You really think cable subs are directly subsidizing that? I'm sure the fiber expansion took a lot of money, but that benefits cable subs as well as broadband and phone users. I don't see my broadband or phone bill being much cheaper, if any cheaper, than other providers, but I do get an overall discount for having all 3 services with Cox. When I look at overall prices for my services though with other providers, including satellite and telco, I come out about the same. Even when we had another cableco in town it wasn't much, if any, cheaper.

It seems to me that satellite premium level services are subsidizing the lower levels and that's why they can offer cheaper rates for their lowest levels. I also think their receivers, etc., are much cheaper than cables because they have a more limited selection overall and they all provide the same capability. Cable uses receivers from at least 4 different makers (SA, Moto, Pace, and Moxi) and there are at least 6 sets of software, all offering different capabilities. That by itself is very inefficient, but then cableco's compete against each other even though very few serve the same areas, go figure.

Oh well, just thinking out loud I guess. It's all very convoluted if you ask me and I see very little relief in sight, even with the telco's entering the marketplace.

... 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? ...Maybe transmitting 33% less pixels on their HD Lite reduces their costs? :D

You really think cable subs are directly subsidizing that? I'm sure the fiber expansion took a lot of money, but that benefits cable subs as well as broadband and phone users. I don't see my broadband or phone bill being much cheaper, if any cheaper, than other providers, but I do get an overall discount for having all 3 services with Cox. When I look at overall prices for my services though with other providers, including satellite and telco, I come out about the same. Even when we had another cableco in town it wasn't much, if any, cheaper.

It seems to me that satellite premium level services are subsidizing the lower levels and that's why they can offer cheaper rates for their lowest levels. I also think their receivers, etc., are much cheaper than cables because they have a more limited selection overall and they all provide the same capability. Cable uses receivers from at least 4 different makers (SA, Moto, Pace, and Moxi) and there are at least 6 sets of software, all offering different capabilities. That by itself is very inefficient, but then cableco's compete against each other even though very few serve the same areas, go figure.

Oh well, just thinking out loud I guess. It's all very convoluted if you ask me and I see very little relief in sight, even with the telco's entering the marketplace.

That I am aware of, TWC Houston is the ONLY system in America that uses dual S/A and Motorola on their system at the same time. As it is the largest single system in America and TWC is basically a S/A shop, they had to find a way to do both in order to consolidate.

Pace uses the same software S/A does - in fact, they SD portion of the their STB is a S/A design they license - so that one is very easy to do..

Maybe transmitting 33% less pixels on their HD Lite reduces their costs? :D


laugh all you want but it does. it increases their capacity.

laugh all you want but it does. it increases their capacity.That is very true, but does it affect the financial bottomline that much? It just seems to me that all these companies make a lot of money and the cost to us is pretty much the same across all providers. Sure, there are some differences depending on what package you get and there are always deals to be had, but they all seem to be within $10/mo of each other and that doesn't seem to me to do much in the way of providing useful competition. So when one channel/network changes the nature of the game for one provider, it puts undo upward pressure on prices or downward pressure on profits, both of which are bad for someone.

I understand that this is all just business and I also understand that many folks have a negative attitude toward cable, mostly because of the perceived monopoly status, but I see this as a change to the playing field for only one provider, with at least some degree of backing by a competitor. Although I understand them, I don't have to like the tactics being employed Sinclair and DirecTV in this fight. And I don't think we'd be in this mess if not for the over-regulation, monopolistic process for franchise licenses, and catering to whomever has the best lobby this year. :)

I don't have much of an argument for the fact that cable (sat, etc.) pays for other networks that also provide advertising, except that those others are not available via OTA for free. I agree that those other networks are taking viewers away from the locals on cable and satellite, but that was true way before DTV and only now has the subject of paying for locals come up. I'm not sure what the reference to ABC is all about, but I do know that cable (at least Cox here) does not pay cash to any local, including ABC. Maybe that's a reference to ABC getting cash by virtue of the other networks in it's total package sold to cable. AFAIK, that is the main reason CBS will be demanding cash, they no longer have other networks in their package. Also, I suppose the value of advertising compensation has diminished over the years and cash is always the better commodity, though I still don't want to pay more. :)

And the real crux of the matter is that the guy who built cable, made billions, and knows all the areas of weakness is now running the satellite show. Here's a link to an interesting article just posted by Ken H:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9458514&&#post9458514

laugh all you want but it does. it increases their capacity.

Transmitting 33% fewer pixlels does not reduce satellite providers' cost.

Transmitting 33% fewer pixlels does not reduce satellite providers' cost.

Sorry, but wrong again.

By transmitting less 33% resolution you need 33% less bandwidth.

With less 33% bandwidth you need less 33% transponders.

With less 33% transponders you need 33% less satellites.

With 33% less satellites you reduce satellite providers costs.

I don't have much of an argument for the fact that cable (sat, etc.) pays for other networks that also provide advertising, except that those others are not available via OTA for free.

And so, let me ask you, how is the playing field level? ESPN pays no fees for its "public spectrum" just as OTA TV pays no fees for its public spectrum - yet ESPN for the single channel cost cable companies just shy of $3 and the complete ESPN Suite cost just shy of $5.

In fact ESPN uses well over 10x the capacity in the public spectrum that a TV Station uses and charges the most of any cable programming.

