry a local station, they can quit paying for re-transmission rights and save money.

At this point there is no law requiring consolidators to carry a station if the must carry provision is not invoked.

dline

01-10-07, 03:48 PM

Just living in Iowa must be horrible enough !!! :rolleyes:
To each his own ... there are those of us who swear by the place, myself included ...

But hey, if nothing else, at least the reception's good! ;)

posg

01-10-07, 03:58 PM

To each his own ... there are those of us who swear by the place, myself included ...

But hey, if nothing else, at least the reception's good! ;)

I guess with Mediacom as a cable operator, it needs to be. ;)

posg

01-10-07, 04:17 PM

First, your statement isn't clear - as all DBS or Cable does is retransmit the local Network Stations. So in that respect, the same rules DO APPLY....Politicians get to anyone watching the local station - be it via Cable, DBS, OTA or Slingbox.

I don't have an issue with a level playing field. Of course, that would just mean that cable companies could charge $5 for locals like DBS - but knowing what people really watch, it would have a 99.9999% sub rate for cable.

The difference is that any satellite sub ALREADY has a STB. Many people have cable BECAUSE they don't need a STB on a number of their TVs.

So you really have not gotten past the issue of paying $6 for an extra STB for every TV in your house - which again - most cable subs do NOT want.

If you are stating that Cable and DBS are unequal because people can sub to locals on DBS and not Cable, there are 2 points.

1) Cable claims that you are not paying for locals so why would you care? :D
Though again, I have no problem making locals a $5 option on cable to level the playing field. However, you still have not addressed the STB issue - and that is required to do that - forcing a $11 upgrade - not $5 - and again - a large portion of people DO NOT WANT AN EXTERNAL STB ON THEIR TV.

Think about this - if they don't want an External STB - DBS forces them to have it - then that rules DBS out for them as a choice. If cable ALSO FORCES THEM TO HAVE A EXTERNAL STB, they might compare and go to DBS - so that is another thing the cable companies fear - and its a very real concern.

2) OTA channels was what was available - in fact the only thing available to cable in the beginning - thus it has always been the base of cable. Not so with DBS - people invest to put up an OTA Antenna prior to LIL. Thus, I suppose the FCC decided they could make it an option because of the years when LIL was not available.

Bottom line, if DBS doesn't want to carry a local station, they can quit paying for re-transmission rights and save money.

At this point there is no law requiring consolidators to carry a station if the must carry provision is not invoked.

If Mediacom had the option of tiering the Sinclair stations, at least the half of the subscriber base that already have STB's could be served, and Mediacom could get a lot more STB's into homes, which is desirable. But it is my understanding that cable operators are not legally allowed to tier local channels, while DBS operators can, making them a profit center rather than an expense.

And then comes a bigger question speaking of STB's. Should cable operators be required to even provide an analog version of a local channel post 2/17/09. It may be to their advantage, but should they be required to.

I see cable moving to all digital within five years in most large market systems, and within ten years everywhere. Eventually digital rights management software will be downloadable to all consumer devices. Will linear broadcasting, other than the obvious news and sporting events, even matter by then ???

HDTVFanAtic

01-10-07, 06:27 PM

But it is my understanding that cable operators are not legally allowed to tier local channels, while DBS operators can, making them a profit center rather than an expense.???

As stated earlier, that is correct

You played a what if game, even field game.

And then comes a bigger question speaking of STB's. Should cable operators be required to even provide an analog version of a local channel post 2/17/09. It may be to their advantage, but should they be required to.

Remember the downconversion controversy now between cable and the the tv stations. Actually, that issue should all be addressed in the re-transmission agreements.

Thomas Desmond

01-10-07, 09:05 PM

Google it. There aren't any TV licenses available for the most part in the Top 100+ DMAs and havent been for years.

About the only bidding item has been for Cellphone type frequencies - which are not bringing in near as much as they were 8-10 years ago when dropping TV analog first came up - and some low power drop in FMs ( Class A Signals for the most part) in non-metropolitan areas.

I know for a fact that this is wrong.

Specifically, the FCC's spectrum auction in 2006 of TV construction permits included the following two brand new digital television channels in top 100 markets:

1. DTV channel 45 in Greeley, CO, serving the Denver market
2. DTV channel 51 in Medical Lake, WA, serving the Spokane market

Those are two channels that I did the research on and initiated rulemakings to have created in 2004. Unfortunately, I don't have the sort of deep pockets that allowed me to actually compete in the bidding for the privilege of building either channel and putting it on the air.

These are indeed digital TV channels, and not "cellphone type frequencies". They are neither LPTV or Class A stations, but will be licensed as full powered stations when they come on the air. And they did go up for auction, with the government ultimately bringing in just over $5 million from these two allotments.

And note that these two open channels were found by a (then) unemployed engineer using the FCC's "TV Query" webpage without the benefit of any high powered frequency search software or well-paid lawyers to game the FCC's rules. Which makes me believe that there are undoubtedly opportunities for other new major and mid market TV channels to be shoe-horned in.

HDTVFanAtic

01-10-07, 10:05 PM

I know for a fact that this is wrong.

Specifically, the FCC's spectrum auction in 2006 of TV construction permits included the following two brand new digital television channels in top 100 markets:

1. DTV channel 45 in Greeley, CO, serving the Denver market
2. DTV channel 51 in Medical Lake, WA, serving the Spokane market

Those are two channels that I did the research on and initiated rulemakings to have created in 2004. Unfortunately, I don't have the sort of deep pockets that allowed me to actually compete in the bidding for the privilege of building either channel and putting it on the air.

These are indeed digital TV channels, and not "cellphone type frequencies". They are neither LPTV or Class A stations, but will be licensed as full powered stations when they come on the air. And they did go up for auction, with the government ultimately bringing in just over $5 million from these two allotments.

And note that these two open channels were found by a (then) unemployed engineer using the FCC's "TV Query" webpage without the benefit of any high powered frequency search software or well-paid lawyers to game the FCC's rules. Which makes me believe that there are undoubtedly opportunities for other new major and mid market TV channels to be shoe-horned in.

Great....you found one in Spokane market 77.

If you have kept up with what is going on in Denver, I suppose you know why you found one there? It isnt much use having a station that cannot reach the public. It finally took an act of Congress in the last 30 days (and GWB had to sign the bill ) to make it so Denver stations could replace their towers on Lookout Mountain - I should use the exact verbage of the S. 4092 which is now Public Law 109-466.

“Notwithstanding any applicable State or local land use or condemnation laws or regulations, and subject to all applicable Federal laws and regulations, any person that holds an approved Federal Communications Commission permit to construct or install either a digital television broadcast station antenna or tower, or both, located on Lookout Mountain in Jefferson County in the State of Colorado, may, at such location, construct, install, use, modify, replace, repair, or consolidate such antenna or tower, or both, and all accompanying facilities and services associated with such digital television broadcasts, if such antenna or tower is of the same height or lower than the tallest existing analog broadcast antenna or tower at such location.”

As that station is not on the air and does not have a tower to replace (and most likely could not get a CP for a new tower on Lookout Mountain) - thus they could very possibily be out in the cold with no location to put a their digital signal.

DoubleDAZ

01-10-07, 10:47 PM

Even though I argue for a level playing field, I understand there will never truly be one simply because the technologies are different. The problem as I see it is that folks like us understand what a set-top box brings to the table, added features. Many folks don't or just don't care. And, the government regulates for those groups. I honestly don't know what came first, cable-ready TVs or a loud cry from cable subs who didn't want a box. I never objected to needing a box, but I did object to having to pay for added outlets. However, now everyone pays for my "free" outlets and that is also not fair. That is why I joined the ala carte camp some time ago. If I want to boycott ABC/Disney/ESPN, I should be able to do so. If I want multiple outlets, I should have to pay for them, or at least have the option to select a package with what serves my needs without everyone having to subscribe to that as a lowest offering.

The other comment I have is that pricing has not been cost plus for a long, long time. Now it is whatever the market will bear and D* offering Lil's while staying competitive has little or nothing to do with whether or not they (or cable) pay for local carriage. In most markets, Digital Cable costs significantly more than the D* equivalent, yet many people subscribe to it for one reason or another, probably because there are no upfront costs or commitments and cable is what they've always had.

My problems with paying for locals are that it's a departure from what's been the accepted practice for years, I don't believe the demanded rate is the same for cable as it is for satellite, the reception for most cableco's is still OTA vs fiber for satellite, the appearance that D* is in bed with Sinclair on the subject, the amount of FCC regulation tying cable hands with regard to tiering and "must carry", the amount cable pays for local rights of way, etc.

Give cable a fiber feed, eliminate rights of way license process/payments, demand the same amount from cable as you demand from satellite, eliminate exclusive rights to any content (including cable-owned), eliminate bundling of channels, allow freedom to offer ala carte, tailored tiering, etc., deal with rising multi-casting (does D* have to carry NBC's Weather Plus sub-channel as part of the deal to carry NBC Lils?), and maybe then we'll come close to a level playing field.