And even more, ESPN is not subject to all the regulation that OTA is subject to - including incredible high costs of Broadcasting in the Public Interest, Convenience and Necessity.

Yet, day in and day out, more people watch the OTA stations than ESPN.

Sorry, but wrong again.

By transmitting less 33% resolution you need 33% less bandwidth.

With less 33% bandwidth you need less 33% transponders.

With less 33% transponders you need 33% less satellites.

With 33% less satellites you reduce satellite providers costs.

Do they leave the 33% less bandwidth unused? Do they use 33% fewer transponders? Do they use 33% fewer satellites?

Or do they do something else with the bandwidth? Such as ................... ?????

Do they leave the 33% less bandwidth unused? Do they use 33% fewer transponders? Do they use 33% fewer satellites?

Or do they do something else with the bandwidth? Such as ................... ?????


Cram more niche programming in....

Cram more niche programming in....

Shh! ........... FanAtic is still working on his answer.

Do they leave the 33% less bandwidth unused? Do they use 33% fewer transponders? Do they use 33% fewer satellites?

Or do they do something else with the bandwidth? Such as ................... ?????

Shh! ........... FanAtic is still working on his answer.

They use less transponder space which saves billions. Simple math and Economics a problem for you?

Reducing needed capacity absolutely reduces cost. The fact that they use it for something else doesn't eliminate the savings.

Reducing needed capacity absolutely reduces cost. The fact that they use it for something else doesn't eliminate the savings.


He clearly has a problem understanding economics.

The price of gas went down so I spent less on gas. I we went out to more movies with the savings. As you state, the fact that I spent the savings on something else doesn't negate the fact I saved money on the original.

...or I bought more gas and drove even further on the same amount of money....

Do they leave the 33% less bandwidth unused? Do they use 33% fewer transponders? Do they use 33% fewer satellites?

Or do they do something else with the bandwidth? Such as ................... ?????

A more direct answer to your question would be that they offer more channels. That is the trade off that sat and cable companies have to make. Far more of their subscribers want more channels than want better PQ.

Pace uses the same software S/A does

Just a couple points of clarification:

Pace make STBs for both S/A and Motorola cable market.

For the Motorola markets, there is no shared hardware and/or software with Motorola. For info on one of the DVR products for the MOT market can be found here on AVS

TDC 775 DVR Thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=659367)

For SA markets, its true that both boxes run PowerTV, but there are significant software differences underneath the covers.


in fact, they SD portion of the their STB is a S/A design they license - so that one is very easy to do..

There are multiple Pace STBs in the S/A market segment (HD and SD) and none use a licensed S/A SD hardware design.

Just a couple points of clarification:

Pace make STBs for both S/A and Motorola cable market.

For the Motorola markets, there is no shared hardware and/or software with Motorola. For info on one of the DVR products for the MOT market can be found here on AVS

TDC 775 DVR Thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=659367)

For SA markets, its true that both boxes run PowerTV, but there are significant software differences underneath the covers.



There are multiple Pace STBs in the S/A market segment (HD and SD) and none use a licensed S/A SD hardware design.

I was told by the local head of technical operations of a large MSO that was the case - I cannot vouch for it as I do not have the information except for that - and suspected it was most likely true.

They originally used PACE boxes for HD 4 or so years ago - and at that point i was told that the box used a S/A SD design - then they wanted to use the HD circuit and S/A said no - and so Pace went out and designed their own HD Circuit - at that time - it was probably a better HD Picture than anything S/A had and that's why the people in the MSO thought it was quite comical that this was out and better due to the fact that it was because S/A would not license the HD Circuit and PACE had to design their own.

That's what I was told by people who do this for a living - I assume they know what they are talking about. You obviously work for PACE and whether the earlier boxes used the S/A SD circuit and now don't or whatever, I would think you should know.

And so, let me ask you, how is the playing field level?I totally agree with you and my whole thrust has been that the playing field is not level, in almost every aspect of the process.

And don't get me started on ESPN. It is probably the biggest single argument for ala carte. I'll grant you that having local channels available on cable brings far more subscribers than ESPN ever will, I've argued that point many times.

But that has very little to do with the current situation. ESPN is not the channel that is taking viewers away from locals, and it is not cables fault or their responsibility to makeup for the loss. Channels, like FX, SciFi, USA, etc., have developed a fairly extensive original series programming capability now and that is what is taking the viewers away. When you offer poor programming, you get fewer viewers. When there are more options available, you get fewer viewers.

It's not the cableco's fault, yet Sinclair wants the cableco to make up for the loss. If the argument was strictly that they pay Channel X $.50/mo, why not pay me $.50/mo too, maybe I'd be persuaded. But, there is too much other stuff involved for me to believe any part of this fight is that simple.

Someone else mentioned that all channels should be made available to all providers at the same price, then there'd be no argument. I agree with that and I really don't have a problem with Sinclair asking for $$. I just think the timing and cohorts are suspect. :)

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.

There's far more than 10 locals in some of the larger markets. Here in Dallas-Fort Worth, we have 16 commercial, full-powered locals.

But I'm sure that it is only the "Big 4" affiliates that get $.50 per subscriber. If you're an independent or you're affiliated with one of the small netlets, you may prefer to just invoke must carry and not try for any cash at all. Complicating this somewhat is the presence of duopolies: an independently-owned independent station may not be able to squeeze any cash out of DirecTV or DISH, but perhaps one that is part of a duopoly or joint sales agreement with the local CBS, ABC, or Fox affiliate may be able to leverage that second station into a few extra pennies of compensation. But even then I can't imagine that it would be anywhere near $0.50. And the bottom tier stations that subsist on infomercials...well, we know they're not going to get anything.

So chances are that the total paid for retransmission consent by the satellite companies isn't going to be much over $2.00 right now, no matter how many stations a particular market has.

Note that I'm not *defending* the current system, which mostly seems designed to ensure that the big guys make a bunch of bucks while the little guys get stepped on.

There's far more than 10 locals in some of the larger markets. Here in Dallas-Fort Worth, we have 16 commercial, full-powered locals.


The SF market has in the neighborhood of 25 or so local stations. I think it's the first or second most crowded market in the nation.

Note that I'm not *defending* the current system, which mostly seems designed to ensure that the big guys make a bunch of bucks while the little guys get stepped on.Neither am I. Nor am I trying to use exact figures, since I have no way of knowing them. I was just trying to make a point that DirecTV used to charge $5/mo for locals when I doubt they paid anywhere near that for the broadcast rights. Now it seems they've absorbed that cost, but that is probably in response to Dish's aggressive pricing (or even FIOS) more than cable. And DirecTV certainly doesn't carry the 10 locals in Dallas or the 25 in SF AFAIK.

I sure would like to know exactly what each channel or bundle costs both cable and satellite providers. I have nothing against any of them making a profit, even a big enough one to pay for fiber and new satellites, I'd just like to see how close the actual costs are for all providers because for some reason I believe there is a variance slanted in favor of satellite.

Now, before you jump all over me, I realize that all are free to make whatever deals they can, I'd just like to see some actual numbers is all.

Also, Sinclair has more to worry about given what I've seen over in Fredfa's Hot Off The Press! thread. I'm not even sure the Big 4 will be on my ala carte list when and if true ala carte ever comes to pass. We have the Game Show Network (GSN) and we have the Deal Or No Deal Network (NBC) and it seems there is no end in sight for replacing decent scripted programming with reality and other less expensive stuff. It's the old circle jerk; they don't get the viewers, so they lower their standards, so they don't get the viewers............ :)

Also, Sinclair has more to worry about given what I've seen over in Fredfa's Hot Off The Press! thread. I'm not even sure the Big 4 will be on my ala carte list when and if true ala carte ever comes to pass. We have the Game Show Network (GSN) and we have the Deal Or No Deal Network (NBC) and it seems there is no end in sight for replacing decent scripted programming with reality and other less expensive stuff. It's the old circle jerk; they don't get the viewers, so they lower their standards, so they don't get the viewers............ :)The broadcast networks aren't blameless, but they're hardly alone in that regard -- just look at (Not So) Arts & Entertainment, Music(less) Television, One Video Hit, E!, Spike, etc. Look at how CNN Headline News has decided not to offer headline news in the evenings. Look at all the cable networks who have allowed celebrities to use them as their own personal public access channels.

There is no doubt the TV landscape is changing and that is just another reason why I think Sinclair (and CBS) is actually shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. I suppose though, that like many others things, the idea looks bad for cable cubs on the surface, but as HDTVFanAtic says, it'll all equal out eventually. :)

Neither am I. Nor am I trying to use exact figures, since I have no way of knowing them. I was just trying to make a point that DirecTV used to charge $5/mo for locals when I doubt they paid anywhere near that for the broadcast rights. Now it seems they've absorbed that cost, but that is probably in response to Dish's aggressive pricing (or even FIOS) more than cable. And DirecTV certainly doesn't carry the 10 locals in Dallas or the 25 in SF AFAIK.


DirecTV carries 17 locals in Dallas. (HD on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, and MNTV.)
However, they "only" carry 21 of the San Francisco locals. (HD on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, and MNTV.)

I was only talking about HD's, mostly because that's all they list on their website, but I hadn't thought about the SD ones at all. I suppose that really makes the argument an incorrect one and perhaps the former $5 charge averages out costs across the country. However, I wonder just what they pay for all those locals and who they actually pay. Am I the only one that finds all this very strange and inconsistent?

I was only talking about HD's, mostly because that's all they list on their website, but I hadn't thought about the SD ones at all. I suppose that really makes the argument an incorrect one and perhaps the former $5 charge averages out costs across the country. However, I wonder just what they pay for all those locals and who they actually pay. Am I the only one that finds all this very strange and inconsistent?

I don't find it strange or inconsistent. They do it to be competitive with cable. As has been shown, DBS only took off after they offered locals. If you tried to price based on the number of locals it would be a nightmare - also what would happen if they had retransmission disputes? Your bill changes for that period of time? It's easier to just charge a flat $5.

As to who gets the money, obviously the channels (or the parent company)receives the amount they contract for with D*.

I understand all that, but I simply don't believe D* (or Dish) pays all those locals and certainly not the same amount in each market, etc.

I understand all that, but I simply don't believe D* (or Dish) pays all those locals and certainly not the same amount in each market, etc.

Well, of course. Something like a low power Azteca affiliate is just happy to be there. However, you can bet that all of the big four affiliates in any decently sized market are being paid for carriage.