Then too, all of a sudden, now that the Bells want a piece of the cable pie, traditional rights of way licenses are being tossed out the window, all in the name of fictious competition. Sure, there will be an initial savings, but certainly not enough, and it will never last. Prices will stabilize and we will end up paying just about the same for cable, Bells, or satellite, just like we pay the same for gasoline, regardless who we buy it from. Without true competition, there is no incentive to cut costs, etc., and that is where this country is today in a lot of areas IMHO.

HDTVFanAtic

01-10-07, 11:09 PM

QUOTE=DoubleDAZ]However, now everyone pays for my "free" outlets and that is also not fair. [/QUOTE]

I would speculate that Virtually EVERY cable sub has at least 1 TV in the house (whether a bathroom, Kitchen, Kid's Room etc) connected to cable with no external cable box - many have more.

I know as recent as a year ago, the major companies were still putting out packages where they connected up 3 TV outlets (only 1 with a digital STB) as part of their installation.

I suspect that in all reality this is why cable is usually higher in price than Satellite - they realize this and are making up for the "free analog outlets" in their price.

Give cable a fiber feed, eliminate rights of way license process/payments, demand the same amount from cable as you demand from satellite, eliminate exclusive rights to any content (including cable-owned)

While I don't disagree, thats a slippery slope. Why should one person develop content for their system if they are forced to share it with their competitors?

When the NFL pulls all their games for exclusive use of the NFLN/PPV in several years, should they have the exclusive right to their programming? The do own it and this is the United States where Ownership Rights is an important right that has spurred invention and creation. Without the rights, those would surely stagnate.

(does D* have to carry NBC's Weather Plus sub-channel as part of the deal to carry NBC Lils?), and maybe then we'll come close to a level playing field.

Perhaps the DBS companies pay more for retransmission rights than what TV Stations are asking from cable is because they are not carrying the sub-channels at this time????

Without true competition, there is no incentive to cut costs, etc., and that is where this country is today in a lot of areas IMHO.

As I have noted multiple times, competition is the great equalizer and the best friend to the Consumer - perhaps not for cable or DBS Companies though.

Thomas Desmond

01-10-07, 11:25 PM

Great....you found one in Spokane market 77.

If you have kept up with what is going on in Denver, I suppose you know why you found one there? It isnt much use having a station that cannot reach the public. It finally took an act of Congress in the last 30 days (and GWB had to sign the bill ) to make it so Denver stations could replace their towers on Lookout Mountain - I should use the exact verbage of the S. 4092 which is now Public Law 109-466.

[...]

As that station is not on the air and does not have a tower to replace (and most likely could not get a CP for a new tower on Lookout Mountain) - thus they could very possibily be out in the cold with no location to put a their digital signal.

The bottom line here is that you portray yourself as some sort of industry expert. For someone who makes statements like this: "Again you are showing your ignorance for the Industry - regardless of what you claim to know about it" (this is from one of your previous posts in this thread), you don't seem to have a real good grip on your facts.

If you're the expert that you seem to think that you are, you'd be aware of the following regarding channel 45 in Greeley, CO:

1. The original allotment for the station doesn't specify a tower site on Lookout Mountain.

2. The application that has actually been filed for this station does not specify a site on Lookout Mountain, either. Therefore, the whole battle over the Lookout Mountain tower(s) is entirely irrelevant to this particular Denver-area station.

3. Furthermore, the stations that are specifying Lookout Mountain sites are protected in the FCC's allotment scheme regardless of whether they've actually been able to build out or not. I (or anyone else) proposing a new allotment must protect all existing allotments, licenses, and construction permits.

Items 1 & 2 could have been determined within about five minutes by using the FCC's "TV Query". Item 3 is something that could also be found by the simple expedient of reading the relevant FCC rules.

And, yeah, I know that this doesn't directly have much to do with Sinclair, but I think it is relevant considering the way you've been throwing off airs in this thread. For someone who is posing as something of an industry expert in this thread, I think it is more than reasonable to point out that you are perhaps a bit less knowledgeable than you present yourself as being.

Or, to put it another way, Mr. FanAtic, before you put on the airs of expertise, maybe you should actually bother to learn what you're talking about. Perhaps you are actually knowledgeable about some of the other topics you've been blowing wind on, but considering the self-righteous, pompous bilge ("Google it", "If you have kept up with what is going on in Denver", etc) that you've posted in response to my questions and comments about the auctioning of TV broadcast licenses, I have my doubts.

I'm far from an expert on many corners of what is a very complex industry, but in this particular aspect (the FCC's process for granting new FM & TV allotments to communities) I actually do have a significant amount of experience. Enough experience to tell that you have a lot less expertise than you pretend to have here.

In view of that, I tend to discount the validity of much of anything that you post. And I'd certainly encourage everyone else participating here to draw their own conclusions about how knowledgeable your "expert" posts actually are.

DoubleDAZ

01-10-07, 11:36 PM

Perhaps the DBS companies pay more for retransmission rights than what TV Stations are asking from cable is because they are not carrying the sub-channels at this time????I was thinking satellite pays less than stations are asking from cable, though I absolutely don't know. I base this solely on my perceived animosity between cableco's and Sinclair, et al. If they pay more and it's for the fiber feed, that I can understand. The problem though is that ALL cable subs pay without any option, whereas only satellite Lil subs pay, by choice.
As I have noted multiple times, competition is the great equalizer and the best friend to the Consumer - perhaps not for cable or DBS Companies though.Well, I think it's there and helps keep prices down, but you can't tell me the cost/income is the same for both providers. If it is, then why waste time with differing technologies? One can argue that satellite, being digital, forced cable to go digital, but I think digital was simply a natural step in the evolution of TV, just like HD and whatever comes next. I guess the bottomline is they both cost too much and both make too much money. :)

HDTVFanAtic

01-10-07, 11:53 PM

I was thinking satellite pays less than stations are asking from cable, though I absolutely don't know. I base this solely on my perceived animosity between cableco's and Sinclair, et al. If they pay more and it's for the fiber feed, that I can understand. The problem though is that ALL cable subs pay without any option, whereas only satellite Lil subs pay, by choice.
Well, I think it's there and helps keep prices down, but you can't tell me the cost/income is the same for both providers. If it is, then why waste time with differing technologies? One can argue that satellite, being digital, forced cable to go digital, but I think digital was simply a natural step in the evolution of TV, just like HD and whatever comes next. I guess the bottomline is they both cost too much and both make too much money. :)

Well, we can point to many instances where decisions on the part of Industries have brought them to the brink (if not over) in their history.

There is a famous Harvard Business School Study on the Oil Industry that was done years ago and shows they should have been out of business many times over - but by pure luck - they have been able to change their focus.

Any Industry must be able to adapt to the market conditions or face the enevitable.

One of the best examples that has happened that literally everyone on AVS probably saw was the demise of the typewriter industry. In 1986, ever desk in every office had one and by 1994 one could not be found.

Never in our life will we probably ever again see such a large staple of industry absolutely wiped off the map in less than 10 years.

And btw, there really is no extra cost for retransmission fees based on the fiber feed or an OTA signal, btw.

Most cable companies want a fiber feed even at an added price as OTA reception continues to have the unexpected problems and fiber is clearly much more bullet proof - keeping them from calls to repair service and to their CSRs.

Dark Rain

01-11-07, 02:11 AM

In view of that, I tend to discount the validity of much of anything that you post. And I'd certainly encourage everyone else participating here to draw their own conclusions about how knowledgeable your "expert" posts actually are.

Did you read his signature?

HDTVFanAtic

01-11-07, 02:33 AM

The bottom line here is that you portray yourself as some sort of industry expert. For someone who makes statements like this: "Again you are showing your ignorance for the Industry - regardless of what you claim to know about it" (this is from one of your previous posts in this thread), you don't seem to have a real good grip on your facts.

If you're the expert that you seem to think that you are, you'd be aware of the following regarding channel 45 in Greeley, CO:

1. The original allotment for the station doesn't specify a tower site on Lookout Mountain.

Quite comical - now for an education for you and others:

The Denver DMA is one of the largest DMAs in America - It actually reaches into 6 states - Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado and it actually hop, skips and jumps West past Salt Lake City 2 states and Eureka County, Nevada is included. Thank goodness for Satellites of the big 4.

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/791/denverdma1jo4.th.gif (http://img407.imageshack.us/my.php?image=denverdma1jo4.gif)

You sound like the person who says they commute to work in a 6 figure vehicle - only to find out that its the city bus. Greely might be in the Denver DMA, but its not close to a Denver Station.

Allocations never specify tower location - only city of license of which the signal must cover. The allocation does not care where the tower is if the city of license is covered. My point is simple. It has been proven that the ONLY LOCATION IN DENVER THAT WORKS FOR ATSC OTA IS LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN. If you want to serve the Denver area OTA with an ATSC signal, you MUST BE ON LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN - Something you are clearly ignorant about. As this is not on Lookout Mountain, it will NOT SERVE DENVER PROPER.

Greely Colorado is roughly 65 miles from Denver - Lookout Mountain is another 25 miles on the OTHER SIDE of Denver, thus a good 85-90 miles from Greely. There is no way a tower on Lookout Mountain would put the neccessary signal over Greely from Lookout Mountain.