There is no doubt the TV landscape is changing and that is just another reason why I think Sinclair (and CBS) is actually shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.

If that were true you would have Sinclair fighting tooth and nail to stay on. The exact opposite is happening. Mediacom is fighting for its life here (if you want to watch ABC or FOX you go somewhere else but Sinclair still has ABC or FOX, no change with them) and is trying every legal stunt they can think of (with very few actually working), including getting the elected representatives involved to try and stop the "evil broadcaster." Sinclair is quitely sitting by and not doing anything which is killing Mediacom because they are the only one making noise about this.

Now whose foot is bleeding and whose foot isn't? And remember, CBS has LOTS more money available to them than Sinclair.

That is true for now, but corporate greed has a way of coming back to bite both sides. Mediacom is only taking their part to the public and there is a lot more at stake than just what happens to Mediacom. Like the auto union philosophy, if one caves, they all cave, and we all lose. This is just the tip of the iceberg in raising rates across all delivery platforms. Anyone who believes Sinclair is just trying to get a fair deal and will stop here is dreaming.

CBS is different in that at least the $$$ will go toward product. All Sinclair does is rebroadcast, they create nothing, with the exception of local news perhaps. Someone else suggested we simply do away with locals and give us the network feeds direct, just like all the other cable/sat networks. If we have to pay for them, we ought to at least get something for our money and not have to put up with crappy local equipment that takes an engineer's due diligence to switch back and forth from SD/HD cleanly, audio that echos, has static, 2.0 when it should be 5.1, etc.

There is no doubt we'll eventually pay, but we get nothing in return, absolutely nothing IMHO. What I had yesterday is what I'll get tomorrow and I'll pay more for it. :(

So chances are that the total paid for retransmission consent by the satellite companies isn't going to be much over $2.00 right now, no matter how many stations a particular market has.

If the average basic cable bill is around $40, and the pretax profit is 15% ($6), an increase in costs of $2 erases a third of the pretax.

$2 doesn't sound like much when you're looking at a $120 triple play cable bill, but in reality, it is a big chunk out of the bottom line.

In order to maintain a 15% pretax on top of a $2 increase in cost would require a $13.33 increase in revenue.

Just another way of looking at cable's postition.

On the other hand, there is NO increase in cost to the broadcaster to enjoy retransmission cash, it's basically free money.

$2 for programming that represents close to half the viewing of their customers vs $20 - $25 for what they're paying for the other half sounds like a bargain.

Maybe their pretax profit outlook would be much better if they weren't making such poor value decisions when purchasing programming.

... If we have to pay for them, we ought to at least get something for our money and not have to put up with crappy local equipment that takes an engineer's due diligence to switch back and forth from SD/HD cleanly, audio that echos, has static, 2.0 when it should be 5.1, etc. ... :(That's for sure. The general incompetence of local stations when it comes to their digital broadcasts is wearing thin. They provide the service of broadcasting the signal OTA, fine. But if I have to pay extra to watch the major networks via cable then it's time to give me the option to cut out the middleman and get a direct feed from the network, without the degradation from multicasting and the signal degradation.

I've said it a million times, but if the cablecos were smart, they'd require a full bandwidth HD feed in return for the carriage fee. It would serve a dual purpose:

1) Any resistance by the broadcaster would allow the cableco to claim that they want to be paid, but are unwilling to guarantee a high quality feed.

2) It prevents the broadcaster from leveraging the primary channel to force carriage of subchannels - and even if there is a legislative mandate regarding multicast must-carry, invoking it would mean that the local broadcaster gives up their carriage fee.

If, when the satellite providers reduced their use of bandwidth for HD, they left the bandwidth unused, they would have reduced their costs. Instead, they use it for paid programming. Therefore, they do not reduce their costs. They do, however, increase their revenue. It is important in business to recognize the difference between decreased costs and increased revenue. (Of course, both result in increased profit.)

$2 for programming that represents close to half the viewing of their customers vs $20 - $25 for what they're paying for the other half sounds like a bargain.

Maybe their pretax profit outlook would be much better if they weren't making such poor value decisions when purchasing programming.

Maybe competition from satellite and the need to "bulk-up" programming carriage with dozens of unnecessary channels is what has actually caused rates to increase. :eek: :eek: :eek:

True, life would be much easier for the cablecos if they had no competition and they could get all their programming at no charge. :rolleyes:

True, life would be much easier for the cablecos if they had no competition and they could get all their programming at no charge. :rolleyes:

Do the math

More channels = fewer viewers per channel = less advertising revenue = higher license fees.

Without competition, you would probably be getting fewer channels, and paying less. And there was a time when most cable networks did launch for free. You may not have been born yet. :D :D :D

If, when the satellite providers reduced their use of bandwidth for HD, they left the bandwidth unused, they would have reduced their costs. Instead, they use it for paid programming. Therefore, they do not reduce their costs. They do, however, increase their revenue. It is important in business to recognize the difference between decreased costs and increased revenue. (Of course, both result in increased profit.)

Your knowledge is even more limited than I suspected - even though others have tried to tell you differently.

D* would need additional satellites to put on the niche programming which add to their bottom line. When you put on 100+ channels of foreign language programming that cable does not supply, you increase your sub base and revenues - just as ST does.

Now you are just showing a total ignorance of economics and business.

CBS is different in that at least the $$$ will go toward product. All Sinclair does is rebroadcast, they create nothing, with the exception of local news perhaps.



Incorrect. CBS will go to the stations, not the network. Nothing will go towards better programming on the network.


Someone else suggested we simply do away with locals and give us the network feeds direct, just like all the other cable/sat networks. If we have to pay for them, we ought to at least get something for our money and not have to put up with crappy local equipment that takes an engineer's due diligence to switch back and forth from SD/HD cleanly, audio that echos, has static, 2.0 when it should be 5.1, etc.


You mean like the crappy cable systems that people still pay their money to that bandwidth limit things while other cable systems do not? Or UHD that cannot get 5.1 audio right?


There is no doubt we'll eventually pay, but we get nothing in return, absolutely nothing IMHO.

Untrue - you will get Network programming, so you are getting something in return. And if you don't want to pay, just put up an OTA antenna - or get DBS Basic without locals and use an OTA antenna.

If the average basic cable bill is around $40, and the pretax profit is 15% ($6), an increase in costs of $2 erases a third of the pretax.

$2 doesn't sound like much when you're looking at a $120 triple play cable bill, but in reality, it is a big chunk out of the bottom line.

In order to maintain a 15% pretax on top of a $2 increase in cost would require a $13.33 increase in revenue.

Just another way of looking at cable's postition.

On the other hand, there is NO increase in cost to the broadcaster to enjoy retransmission cash, it's basically free money.


They better sharpen their pencils then. DBS has been able to do it - it's their time to step up - and this train has left the station and isn't going back.

Nevertheless, Mr. FanAtic, you had better learn how to distinguish between decreased expenditures and increased revenues or you'll never make it in business.

By the way, I've been meaning to advise you that it is "losing" and not "loosing" as you consistently use it. No offense intended.

Nevertheless, Mr. FanAtic, you had better learn how to distinguish between decreased expenditures and increased revenues or you'll never make it in business.

lol....as I and others have tried to help you out with, by D* decreasing their SD from 640x480 and their HD from 1920x1080, they are able to save significant bandwidth. They would not be able to carry everything they have had as their core without doing so. They would have needed more Orbital Positions. Thus they have decreased their expenditures.

That they have been able to add additional programming is a totally different matter - which added additional revenue from lower expenses.

They decreased expenditures and would have decreased expenditures regardless of increasing to foreign language programming - which otherwise would not have been on their core birds - and thus - increased expenditures to put in multiple dishes and switches to service.

As for spelling, I am sure you have never made a mistake of not running things through the SpellCheck at times - especially when one can type 70 words a minutes - right? :D

They better sharpen their pencils then. DBS has been able to do it - it's their time to step up - and this train has left the station and isn't going back.

Although from a consumer perspective, cable and satellite are similar products, from an operational side they are very different.

Cable has a huge infrastructure to maintain, thousands of headends, and hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber and coax. The acquistion cost per subscriber is several times more for a cable operator than a satellite operator. Satellite can afford to spend a larger chunk of their revenue on programming.

Cable on the other hand can generate revenue that a mono-directional delivery system cannot. Cable will win this battle in the end simply because it is a much more flexible technology, and unlike the telcos, the infrastructure is already in place.

DBS is scrambling to figure out it's future.

And, of course, cable companies have massive infrastructure requirements for telephone and broadband services.

Listen to any Wall Street analysts presentation by cable in the past several years, and any discussion of television is always after those of internet and telephone service.

And when TV is mentioned it usually comes in the context of "bundling" or "VOD" and how those will keep the cable subs tethered to the company's services.

Quality and HD are rarely ever discussed.

And, of course, cable companies have massive infrastructure requirements for telephone and broadband services.

Listen to any Wall Street analysts presentation by cable in the past several years, and television is always mentioned after internet and telephone service. And when it is mentioned it usually comes in the context of "bundling" of "VOD"and how those keep the cable subs tethered to the company's services.

Quality and HD are rarely ever mentioned.

Cable has obviously been focusing on what have been the biggest growth opportunities. Everybody has a phone. Almost everybody has a computer.

HDTV is only just now becoming a revenue opportunity for program suppliers and distributors. Much work is being done in the background to satisfy the bandwidth hungry HD monster, and 2007 will be the year that we start seeing the results hit the streets.

Everybody is trying to "bundle". Nothing wrong with it as a business strategy.

I've said it a million times, but if the cablecos were smart, they'd require a full bandwidth HD feed in return for the carriage fee. It would serve a dual purpose:

1) Any resistance by the broadcaster would allow the cableco to claim that they want to be paid, but are unwilling to guarantee a high quality feed.

2) It prevents the broadcaster from leveraging the primary channel to force carriage of subchannels - and even if there is a legislative mandate regarding multicast must-carry, invoking it would mean that the local broadcaster gives up their carriage fee.Now that I can get behind 1000%, but you know it's not at all likely, so I still remain opposed to puitting cash in Sinclair's pockets for absolutely no added value.

Now you are just showing a total ignorance of economics and business.I agree, but for my part, I really don't care about sound business practices or economics, except for that which directly affects me. I know all of this is based on what folks on both sides believe is best for them. If I were Mediacom, I would have simply agreed to the $.50 and been done with it. I believe they are suffering short-term much more than Sinclair ever will. If I were a cableco, I'd be offering ala carte programming, along with a multitude of tiers at different price points, and I would advertise the heck out of DirecTV's HDLite. Of course, this assumes I could renegotiate contracts to allow me to offer ala carte, etc. I think everyone in the game is short-sighted, except for DirecTV, and DirecTV is currently being run by someone who built much of the current cable malaise and is totally taking advantage of his insider knowledge, and he certainly can't be blamed for that.