Unfortunately, because of the terrain and area, there is no location for a tower that will service Greely that will ALSO give a viable digital OTA signal for most of the population center of the Denver DMA - DENVER - and thus no network would EVER take this signal on as an affiliate nor will it ever have any great viewership with its limited signal.

2. The application that has actually been filed for this station does not specify a site on Lookout Mountain, either. Therefore, the whole battle over the Lookout Mountain tower(s) is entirely irrelevant to this particular Denver-area station.

You're right it has no meaning - especially as most in the Denver DMA will not be able to see it OTA, lol, as the reason the Lookout Mountain had to go through Congress is that it is PROVEN THAT IT IS THE ONLY LOCATION where OTA Digital will work in Denver.

As the new station isn't on Lookout Mountain, as we say, lots of luck with that piece of trash.

Again, you clearly know NOTHING about the Denver situation. If you did, you would know that Ft. Collins - Greely is essentially a small, seperate economic area than the Denver area in the first place - between Denver and Cheyenne Wyoming.

3. Furthermore, the stations that are specifying Lookout Mountain sites are protected in the FCC's allotment scheme regardless of whether they've actually been able to build out or not. I (or anyone else) proposing a new allotment must protect all existing allotments, licenses, and construction permits.

Of course they were protected - which is why the filed for Lookout Mountain and any CP will be protected. We are not questioning the existing stations on Lookout Mountain - its the new one that is out in the cold - in more ways than one.

Items 1 & 2 could have been determined within about five minutes by using the FCC's "TV Query". Item 3 is something that could also be found by the simple expedient of reading the relevant FCC rules.

asked and answered - no query needed.

And, yeah, I know that this doesn't directly have much to do with Sinclair, but I think it is relevant considering the way you've been throwing off airs in this thread. For someone who is posing as something of an industry expert in this thread, I think it is more than reasonable to point out that you are perhaps a bit less knowledgeable than you present yourself as being.

and that is your opinion and you are entitled to it - although, as noted above, you are rather ignorant of the FCC entire process - only what you can find online, not knowing how the entire process works - and clearly ignorant of the signal issues in Denver.

Or, to put it another way, Mr. FanAtic, before you put on the airs of expertise, maybe you should actually bother to learn what you're talking about. Perhaps you are actually knowledgeable about some of the other topics you've been blowing wind on, but considering the self-righteous, pompous bilge ("Google it", "If you have kept up with what is going on in Denver", etc) that you've posted in response to my questions and comments about the auctioning of TV broadcast licenses, I have my doubts.

Again, if you want a digital station in Greely Colorado no one can see, go for it.

There's been plenty of dogs put on the air and plenty of money lost by those who think there is quick money - but hey ,go ahead and give it a try.

I'm far from an expert on many corners of what is a very complex industry, but in this particular aspect (the FCC's process for granting new FM & TV allotments to communities) I actually do have a significant amount of experience. Enough experience to tell that you have a lot less expertise than you pretend to have here.

lol....sure. Perhaps I should have stated that there were no auctions for Broadcast Licenses in the Top 100 or so DMA for years THAT WOULD ACTUALLY COVER THE MAJOR POPULATION AREAS - I don't consider throwing money away good business so for me it was a given. If you want to go get a license in Greely Colorado where you cannot get a network affiliate as its in the Denver DMA and will never get Denver Regional Money, only local Ft. Collins -Greely Revenue - thus never having enough revenue to buy decent programming - go for it!!!!! Many have wasted more money on worse foleys.

However, this is NOT A SIGNAL a network WOULD EVER CONSIDER putting an affiliate on.

In view of that, I tend to discount the validity of much of anything that you post. And I'd certainly encourage everyone else participating here to draw their own conclusions about how knowledgeable your "expert" posts actually are.

I agree 100%, though the conclusions may or may not be the same as yours.

posg

01-11-07, 07:22 AM

Quite comical - now for an education for you and others:

The Denver DMA is one of the largest DMAs in America - It actually reaches into 6 states - Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado and it actually hop, skips and jumps West past Salt Lake City 2 states and Eureka County, Nevada is included. Thank goodness for Satellites of the big 4.

And of course everyone in the DMA gets perfectly clear reception OTA with a pair of rabbit ears, negating the argument that cable's infrastructure is actually an essential part of broadcast TV distribution.

And I'm sure the broadcasters happily paid for and maintained the CARS band microwave relay network that brought these stations to the region. Greedy cable bastards. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

HDTVFanAtic

01-11-07, 11:02 AM

posg

01-11-07, 11:28 AM

There is a reason that Denver stations are uplinked for DNS service on C-Band - which I would argue is the reason this entire area ended up falling in the Denver DMA - but regardless - Just as a TV station that would be technically licensed in your home dma if it had a Fayetteville license, but had it's tower on the NC/SC Border due to distance from Richmond, VA, so that it could not be seen in Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill, 1) It could not obtain any network affiliation and 2) It would bid for syndication against the Raleigh Stations (including Independents) with much greater Revenues and would end up loosing anything but I Love Lucy and 3) It would be forced to live off the Revenues of local sales of Fayetteville - at essentially less than Radio Rates - not a formula for Success. Technically speaking, a Raleigh DMA station on paper - but hardly a Raleigh DMA station or competitor in any sense of the word.

Wait a second. The Denver TV market predates C-band distribution of it's signals by some thirty years. Cable and translators are what established the market footprint, not C-band.

And regarding your second point. Remember that San Francisco limped along with an NBC affiliate (KNTV) for several years whose transmitter was over 60 miles from the SF and didn't put a grade B signal into over 30% of the DMA population. Remember that 85% of the households receive their signal from cable or satellite. Half of the remaining 15% would if they had to.

Broadcast signal coverage is still somewhat important, but less and less all the time.

fredfa

01-11-07, 12:21 PM

CBS honcho Les Moonves told an analysts meeting yesterday that most of the major O&O retrans agreeements won't come up until 2009 and 2010.

But he said negotiations were being conducted with three smaller cable companies, and CBS is asking 50 cents plus a month for carriage -- about what it is getting from telco and DBS.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9429796&&#post9429796

CPanther95

01-11-07, 12:23 PM

Some personal attacks deleted. Argue the topic or post, don't resort to personal attacks.

Stan54

01-11-07, 12:47 PM

Some personal attacks deleted. Argue the topic or post, don't resort to personal attacks.

You've got to be kidding, Mr. Panther! Consider what Mr. FanAtic has had to say about us.

posg

01-11-07, 01:33 PM

You've got to be kidding, Mr. Panther! Consider what Mr. FanAtic has had to say about us.

Every time one uses personal attacks, it further reduces their credibility. I guess its better to put up and shut up than to take the bait. ;) ;) ;)

CPanther95

01-11-07, 01:37 PM

You've got to be kidding, Mr. Panther! Consider what Mr. FanAtic has had to say about us.

I don't catch them all, but if a post contains nothing but a personal attack, it stands out.

posg

01-11-07, 01:39 PM

I don't catch them all, but if a post contains nothing but a personal attack, it stands out.

So if you bury "you're an idiot" in several paragraphs of pontificating, that's O.K. ??? :D

HDTVFanAtic

01-11-07, 01:40 PM

Wait a second. The Denver TV market predates C-band distribution of it's signals by some thirty years. Cable and translators are what established the market footprint, not C-band.

So you are saying that the Denver DMA TV Market was established in 1950? Interesting, but I don't think that is correct - considering when most of the early TV Stations actually signed on.

And regarding your second point. Remember that San Francisco limped along with an NBC affiliate (KNTV) for several years whose transmitter was over 60 miles from the SF and didn't put a grade B signal into over 30% of the DMA population. Remember that 85% of the households receive their signal from cable or satellite. Half of the remaining 15% would if they had to.

Broadcast signal coverage is still somewhat important, but less and less all the time.

Agreed - If we want to specify the statement for clarity, a TV Network will not Affiliate with a station that cannot cover well in excess of 50% of the DMA audience OTA UNLESS IT HAS NO OTHER OPTIONS. If a Denver - Lookout Mountain Independent were competing with a Greely Colorado station, the Denver - Lookout Mountain Independent would get the affilitation agreement 100% of the time.

My point was attempting to show there is no shortage of potential Digital Affiliates that will be on Lookout Mountain, thus Greely will never even make it to the finals.

If the choice is crap or nothing, crap will win - just like some MyNetworkTV affiliates have ended up on ATSC Digital Multicast Signals.

CPanther95

01-11-07, 01:40 PM

No, but it's much more likely to slip through. ;)

posg

01-11-07, 01:53 PM

So you are saying that the Denver DMA TV Market was established in 1950? Interesting, but I don't think that is correct - considering when most of the early TV Stations actually signed on.

The DMA was established if not exactly 30 years, LONG before C-band, then. Yes, stations came on in the early fifties, cable started soon after, and translators were established long before C-band. C-band did not define the Denver DMA. That's my point.

Many of the western DMA's have never had anything close to grade B coverage of the entire market, even with translators. Cable has been an essential distribution mechanism even in urban areas such as the SF Bay area.

HDTVFanAtic

01-11-07, 02:04 PM

The DMA was established if not exactly 30 years, LONG before C-band, then. Yes, stations came on in the early fifties, cable started soon after, and translators were established long before C-band. C-band did not define the Denver DMA. That's my point.

Many of the western DMA's have never had anything close to grade B coverage of the entire market, even with translators. Cable has been an essential distribution mechanism even in urban areas such as the SF Bay area.

DMA is determined by which market has the greatest viewership in Nielsen Ratings.

Cable doesn't estabish a DMA, Satellite doesn't establish a DMA, OTA doesn't establish a DMA.

The people and what the majority of viewers watch determines a DMA.

Again, using the Fayetteville NC example, if more people in Fayetteville started watching Wilmington Stations then Raleigh stations (and that isnt a far fetched considering Robeson is in the Wilmington DMA) then Cumberland County would move to the Wilmington DMA. This is one reason that Raleigh stations go out of their way to put a news reporter in Fayetteville, as the loss of Cumberland County would take the Raleigh DMA down in ranking a few notches.

I should also add that Wilmington locals are on the Fayetteville Cable System under Significant Viewed rules - so there is every opportunity for that area to shift from the Raleigh DMA to Wilmington DMA.

As Denver has been a problem geographic area for years, its TV signals were put up on C Band very early on in the 70s with no encryption for anyone that wanted in the area to pull in. That, of course, is the only reason that Eureka Nevada - 2 states west of Colorado and 1 state West of Salt Lake City is in the Denver DMA.

I am not old enough to know what took place in the early days of broadcasting, but I suspect that assigning every County in the USA to a DMA did not happen until some 30 years after the advent of Television Broadcasting - and originally the Denver "Market" was more concentrated around the 4 main Counties that REALLY make up the Denver Market.

posg

01-11-07, 02:26 PM

fredfa

01-11-07, 02:36 PM

What is a DMA, and how do you determine this?

A Designated Market Area (DMA) is a trademarked term of Nielsen Media Research and refers to a group of counties that form an exclusive geographic area in which the home market television stations hold a dominance of total hours viewed. There are 210 DMAs, covering the entire continental United States, Hawaii, and parts of Alaska. Each county is assigned to only one DMA.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=34953b318b906010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD

fredfa

01-11-07, 02:42 PM

CPanther95

01-11-07, 03:00 PM

Eureka, Nevada.

HDTVFanAtic

01-11-07, 03:01 PM

It's ironic that a cable system may have chosen, let's say for example, a Chicago station over an Indianapolis station in a particular county before the DMA markets were defined, and because of that, has afforded that station many more eyeballs than they might have had otherwise, and has caused that county to be forever in the Chicago DMA.

Now, the cable operator CANNOT import an Indianapolis signal, even though it may be available OTA while the Chicago is not.

Not that anything could or should be done at this point, just ironic.

I am wondering if you are reading what I am typing and or just selected parts.

DMAs are fluid. As stated, Fayetteville could easily move to the Wilmington DMA. They are both on cable. Thus, Raleigh stations keep a reporter in Cumberland County to so viewers will make the choice to watch Raleigh instead of Wilmington - and keep it in the Raleigh DMA.

Just as Wilmington has significant viewed status on cable in Fayetteville, the same would apply to Indy vs Chicago stations in a market half way between the two if that was truly a factor.

You seem to forget cable did not come on with 51% penetration - and in some rural areas between Chicago and Indy, it might still not have that much penetration - but regardless, looking at the Chicago DMA and the Indianapolis DMAs, the Counties all make sense - unlike out West where you have vasts areas of no population.

HDTVFanAtic

01-11-07, 03:10 PM

By the way, Eureka CA is Nielsen DMA #193 this year (up from #194 in the 2005-2006 season.)

Are you sure it is included in the Denver DMA? That doesn't make sense.

Complete list of the 2006-2007 Nielsen DMA:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8270847&&#post8270847

As CPanther said, the great Eurkea County Nevada - how could you not know it!!! :p

Located in central Nevada, Eureka County is comprised of three towns - Eureka, Beowawe and Crescent Valley.

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/7748/eurekafv1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

fredfa

01-11-07, 03:13 PM

posg

01-11-07, 03:16 PM

I am wondering if you are reading what I am typing and or just selected parts.

DMAs are fluid. As stated, Fayetteville could easily move to the Wilmington DMA. They are both on cable. Thus, Raleigh stations keep a reporter in Cumberland County to so viewers will make the choice to watch Raleigh instead of Wilmington - and keep it in the Raleigh DMA.

Just as Wilmington has significant viewed status on cable in Fayetteville, the same would apply to Indy vs Chicago stations in a market half way between the two if that was truly a factor.

You seem to forget cable did not come on with 51% penetration - and in some rural areas between Chicago and Indy, it might still not have that much penetration - but regardless, looking at the Chicago DMA and the Indianapolis DMAs, the Counties all make sense - unlike out West where you have vasts areas of no population.

I just read "selected parts".

However, significantly viewed signals have secondary status, and duplicative network programming is deleted at the incumbant DMA station's request, making movement a little harder than you indicate.

HDTVFanAtic

01-11-07, 03:28 PM

Well, in full disclosure.......this made me realize that my Market Map I had was 2005, so I emailed them to get the 2007 map which just came in - and it looks like Eureka might have actually been finally put into the Salt Lake City DMA (Even though you can still see how far it is from SLC from the guide at the bottom of the Google Map).

The arrows are missing from Denver to Eureka in the new map - but you can see from the arrows what a mess the Denver DMA is.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3541/eurekanewdx1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

fredfa

01-11-07, 03:30 PM

The Business of TV
Mediacom Secures High Ground in Sinclair Battle
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 1/11/2007

Cable operator Mediacom has secured some high ground in its retransmission battle with Sinclair: Capitol Hill. Or, at least, the portion transplanted from Iowa.

In a letter to both Sinclair President David Smith and Mediacom CEO Rocco Commisso, the state's two Senators and five of its representatives urged them to consider submitting their carriage negotiations to binding arbitration at the FCC.

Citing the "up to 250,000 Iowa consumers who are currently unable to receive signals from KGAN Cedar Rapids and KDSM Des Moines," the legislators said that, "given the current impasse, binding arbitration would seem to present the parties with an alternative mechanism for resolving this dispute," and asked them "to consider the clear guidance of the FCC in agreeing to a process to bring the parties to an agreement without further harming Iowa consumers.

The FCC's Media Bureau, in rejecting a Mediacom complaint that Sinclair was not bargaining in good faith, still strongly encouraged the parties to submit the complaint to the FCC's Media Bureau for binding arbitration, with the stations remaining on Mediacom for the Mediacom has since appealed its complaint to the full commission.

Mediacom says it is ready and willing to go that route. Sinclair said it would consider the proposal seriously, but pulled its signals off the cable systems Jan. 5 but has yet to say whether or not it will. In the meantime, it has encouraged Mediacom subscribers to switch to DirecTV, with which its has a marketing deal that pays Sinclair for sub switches.

Sinclair has also said it is willing to "shake hands and walk away" from what it says is simply a business deal in which the parties cannot come to terms on price.

Signing the letter were Senators Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley and representatives Bruce Braley, Leonard Boswell, Steve King, Dave Loebsack, and Tom Latham.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6406924

HDTVFanAtic

01-11-07, 03:32 PM

I just read "selected parts".

However, significantly viewed signals have secondary status, and duplicative network programming is deleted at the incumbant DMA station's request, making movement a little harder than you indicate.

Thats the issue, hmmm. I prefer to educate myself and not make same mistake twice.

People tune to the station that covers the news in their area - and as seen by ratings for the NBC Nightly News versus their Prime Time Programming, the public has no issue changing the channel to watch News vs Prime Time Programming.

As seen from the above movement of Eureka, as stated before, DMAs are fluid and not set in stone.

fredfa

01-11-07, 03:35 PM

Well, with Eureka County's booming 30% population growth in the past few years, I am sure Denver stations will miss those 1,900 pairs of potential Nevada eyeballs. :)

HDTVFanAtic

01-11-07, 03:51 PM

Well, with Eureka County's booming 30% population growth in the past few years, I am sure Denver stations will miss those 1,900 pairs of potential Nevada eyeballs. :)

You know, I figured it had to be literally no population - and all it takes is a few on C-Band DNS to have a Nielsen Diary to get you in the Denver DMA - again as can be seen - another reason why the Denver DMA is a mess compared with all the others.

HDTVFanAtic

01-11-07, 06:13 PM

The Business of TV
Mediacom Secures High Ground in Sinclair Battle
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 1/11/2007

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070111/phth032.html?.v=75

Sinclair Responds to Letter From Iowa Congressional Delegation

Sinclair Decides Not to Submit Mediacom Negotiation to Binding Arbitration

BALTIMORE, Jan. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SBGI - News) today sent the attached letter to each of the members of Iowa's Congressional delegation in response to a letter, a copy of which is also attached, received by Sinclair from them. In its response, Sinclair informed the respective Senators and Congressmen that it has decided not to submit to binding arbitration in an attempt to resolve the impasse Sinclair has reached in its negotiations with Mediacom Communications Corp. (Nasdaq: MCCC - News). These negotiations involve whether or not cable systems owned by Mediacom will resume carriage of a number of television stations which they recently discontinued carrying.