Untrue - you will get Network programming, so you are getting something in return.Nothing more than we already get today. You know very well what I was talking about. Do you have to nit-pick every little point?

You mean like the crappy cable systems that people still pay their money to that bandwidth limit things while other cable systems do not? Or UHD that cannot get 5.1 audio right?No, I mean like FX, USA, SciFi, et al. And the fact that UHD can't get their act together means I only have one source to go to and complain, and they can't point their finger of blame at someone else. In all these years, we have yet to have a clear ABC broadcast of anything due to a crappy local affiliate, and they were first to go HD here.

Incorrect. CBS will go to the stations, not the network. Nothing will go towards better programming on the network.If you say so. :)

Although from a consumer perspective, cable and satellite are similar products, from an operational side they are very different.

Cable has a huge infrastructure to maintain, thousands of headends, and hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber and coax. The acquistion cost per subscriber is several times more for a cable operator than a satellite operator. Satellite can afford to spend a larger chunk of their revenue on programming.

Cable on the other hand can generate revenue that a mono-directional delivery system cannot. Cable will win this battle in the end simply because it is a much more flexible technology, and unlike the telcos, the infrastructure is already in place.

DBS is scrambling to figure out it's future.Here I agee with HDTVFanAtic. I don't care that one provider has more or fewer costs than another, that's the nature of the business they chose to get into. I support all providers paying the same price for every channel/bundle. I simply object to paying Sinclair because it's a change to past/current practices and may raise my cable bill. :)

I've said it a million times, but if the cablecos were smart, they'd require a full bandwidth HD feed in return for the carriage fee. It would serve a dual purpose:

There is one little problem with your plan. Most MSOs don't have the bandwidth to give full bandwidth OTA so they have no bargaining chip there.

lol....as I and others have tried to help you out with, by D* decreasing their SD from 640x480 and their HD from 1920x1080, they are able to save significant bandwidth. They would not be able to carry everything they have had as their core without doing so. They would have needed more Orbital Positions. Thus they have decreased their expenditures.

That they have been able to add additional programming is a totally different matter - which added additional revenue from lower expenses.

They decreased expenditures and would have decreased expenditures regardless of increasing to foreign language programming - which otherwise would not have been on their core birds - and thus - increased expenditures to put in multiple dishes and switches to service.

As for spelling, I am sure you have never made a mistake of not running things through the SpellCheck at times - especially when one can type 70 words a minutes - right? :D

"They would not be able to carry everything they have had as their core without doing so."

You make my point. ......... They shaved HD QUALITY by reducing the bandwidth used for HD. They CONTINUED to make the expenditure for bandwidth, however, to continue carrying their core which served to provide revenue. It was a REVENUE side business move created by a reduction in quality on the HD side. This is an important distinction in business. (There was a reduction in quality, but not dollar expenditures.)

On the other matter, you were not making a typo every time you spelled the word as "loosing" rather than "losing". Nobody knows everything and this was just one of the things that you didn't know. Accept it and move on or you'll remain stuck in neutral.

Nothing more than we already get today. You know very well what I was talking about. Do you have to nit-pick every little point?

When Napster was around you got all your mp3 for free. Now its gone or more clandistined. If you want downloads, iTunes and others offer them. So how is this any different - unless its just the Internet Generation thinking there are no ownership rights?

"They would not be able to carry everything they have had as their core without doing so."

You make my point. ......... They shaved HD QUALITY by reducing the bandwidth used for HD. They CONTINUED to make the expenditure for bandwidth, however, to continue carrying their core which served to provide revenue. It was a REVENUE side business move created by a reduction in quality on the HD side. This is an important distinction in business. (There was a reduction in quality, but not dollar expenditures.)

On the other matter, you were not making a typo every time you spelled the word as "loosing" rather than "losing". Nobody knows everything and this was just one of the things that you didn't know. Accept it and move on or you'll remain stuck in neutral.

You are talking in circles.....they saved money and expense by down resolution - regardless of what they did with that savings.

I'm not going after another Harvard MBA either, so I don't intend to critically proof read everything here before I hit post.....as its not that important to me to do so.

Cable has a huge infrastructure to maintain, thousands of headends, and hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber and coax. The acquistion cost per subscriber is several times more for a cable operator than a satellite operator. Satellite can afford to spend a larger chunk of their revenue on programming.



I am very curious as to how you are coming up with these figures.

It seems you are looking at what a long term sub is worth to cable versus new Acquisition Cost per Subscriber (SAC) for DBS. They are not the same thing.

Acquisition Cost per Subscriber when purchasing a cable system is dependent on how much a sub is valued in the market. For example, TWC/Comcast paid roughly $3400 per sub on the Adelphia deal last year. It was as high as $5100 per sub back in 1999 when Cox Cable purchased a system but of course, this was to buy the system and the subs. It's equivalent in DBS terms would be what D* would pay for E* or vice versa.

This is totally different than New Subscriber Acquisition Cost costs for DBS that runs in the mid $600 range.