As noted in the letter, Sinclair does not believe binding arbitration is an appropriate course of action to take to resolve issues raised in a commercial negotiation between two companies in the private sector. Sinclair's view was influenced in part by the numerous alternative ways in which the public can continue to view the programming carried by the impacted stations if Mediacom continues to fail to carry them. These alternatives include free, over-the-air transmission, as well as carriage by direct competitors of Mediacom such as DirecTV and the Dish Network and, in parts of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the cable overbuilder, McLeod USA.

As Sinclair has previously informed the public, it is possible that the lack of carriage may continue for the foreseeable future and strongly encourages members of the public who want to watch our programming to take advantage of the alternative means for doing so. The stations and markets impacted are:

Des Moines/Ames (KDSM-FOX), Cedar Rapids (KGAN-CBS), Mobile-Pensacola (WEAR-ABC/WFGX-MNT), Peoria/Bloomington (WYZZ-FOX), Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville (WLOS-ABC/WMYA-MNT), Lexington (WDKY-FOX), Madison (WMSN-FOX), Nashville (WZTV-FOX/WUXP-MNT/WNAB-CW), Minneapolis (WUCW- CW), Paducah/Cape Girardeau (KBSI-FOX/WDKA-MNT), Springfield/Champaign/Decatur (WICS-ABC/WICD-ABC), St. Louis (KDNL-ABC), Tallahassee (WTWC-NBC), Birmingham (WTTO-CW/WABM-MNT), 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.

Below is Sinclair's letter responding to the Iowa Congressional delegation:

January 11, 2007

U.S. Senator Tom Harkin
U.S. Senator Charles Grassley
U.S. Congressman Bruce Braley
U.S. Congressman Dave Loebsack
U.S. Congressman Leonard Boswell
U.S. Congressman Tom Latham
U.S. Congressman Steve King
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senators Harkin and Grassley and Congressmen Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, Latham and King

Thank you very much for your recent letter to me concerning the situation involving Sinclair and Mediacom and its impact on the citizens of Iowa.

Please know that Sinclair takes its obligation to serve the public interest very seriously. Although it is unfortunate that the failure of Sinclair and Mediacom to reach agreement has an impact on your constituents, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that "[t]housands of Iowans have been left with little recourse to the disruption of service." To the contrary, Mediacom simply represents one of several delivery methods for broadcast television stations like KDSM and KGAN.

In fact, consistent with Sinclair's obligations as an FCC licensee, both stations are available completely for free over the air to consumers. Moreover, both DirecTV and the Dish Network, which are direct competitors to Mediacom (providing essentially the same service), continue to carry both KDSM and KGAN. In addition, in certain parts of Cedar Rapids, Mediacom also has competition from at least one other cable company (which continues to carry KGAN) which stands ready to serve the public. In effect, the failure of Mediacom to rebroadcast the signals of these stations is no different than one store failing to carry a specific product, requiring consumers to visit a different store if they care to purchase that product.

With response to your suggestion that we submit to binding arbitration, at this point in time Sinclair has concluded it is not prepared to do so. I hope you can understand Sinclair's reluctance to agree to such an unusual approach to resolve what is essentially a disagreement on price in a commercial negotiation between two parties, parties which are legally entitled to make their own decisions on how best to run their respective businesses. I suspect our view on this subject is the same one that most of your constituents would hold if, for example, someone suggested they arbitrate the price of their house if a potential buyer was not willing to meet the minimum price they thought appropriate. Moreover, the numerous alternative ways, discussed above, for your constituents to receive our signals greatly mitigate any need to take such drastic measures if negotiations between the parties continue to be unsuccessful. Finally, although the FCC also suggested arbitration, I note that the FCC has stated that it has no authority to order such an approach and has concluded, after an exhaustive review of the situation, that Sinclair has met its obligation to negotiate in good faith.

Thank you very much for your interest in this matter and I would be happy to discuss any aspects of it with you in greater detail if that would be helpful.

Sincerely yours,

David D. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer

Thomas Desmond

01-11-07, 10:21 PM

[much deleted]
lol....sure. Perhaps I should have stated that there were no auctions for Broadcast Licenses in the Top 100 or so DMA for years THAT WOULD ACTUALLY COVER THE MAJOR POPULATION AREAS.

Once again, you are wrong. But I've made my comments, and see no point in prolonging this.

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 12:07 AM

Once again, you are wrong. But I've made my comments, and see no point in prolonging this.

That is your opinion and the evidence to what you consider is a Quality Denver DMA station digital signal is available for anyone wishing to read or examine it to make their own opinion - based on DMA maps, Congressional Rulings and simple mileage.

Furthermore, they don't have to take my or your word for it, they can click here
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_all#completed
for all auctions over the last 13+ years. The auction you speak of is #64 and as noted in the auction - unlike your portrayal of a Denver DMA Signal with a license to Greely, the FCC specificially calls Greely the market - as it knows it is not a full Denver DMA signal. Again, its in the Denver DMA - but that's about it.

Just looking at the number of Full Power TV auctions in the last 13 years tells you the scarcity of the frequencies - unlike your portrayal.

GeorgeLV

01-12-07, 12:22 AM

ahh, Eureka NV....my eyeballs are fried at my advanced age.

But according to this map, Eureka NV is in the (far more appropriate) Salt Lake City DMA:

http://www.truckads.com/Affiliate/Salt_Lake_City.htm

Actually, is fairly nonsensical that any Nevada counties are in the SLC DMA because of the time zone difference (nothing like a 6PM primetime). But it's the SLC TV stations with the translator network, so the get eyeballs.

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 12:45 AM

Actually, is fairly nonsensical that any Nevada counties are in the SLC DMA because of the time zone difference (nothing like a 6PM primetime). But it's the SLC TV stations with the translator network, so the get eyeballs.

Makes more sense SLC than Denver :D

fredfa

01-12-07, 03:11 PM

And the beat goes on...
The Business of TV
Time Warner Faces Sinclair Loss
By Linda Moss & Mike Farrell MultiChannel News 1/12/2007

At press time Friday, Time Warner Cable and Sinclair Broadcast Group were still trying to finalize a retransmission-consent deal for the cable systems that were formerly owned by Adelphia Communications.

Time Warner and the broadcaster agreed Dec. 31 to an extension of their expired deal until Friday. If the two parties don’t reach a new deal or agree to another extension, technically, Time Warner can lose carriage of the signals as of 12:01 a.m. Saturday.

Time Warner Cable spokesman Mark Harrad said the company was hopeful that a final pact would be reached before the deadline, or that a second extension would be issued so that the contract could be finished up.

About 1 million Time Warner subscribers -- formerly Adelphia customers, mainly in New York, Ohio and Maine -- would be impacted if worse came to worse and Sinclair pulled its signals.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6407279.html?display=Breaking+News

posg

01-12-07, 04:42 PM

Iowa General Assembly Schedules Hearing on Discriminatory Practices of Sinclair Broadcast Group
DES MOINES, Iowa--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Following is a statement from Thomas P. Graves, the Executive Vice President of the Iowa Cable & Telecommunications Association:

The Joint Government Oversight Committee of the Iowa General Assembly has scheduled a hearing for Thursday, January 18th to review the issues in the retransmission consent dispute between Mediacom Communications Corporation (NASDAQ:MCCC) and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:SBGI).

Iowans across the state have been unnecessarily inconvenienced by the discriminatory actions of Sinclair. On January 5th, Sinclair pulled the plug on the Fox affiliate in Des Moines and the CBS affiliate in Cedar Rapids. It is clear to me that this disruption could have, and should have, been avoided. I am pleased that the leadership of the State Legislature agreed and scheduled this hearing. We are heartened to have received the support of members of both houses and both parties in Iowa’s General Assembly.

Yesterday, the entire Iowa Congressional Delegation wrote the CEOs of both companies urging them to agree to binding arbitration and to find a way to resume carriage of the Sinclair stations. Mediacom gladly agreed to the Delegation’s request. Sinclair declined to enter into binding arbitration and refused to authorize Mediacom to resume carriage of the stations while the negotiations continue.

This hearing will provide an opportunity for the Committee to learn first hand what has happened to cause this disruption to consumers across Iowa. We would expect that the hearing will be well attended by individuals and the media trying to learn more about why Iowans are being discriminated against. A witness list is not yet available, but we assume representatives from Mediacom, Sinclair, and the general public will be invited to testify.

We have spoken with representatives of other state cable associations and confirmed their interest in exploring this issue as well. It's important to protect Iowans from discriminatory practices no matter where they come from, and I am gratified that the legislature has taken this issue up so quickly.

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 04:56 PM

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 04:57 PM

posg

01-12-07, 05:01 PM

Too bad they have absolutely no authority to do anything in this matter.

Looks good to the people that don't understand it that might vote for them - no bite in the end.

If they do nothing more than make the facts of the dispute public record, that is enough.

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 05:21 PM

If they do nothing more than make the facts of the dispute public record, that is enough.

Facts are simple - Sinclair has something Mediacom wants to repackage and resale. Sinclair wants roughly 50 cents per subcriber on a group deal. Mediacom doesn't want to pay it. Sinclair is not going to sell it for less than their minimum price. Sinclair has also given an a la carte price as well if Mediacom does not want a group deal.

Iowa's tax dollars at work!

Those are the facts and they are in the public records already.

fredfa

01-12-07, 06:06 PM

Gosh Fred, you mean the MEDIACOM CEO LIED when he said several times in his conference call that the TWC/Sinclair deal was done and would be announced this week? :eek:

I'm shocked!!!!

Let's be charitable. It has been a tough few weeks for him. Maybe he was just confused. :)

posg

01-12-07, 06:21 PM

Facts are simple - Sinclair has something Mediacom wants to repackage and resale. Sinclair wants roughly 50 cents per subcriber on a group deal. Mediacom doesn't want to pay it. Sinclair is not going to sell it for less than their minimum price. Sinclair has also given an a la carte price as well if Mediacom does not want a group deal.

Iowa's tax dollars at work!

Those are the facts and they are in the public records already.

Neither party has publicly disclosed any real details. What you refer to as "facts" are pure speculation. If you can provide a link which proves otherwise, I'll will cheerfully apologize and admit I'm wrong. Fair enough ???

As long as the "parties" are behaving like Rosie and Donald, they deserve to be exposed and judged in the press.

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 06:30 PM

Neither party has publicly disclosed any real details. What you refer to as "facts" are pure speculation. If you can provide a link which proves otherwise, I'll will cheerfully apologize and admit I'm wrong. Fair enough ???

As long as the "parties" are behaving like Rosie and Donald, they deserve to be exposed and judged in the press.

You have again proven your comment about selective reading. At least you are truthful on that part - but it doesn't help you with any arguement on the Sinclair/Mediacom dispute as you have not examined everything that is available with links in this thread. Thus from now on, I will just realize that you have chosen not to get the facts - and so your opinion is not based on all the facts that are available to the public.

Everything I stated in that post has been said on the conference calls with links listed above in this thread.

In fact, the 50 cents per sub figure has been stated in various summaries of the conference calls in multiple news stories.

fredfa

01-12-07, 06:32 PM

The Business of Television
Time Warner Hopes to Avoid Sinclair Loss
By Linda Moss & Mike Farrell MultiChannel News 1/12/2007

Time Warner Cable and Sinclair Broadcast Group were still trying to finalize a retransmission-consent deal Friday, but the cable company didn’t expect to lose carriage of the broadcaster’s stations at Friday night’s midnight deadline.

The retransmission-consent extension Time Warner and Sinclair agreed to last month for former Adelphia Communications systems expires at 12:01 a.m. Saturday.

But in an update issued at 4:45 p.m. Friday, the nation’s second-largest cable company was optimistic.
“At this time, we are still negotiating with Sinclair,” Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Maureen Huff said.

“We do not expect them to force us to stop retransmitting the signal at applicable stations at midnight.”

About 1 million Time Warner subscribers -- formerly Adelphia customers, mainly in New York, Ohio and Maine -- would be impacted if worse came to worse and Sinclair pulled its signals.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6407279

fredfa

01-12-07, 07:33 PM

The Business of Television
Iowa, Missouri Eye Mediacom-Sinclair Actions
By Linda Moss & David Cohen MultiChannel News 1/12/2007

The Iowa General Assembly scheduled a Jan. 18 hearing to review the issues in the retransmission-consent dispute between Mediacom Communications and Sinclair Broadcast Group, officials said Friday.

And Missouri Cable & Telecommunications Association president Greg Harrison hopes the same will occur in his state.

In Iowa, the Assembly’s Joint Government Oversight Committee set the session on the bitter battle between Mediacom and the broadcaster, which pulled its signals for 22 stations from the cable operator’s systems in 12 states Jan. 6.

“Iowans across the state have been unnecessarily inconvenienced by the discriminatory actions of Sinclair,” Iowa Cable & Telecommunications Association executive vice president Thomas Graves said in a prepared statement. “It is clear to me that this disruption could have, and should have, been avoided. I am pleased that the leadership of the State Legislature agreed and scheduled this hearing. We are heartened to have received the support of members of both houses and both parties in Iowa’s General Assembly.”

A witness list for the hearing isn’t available yet.

As for Missouri, Harrison said in a prepared statement, “Last week, 2 million viewers in 700,000 households were affected by Sinclair Broadcast Group’s unilateral decision to pull its 22 broadcast stations from Mediacom Communications cable systems in 12 states, including KSBI (Fox) in Caruthersville and KDNL (ABC) in Hermann.”

He continued, “In 2005, a similar dispute resulted in the loss of carriage of KODE (ABC) and KSNF (NBC) in Joplin for 11 months, and last Thursday, cable customers in St. Louis lost access to the high-definition version of KMOV (CBS) when the cable company refused to submit to the television-group owner’s financial demands.”

He went on, “It is obvious that these broadcasters’ unilateral actions have discriminated against Missourians and, most discouraging, they continue to ignore pleas not to make the consumer suffer. For example, Sinclair has refused to date the [Federal Communications Commission’s] strong recommendations to continue carriage and agree to binding arbitration, and ignored similar urgings of [Rep.] Roy Blunt [R-Mo.].”

Harrison concluded, “As a result of Sinclair’s practices and the resulting price discrimination against companies serving smaller markets, we are asking that the Missouri General Assemblyconsider holding hearings to investigate the unreasonable tactics of out-of-town media conglomerates and to determine how Missouri consumers have been inconvenienced because of them. Furthermore, we are asking Missouri’s General Assembly and Gov. [Matt] Blunt to take appropriate action that will prevent any programmer -- whether it is a broadcaster or a cable network -- from discriminating against Missourians.”

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6407377.html?display=Breaking+News

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 08:29 PM

The most comical thing about this, is since Iowa and Missouri are both looking at this, then there goes the arguement that one state is being discriminated against as its clearly multi-state Corporate Policy.

But god help a Politician when he thinks he can look good in front of a voter.

keenan

01-12-07, 08:33 PM

God help the voters themselves...

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 08:39 PM

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 08:45 PM

And btw, just so we are clear, the 50 cents per sub that Sinclair is asking for - even POSG thinks that is underpriced - so again, what is Mediacom's problem?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8864855#post8864855

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.

keenan

01-12-07, 08:51 PM

Well, as Sinclair has offered Mediacom 50 cents or less per sub across their company in multiple states, its just comical to even claim that residents of a single state are being discriminated against. It just sounds like something POSG or Stan54 would say.
It is sort of odd....what are they planning on doing? "Nationalizing" the Sinclair signals in those states...? A little eminent domain action maybe..? State-sponsored theft of TV signal transmissions...?

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 08:56 PM

I am sure they can pass almost anything - which no doubt would be overturned by a court almost as soon as it was signed. However, I am not too sure once politicians think about going after a TV Group owner versus a cable company, if they will REALLY want to come down on the side of the Cable Owner - especially as those TV stations have the ability to run news and editorials on a daily basis (not neccesarily about this - but anything those Politicians do daily) - of which they could easily put on to fill up all that advertising they are loosing according to POSG and Stan54.

DoubleDAZ

01-12-07, 09:09 PM

dline

01-12-07, 09:11 PM

UPDATE:

Sinclair announced in a press release (http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_2007112_199.shtml) today that the FCC will not grant Mediacom a ruling granting interim carriage rights for the 22 disputed Sinclair stations. However, "the FCC did grant Mediacom's request, which Sinclair did not oppose, to shorten the time period ... by which Sinclair must respond to Mediacom's Application for Review ..."

Sinclair must now file its response by January 19.

Earlier this week, the FCC's Media Bureau denied Mediacom's request to intervene in the dispute. Mediacom is appealing that decision to the full commission.

The decision Sinclair referred to in its press release does not appear on the commission's website yet.

Meanwhile, in a letter (http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/98/98270/MediacomResponsetoIowaCongressionalDelagationLtr.011107FINAL .pdf) to members of Iowa's congressional delegation, Mediacom CEO Rocco Commisso thanked them for their support, but accused Sinclair of "stalling in an effort to improve their negotiating position."

Commisso wrote that Mediacom offered to agree to binding arbitration and to pay Sinclair for interim carriage of the stations, an offer Sinclair refused earlier this week.

"Unfortunately, if Sinclair refuses to restore the signals immediately, your constituents, and our customers, will continue to bear the brunt of this situation and will not be able to watch the NFL playoff games televised on Fox or CBS this weekend," Commisso wrote -- even though his company has been passing out antennas to customers so they can continue to receive the missing Sinclair stations.

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 09:29 PM

I haven't done my homework, so take this with a grain of salt, but my $.02 is that conference call comments do not necessarily equate to what was offered on paper.

Be that as it may, if we end up paying $.50 each for our locals ($3 total for 6 locals), then the solution is simple, let me delete ESPN so there is no price increase for me. :)

Then why doesn't Mediacomm come out and say we will give Sinclair the 50 cents per sub as they claimed on the conference call that they were looking for - at that point, it there can be no debate that Sinclair IS not negotiating in good faith - and they will look very bad.