And be careful, the spelling police will be knocking on your door for leaving out the i in acquisition - fortunately I am smart enough to understand what you mean :D

These peope are in panic mode - there is no other explanation. They are even attacking the FCC, who there were sure were going to reverse the Media Bureau's decision, lol, and who they have to work with in the future.

As Sinclair said, if they aren't loosing (sorry stan54) customers, why do they care so much and why are they burning themselves at the FCC and with other cable operators????

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070115/20070113005016.html?.v=2

Press Release Source: Mediacom Communications Corporation

Mediacom CEO Calls on the U.S. Congress to Hold Hearings on Retransmission Consent Abuses and Sinclair Matter
Monday January 15, 9:39 am ET

MIDDLETOWN, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 13, 2007:
MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (NASDAQ: MCCC - News) today released a copy of a letter written by Rocco B. Commisso, Chairman and CEO, to members of Congress who represent Mediacom's employees and customers in 23 states.

The letter addressed yesterday's announcement by the Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission that it was not willing to order Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SBGI - News) to restore its broadcast stations' signals to 2 million viewers in 700,000 households in small communities across America while the full Commission considers Mediacom's claim that Sinclair has unlawfully failed to negotiate with Mediacom in good faith to reach a fair and non-discriminatory deal.

The letter calls on key Senators and Congressmen to urge the FCC's Chairman, Kevin Martin, and the other Commissioners to honor the Commission's mandate to protect the public interest by exercising its broad remedial authority under the Communications Act to secure, at the very least, interim carriage of the Sinclair stations on Mediacom cable systems. In addition, the letter calls for Congressional investigations and hearings regarding retransmission consent abuses and the FCC's handling of the Sinclair-Mediacom dispute.

According to the letter, Sinclair has:

Singled out Mediacom and its customers for discriminatory treatment, rejecting Mediacom's multiple offers to pay prices based on what Sinclair charges comparable cable operators and rejecting consideration consistent with what Mediacom pays the 475 stations with which it has successfully negotiated retransmission consent.

Repeatedly raised its price demands even as Mediacom attempted to close the gap between the parties and reneged on commitments made during negotiations.

Participated in an anticompetitive arrangement with DIRECTV, Mediacom's largest competitor, to induce (through cash payments) Mediacom's customers to cancel their service and switch to DIRECTV (even though such service ultimately is more costly to the customer).

Misrepresented Mediacom's financial condition to the investment community in an attempt to coerce Mediacom to give in to Sinclair's unreasonable demands.

Repeatedly rejected Mediacom's requests that this dispute be resolved by binding arbitration before an independent, impartial arbitrator with no prior stake in the dispute.

Refused to agree to allow interim carriage as the parties continue to negotiate, even though Mediacom has offered to pay cash during the interim period while, on the other hand, Sinclair just yesterday granted Time Warner the second of two extensions preventing a shutoff of Sinclair stations in Time Warner systems.

Mediacom also points out that numerous members of Congress, including the entire bi-partisan Iowa Congressional Delegation, have strongly recommended to the FCC and Sinclair that the public interest would be served by binding arbitration and continued carriage of the stations. To date, Mediacom says, the FCC and Sinclair have ignored these entreaties.

According to the letter, Mediacom's FCC lawyers disagree with the Media Bureau's position that it lacks the authority to order interim carriage or binding arbitration. Mediacom also points out that the harm to the public of the continuing service interruption is significant and Sinclair would not be hurt since Mediacom is willing to pay for interim carriage.

The full text of the letter is attached.

Mediacom Communications is the nation's 8th largest cable television company and one of the leading cable operators focused on serving the smaller cities and towns in the United States. Mediacom Communications offers a wide array of broadband products and services, including traditional video services, digital television, video-on-demand, digital video recorders, high-definition television, high-speed Internet access and phone service.

Below is the letter written by Rocco B. Commisso, Mediacom Chairman and CEO, to members of Congress who represent Mediacom's employees and customers in 23 states:

Dear Senators and Congressmen:

Yesterday afternoon (on the eve of a three day holiday weekend), the FCC's Media Bureau issued an order denying Mediacom's request that it be given interim carriage rights to allow Mediacom to restore Sinclair's stations to the cable line-ups of 2 million viewers in 700,000 households in small communities across America while the full Commission considers the lawfulness of Sinclair's refusal to negotiate with Mediacom on a reasonable, non-discriminatory basis.

Congress entrusted to the FCC the responsibility to protect the public and gave it ample authority under the Communications Act to carry out that obligation. By denying Mediacom's request for interim carriage, the Bureau has failed to carry out this fundamental, Congressionally-mandated duty.

On behalf of Mediacom's affected subscribers, employees and shareholders, I write to ask you to support the immediate restoration of Sinclair's signals to our customers and your constituents while we fight the FCC's actions through the appeal process.

It is our belief that any objective observer would have to concede that Sinclair's treatment of Mediacom and its customers has been unreasonable, unfair, and unlawful. Among other things, Sinclair:

Has singled out Mediacom and its customers for discriminatory treatment as evidenced by:
-- rejecting Mediacom's offer to pay prices that Sinclair
charges comparable cable operators;

-- rejecting amounts consistent with what Mediacom pays the
475 stations with which it has successfully negotiated
retransmission consent;

-- rejecting Mediacom's offer to pay the amount ultimately
agreed to by Sinclair and Time Warner in their current
negotiations;

-- Refusing to agree to allow interim carriage while the
parties continue to negotiate, even though Mediacom has
offered to pay Sinclair cash consideration and even though,
just yesterday, Sinclair granted Time Warner the second of
two such extensions in the last two weeks.