Right now the only person who has given PROVEN bad information on the conference call was Mediacom.

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 09:37 PM

UPDATE:

Meanwhile, in a letter (http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/98/98270/MediacomResponsetoIowaCongressionalDelagationLtr.011107FINAL .pdf) to members of Iowa's congressional delegation, Mediacom CEO Rocco Commisso thanked them for their support, but accused Sinclair of "stalling in an effort to improve their negotiating position."

Commisso wrote that Mediacom offered to agree to binding arbitration and to pay Sinclair for interim carriage of the stations, an offer Sinclair refused earlier this week.

"Unfortunately, if Sinclair refuses to restore the signals immediately, your constituents, and our customers, will continue to bear the brunt of this situation and will not be able to watch the NFL playoff games televised on Fox or CBS this weekend," Commisso wrote -- even though his company has been passing out antennas to customers so they can continue to receive the missing Sinclair stations.

Sinclair's statement again bears fruit here - as Mediacom says stalling improves their negotiating position - yet he claims that Sinclair is loosing on every metric on his conference call.

His statements were very clear - he said once Sinclair pulled its signal - the damage was done and those that would leave would go - and it would be a one time event and after that Sinclair's position would be WORSE every day going forward.

Now he has done a 180 and says that Sinclair is stalling to improve their negotiating position.

Sinclair's statement really hits home - "Mediacom has claimed to be losing very few subscribers, and although we would question the accuracy of this claim, if this is the case, it raises the question in our mind of why does Mediacom seem to care so much?"

I am sorry, but you have to be utterly stupid and blind not to see who the liar is on this. If Stan54 and POSG cannot, they must still believe there are still weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as well.

If I were a Mediacom stockholder, I would be gunning for this guy's job.

DoubleDAZ

01-12-07, 09:41 PM

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 09:44 PM

Because no cableco that I know of wants to pay anything and that is what this whole fight is about. It has very little to do with the size of the fee. It has everything to do with the concept of a cash fee to begin with. You all can argue $.50, $1.00, whatever, but that is not the crux of the disagreement.

IMHO, both are correct. OTA is free, cable should not have to pay. Cable gets customers because they can offer locals. The channels get exposure and ad $$ because cable carries them. The channels get even more exposure through the ad time compensation they've agreed to for years. In my book, this seems to say that channels are already getting more of a direct benefit than the cableco, but I happen to be on the cable side in this fight. :)

And guess what, they pay for MSNBC, CNN, FOX etc etc etc of which runs advertising as well - pay everyone or pay no one that runs ads. Otherwise, Broadcast TV Stations are being singled out and discriminated against.

CPanther95

01-12-07, 09:47 PM

Because no cableco that I know of wants to pay anything and that is what this whole fight is about. It has very little to do with the size of the fee. It has everything to do with the concept of a cash fee to begin with. You all can argue $.50, $1.00, whatever, but that is not the crux of the disagreement.

IMHO, both are correct. OTA is free, cable should not have to pay. Cable gets customers because they can offer locals. The channels get exposure and ad $$ because cable carries them. The channels get even more exposure through the ad time compensation they've agreed to for years. In my book, this seems to say that channels are already getting more of a direct benefit than the cableco, but I happen to be on the cable side in this fight. :)

Who are we to say that the extra eyeballs are enough compensation? If that were the case, Sinclair and every other local station should just give up this whole idea. However, if that were even remotely accurate, there'd be no point in paying a carriage fee for any channel - just tell ESPN, Lifetime, etc. that you'll give them 100% penetration with your customer base and no additional payment should be necessary.

See how well that goes over.

DoubleDAZ

01-12-07, 09:49 PM

I am sorry, but you have to be utterly stupid and blind not to see who the liar is on this..Gimme a break, they're both liars, that's the nature of the game. Plus, what is said in public has very little to do with what is said behind closed doors. Surely you know that as well as the rest of us. Up to now, you've had the upper hand because you've been able to point to glaring errors in conference calls, etc., but that certainly dones prove anything other than the statements were false, lies or mis-speak, who really cares? All I care about is what this is going to do to my entertainment $$ eventually. :)

HDTVFanAtic

01-12-07, 09:51 PM

Gimme a break, they're both liars, that's the nature of the game. Plus, what is said in public has very little to do with what is said behind closed doors. Surely you know that as well as the rest of us. Up to now, you've had the upper hand because you've been able to point to glaring errors in conference calls, etc., but that certainly dones prove anything other than the statements were false, lies or mis-speak, who really cares? All I care about is what this is going to do to my entertainment $$ eventually. :)

Can you please show me statements made by Sinclair that have been proven false in this?

Its one thing to be able to point to specific points in the statements made by Mediacom and find a liar - but I have yet to see anything said by Sinclair proven wrong.

Just because someone does not like a Company's position does not make them a liar.

Fact is, despite what you think, anything on a public company conference call that is stated to investors, which were on both calls, MUST BE HONEST TO BEST KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERSON ON THE CALL and represntative of the company or after the specific SEC regulations passed after Enron and Worldcomm, those people will be joining Enron Executives in paid for accomodations.

There is a reason why today after all conference calls, if a bad number or statement is made, a Press Release correcting it is made in literally hours by any Company who cares about abiding the law.

DoubleDAZ

01-12-07, 10:11 PM

Who are we to say that the extra eyeballs are enough compensation?Am I not entitled to my opinion or is that just for those who side with Sinclair? It's been enough compensation for years. Now, because they've had to actually use some of their profits to upgrade to digital, they want to go back to the bargaining table. That is fine, but both sides have put out significant sums to go digital, so both have a legit case in my book.
If that were the case, Sinclair and every other local station should just give up this whole idea. However, if that were even remotely accurate, there'd be no point in paying a carriage fee for any channel - just tell ESPN, Lifetime, etc. that you'll give them 100% penetration with your customer base and no additional payment should be necessary.Not even close. This is nothing more than taking advantage of a point in TV history, this has been their best opportunity to force cash payments. Plus, they're all a bunch of geedy you-know-what and all I care about is my bill.

As for ESPN, that is actually quite true. They charge an even more ridiculous fee, with amuch lower viewership, and we are still subjected to unlimited commercials. The day is coming when satellite/cableco subs will revolt, though ala carte will probably come first. If we are going to be subjected to commercials, we shouldn't have to pay anything more than an equipment fee, for both cable and satellite.

Cableco's would do well to use the tactic the telco's started, completely break down every cost in your bill, right down to the channel level. Other than Premiums, PPV, etc., very few people have a clue as to what each channel costs them and how much lower their bill could be if they didn't have to pay for them all. $.50 doesn't sound like much until you compared it to $.10 or $.01 and then multiply it by the number of subs. That's a lot of money going into Sinclair's (and ESPN's, et al's) pockets and we pay tons more for products so they can then advertise and put even more money into the hands of the greedy.

afail

01-12-07, 11:34 PM

I am going to go out on a whim and state that I believe Comcast and Sinclair have reached an agreement.

The message stating that the Sinclair HD feeds will be removed in February is gone here in Pittsburgh.

HDTVFanAtic

01-13-07, 12:15 AM

CPanther95

01-13-07, 10:14 AM

Am I not entitled to my opinion or is that just for those who side with Sinclair? It's been enough compensation for years.

You missed the point. It's not whether you or I feel it is "enough compensation", the point is that it is a commodity that has value to the cable company and they are free to negotiate what that value is. If they can't come to terms then the cableco is free to stop carrying the channel. But to suggest that the local broadcaster is "wrong" for asking for any payment at all - or for asking for their bill to be paid in cash (or whatever form they like) isn't a fair way to assess the dispute.

Either it has value, or it doesn't. The cablecos seem to suggest that there is little real value that deserves compensation - but then cry foul and seek legislative and judicial interference when threatened with losing those signals. They can't have it both ways.

Of course we all know how valuable the Big4 local affiliates are to subs in each market. Even when D* was charging a $5 extra fee for locals, they still had a take rate in the neighborhood of 90% (IIRC) - yet the cablecos claim $0.50 is unreasonable.

jjallou

01-13-07, 11:27 AM

posted at http://www.timewarnercable.com/newengland/programming/notices/sinclair.html

WGME/Sinclair Carriage Issue

We are pleased to announce we have another extension with Sinclair Broadcasting through January 19 while the remaining details of the ongoing negotiations are finalized. We thank you for your continued patience with this issue. Please conitue to check here for updates.

Really can't blame Sinclair for trying to get cash.
Congress & the FCC made all of this "fun" possible. Isn't it great?

fredfa

01-13-07, 11:46 AM

I have no information on Comcast and Sinclair - but as cable companies are required to give notice 30 days in advance before dropping a channel, I doubt they are forced to give notice for days 30-1 continually - just a notice 30 days in advance. After some period of time, I would suspect the notice could be dropped - and they would have conformed with the regulation.

As I understand the FCC regulations, cable companies are not allowed to remove broadcast signals during sweep months.

Thus Sinclair stations would have to stay on Comcast through February (the sweep runs Feb. 1-28 this year).

GoIrish

01-13-07, 12:07 PM

As I understand the FCC regulations, cable companies are not allowed to remove broadcast signals during sweep months.

Thus Sinclair stations would have to stay on Comcast through February (the sweep runs Feb. 1-28 this year).

Correst, which is why Comcast only noticed the 30 day clock on the HD channel. It will have to be dropped in early Feb unless there is a deal (sweeps cover analog only). The analog content cannot be dropped until sweeps close.

GoIrsih

Stan54

01-13-07, 12:42 PM

Well, as Sinclair has offered Mediacom 50 cents or less per sub across their company in multiple states, its just comical to even claim that residents of a single state are being discriminated against. It just sounds like something POSG or Stan54 would say.

You just don't get it! This is just a business matter. I don't blame either side. I would do the very same thing. ........... On the other hand, I am on the side of the cable company because I care about how much I have to pay to watch television.

Stan54

01-13-07, 12:54 PM

Because no cableco that I know of wants to pay anything and that is what this whole fight is about. It has very little to do with the size of the fee. It has everything to do with the concept of a cash fee to begin with. You all can argue $.50, $1.00, whatever, but that is not the crux of the disagreement.

IMHO, both are correct. OTA is free, cable should not have to pay. Cable gets customers because they can offer locals. The channels get exposure and ad $$ because cable carries them. The channels get even more exposure through the ad time compensation they've agreed to for years. In my book, this seems to say that channels are already getting more of a direct benefit than the cableco, but I happen to be on the cable side in this fight. :)

I agree with you all the way, however, you can't really blame Sinclair for trying to make as much money as they can possibly make.

HDTVFanAtic

01-13-07, 03:19 PM

You just don't get it! This is just a business matter. I don't blame either side. I would do the very same thing. ........... On the other hand, I am on the side of the cable company because I care about how much I have to pay to watch television.

I agree with you all the way, however, you can't really blame Sinclair for trying to make as much money as they can possibly make.

No one wants their bill to go up. However, maybe you and others would be better suited to put your efforts into getting a la carte so you could make your votes known with your monthly payments - thus getting rid of the channels you do not want to view - in an effort to balance the payments to those channels you do watch.

DoubleDAZ

01-13-07, 09:57 PM

GeorgeLV

01-13-07, 10:04 PM

^^But, DirecTV is already paying Sinclair for their signal. They can obviously afford to do so under their rate structure, so why can't Mediacom?

CPanther95

01-13-07, 10:04 PM

DirecTV includes the locals at no extra charge. (SD & HD)

DoubleDAZ

01-13-07, 10:24 PM

DirecTV includes the locals at no extra charge. (SD & HD)I see that now, thanks, but I assume you got the point, whether or not you agree with it. :)

DoubleDAZ

01-13-07, 10:33 PM

^^But, DirecTV is already paying Sinclair for their signal. They can obviously afford to do so under their rate structure, so why can't Mediacom?They can, but they either raise rates or take the hit themselves. Like many others, I think both parties have merit. However, as I see it, Mediacom loses no matter what they do. If they stand pat, they lose subs. If they give in and eat it, they lose $.50/sub. If they give in and raise rates, they lose subs. Again, the only winners are Sinclair and DirecTV, though Dish will benefit too, but Sinclair seems to be in bed with DirecTV at the moment.

HDTVFanAtic

01-13-07, 10:42 PM

I guess the problem with all this is that this is supposed to be just a sharing of ideas and opinions, not a trial by jury. Nothing we say will settle the matter, it's just all about how we feel about the subject.

I simply don't like Sinclair and others who are trying to take advantage of the DTV conversion. Would they be doing this if not for this window of opportunity? I don't blame them for doing it, but I don't have to like it. I also don't like having to pay for ESPN, but I understand why I do in the current business model. I wouldn't even have a problem with Sinclair asking for $.50 if I had the option not to pay it. But since I don't, all I care about is mine bottomline cost.

I also have no doubt they'll eventually get it, as will CBS, et al. I also have no doubt that if they could figure out a way to charge OTA viewers, they would, greedy that they are. :) And I don't really care who is the bad guy. There is no doubt Mediacom and other cables make a fortune, but so does Sinclair, DirecTV, et al, so no one if the good guy in my book.

The other part of the problem in my book is that if Mediacom pays the $.50 to Sinclair, and others, they then raise their rates and a bunch of folks switch to DirecTV. Who wins? Certainly not Mediacom. Surely not the remaining customers. And not even those who switched. The only winners are Sinclair and DirecTV, and that is my biggest problem.

If the playing fields between cableco's, telco's, and satco's were equal, I wouldn't have a problem, but they aren't, one always has an advantage over another at some point in the whole process and I personally don't believe it evens out. If we assume Sinclair charges DirecTV $.50, then how does that translate into a $5/mo charge for locals? Surely there aren't 10 locals in every market. If Mediacom does the same thing, that is pad the cost for locals, then it's no longer a mere $.50 we are talking about.

And, with regard to ala carte, anyone who believes we'[ll ever get true ala carte is dreaming. We may get some form, but there will always be some kind of minimum package and that will probably always include the locals, the very channels we are grousing about now. :)

As POSG likes to say, OTA TV keeps loosing viewers to cable networks. Cable Networks gets paid to take away viewers from Broadcast TV - and its only fair that field is evened out - exactly what this is doing

When cellular started in the mid 80s it cost you around 40 cents a minute. There were only 2 Cellular Companies in town - the wireline and the non-wireline license.

20 years later (actually 10 years later) we were down to 10 cents a minute - with a large number of wireless carriers.

Directv has to find a competitive price point. Cable has enjoyed a free ride for years - and this would have happened (and has happened with ABC for example) in terms of analog - this had nothing to do with the ATSC change over.

Cable Networks will either have to sharpen their bottom line, accept less profit or raise their rates. Like Cellular prices, as stated over and over and over - competition will be the great equalizer - no matter the line of business.

Grocery Stores are lucky to make 1 cent on every dollar spent. It is a razor thin margin. Cable Companies are now bundling and might find that video is a loss leader to get them internet and phone service.

We will find a medium thanks to competition. This is just the natural progression of business.

DoubleDAZ

01-13-07, 11:12 PM

But you seem to miss the point that we don't have to like it, or even agree with it. :)

And, as long as the government is involved to the degree they are, true and equal competition is a pipe dream. The rules change depending on who has the better lobby, etc. For years, cableco's have had to deal with local communities in order to setup shop, Now, all of a sudden, teleco's don't. Fair? Natural progression? I don't think so. But, you are right, there will be a medium found despite the unbalanced competition.

Cable has been regulated since day one and they are operating by those rules. I don't call that a free ride. I understand the monopoly complaint, but who created that? AFAIK, the government, perhaps at cable's insistent, but the government nonetheless.

I know nothing about profits, but the thing I don't get is how can satellite providers develop and launch expensive satellites, and subsidize customer hardware to the extent they do, and still charge only $40 (or less) for the same basic package that cable has to charge >$50 for? Is satellite not in great financial shape and raking in the dough? Does cable pocket that much more profit? It seems like until recent years (mergers/buyouts) cableco's were always on the brink of collapse.

fredfa

01-13-07, 11:37 PM

Part of it, Dave, is that DBS isn't saddling TV viewers with paying for their ultra-costly expansion into the broadband and phone businesses.

HDTVFanAtic

01-13-07, 11:56 PM

But you seem to miss the point that we don't have to like it, or even agree with it. :)

The Government has funded PBS for years - you think that is fair to regular Broadcasters?

As people say over and over - Life isn't fair - get over it. That sooner you learn that life isn't fair - nor is there any promise it would be - you'll be a happier person.

And, as long as the government is involved to the degree they are, true and equal competition is a pipe dream. The rules change depending on who has the better lobby, etc. For years, cableco's have had to deal with local communities in order to setup shop, Now, all of a sudden, teleco's don't. Fair? Natural progression? I don't think so. But, you are right, there will be a medium found despite the unbalanced competition.

Cable has been regulated since day one and they are operating by those rules. I don't call that a free ride. I understand the monopoly complaint, but who created that? AFAIK, the government, perhaps at cable's insistent, but the government nonetheless.

I know nothing about profits, but the thing I don't get is how can satellite providers develop and launch expensive satellites, and subsidize customer hardware to the extent they do, and still charge only $40 (or less) for the same basic package that cable has to charge >$50 for? Is satellite not in great financial shape and raking in the dough? Does cable pocket that much more profit? It seems like until recent years (mergers/buyouts) cableco's were always on the brink of collapse.

I am not sure if i posted it on this or another thread - but again, there is a classic Harvard Business School study on the oil Industry and how many times they have gone through exactly what you have described.

First they were into kerosine for lamps - then came electricity - and they should be out of business but along comes the automobile and saved their butt.

Over and over and over - just very lucky.

Cable has been on the same roller coaster for years.

It's just come down to Companies having the vision to reinvent themselves. That is exactly what Broadcast OTA is doing now - viewership is down because of cable programming - get on an even playing playing field with the programs taking your audience.

All Companies (if they are to survive in the world) must continue to look at the ever changing landscape and adjust accordingly.

While people might not like change, its a guarantee in life.