Has repeatedly raised its price demands even as Mediacom attempted to close the gap between the parties and reneged on commitments made during negotiations.

Over the past several months, has participated in an anticompetitive arrangement with DIRECTV, Mediacom's largest competitor, aimed at inducing (through cash payments) Mediacom's customers to cancel their service and switch to DIRECTV (even though such service may be ultimately more costly to the customer).

Significantly, Sinclair has engaged in this campaign only against Mediacom and is not taking similar measures against other cable operators with which it is currently negotiating, such as Time Warner or Comcast.

Misrepresented Mediacom's financial condition to the investment community in an attempt to coerce Mediacom to give in to Sinclair's unreasonable demands.
Has refused to accept Mediacom's repeated offers to resolve this dispute through binding arbitration.

Repeatedly made take-it-or-leave-it demands and refused to make themselves available for discussions. For example, as recently as last night, Sinclair indicated that it cannot resume negotiations with Mediacom until the middle of next week because its general counsel is not available and its CEO is going goose-hunting.

In its orders favoring Sinclair, the FCC has stated that it lacks the authority to order interim carriage. Yet, the Media Bureau was prepared to issue precisely such an order at the end of November and did not do so only because Sinclair capitulated to pressure and granted Mediacom a short-term extension (which expired January 5, 2007). Over the past several weeks and days, numerous members of Congress, including the entire bi-partisan Iowa Congressional Delegation, have expressed to the FCC and to Sinclair that the public interest would be served by binding arbitration and interim carriage while the full Commission considers Mediacom's case. Yet both Sinclair and the FCC have ignored these entreaties.

The decisions made by the FCC favor a party that not only has caused damage to Mediacom and its 4,200 employees in small communities in 23 states, but severely inconvenienced tens of thousands of lower-income households or senior citizens who Mediacom serves with its relatively inexpensive basic tier of cable service, and who may not have an over-the-air alternative because of Sinclair's weak UHF signals in some of our rural markets.

During the past 3 months of our very public dispute with Sinclair, the only thing we ever asked for is a market-driven, non-discriminatory deal that is fair to everyone. Over this period, we have put on the table various proposals to achieve those objectives, including those that we offered the past three days. Unfortunately, as we have consistently increased our financial offers, Sinclair has responded with increasing demands both in price and non-price terms. In fact, the costs to Mediacom represented by Sinclair's current demands are significantly higher than what they were as recently as September 2006.

Through our filings at the FCC, the Media Bureau has been made aware of these and the other abusive tactics utilized by Sinclair to strong-arm Mediacom into a deal that, if accepted, will set the stage for dramatic increases in basic cable rates nationally and put Mediacom and smaller cable operators at a competitive disadvantage for video services with satellite companies, which dwarf the size of the entire American Cable Association membership.

To put it more clearly: if the FCC's approval of Sinclair's actions is allowed to stand, other broadcasters will follow suit and the result will be the imposition of a $6 billion annual tax on the American public to watch "free" over-the-air television, a burden that will fall disproportionately on those least able to afford it and on rural Americans.

While Mediacom sought intervention from the FCC to enforce Congress' intent that retransmission consent not be abused by broadcasters, Mediacom also has been doing all that it can to protect the public, including handing out tens of thousands of free rabbit-ear antennas to its subscribers, even though doing so actually helps Sinclair (by keeping up its advertising viewership). However, it is time for the FCC to step up and fulfill its responsibility to protect Mediacom's customers, your constituents and, indeed, all subscription television customers across the country.

It is imperative that you immediately write to Chairman Martin and each of the other Commissioners to urge them to fulfill their public duty to protect the interests of the public by taking action to cause Sinclair to reauthorize carriage of its stations on Mediacom's cable systems.

In addition, I ask you to support investigations and hearings regarding retransmission consent abuses and the FCC's handling of such abuses. I would gladly welcome the opportunity to testify in connection with such investigation or hearings to ensure that the full story of the Mediacom-Sinclair dispute is made part of the public record.

Thank you for the support you provided Mediacom in the past and hopefully in the immediate future on this very important matter to your constituents and the American public.

Best regards,

Rocco B. Commisso
Chairman and CEO

cc: U.S. Senate
Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
Co-Chairman Ted Stevens

U.S. House of Representatives
Chairman John D. Dingell
Chairman Edward Markey
Ranking Member Joe Barton
Ranking Member Fred Upton

Panic Mode Continues

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070115/20070115005552.html?.v=1

Press Release Source: Mediacom Communications Corporation


Mediacom Again Offers Binding Arbitration to Sinclair Pursuant to Strong Recommendation of FCC
Monday January 15, 4:45 pm ET

MIDDLETOWN, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (NASDAQ: MCCC - News) announced that it again offered to submit to binding arbitration as a means of settling its ongoing retransmission consent dispute with Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SBGI - News). In its latest proposal to Sinclair, Mediacom would accept final binding arbitration before the FCC Media Bureau under established procedures for arbitrating retransmission consent disputes previously adopted by the FCC in the News Corp./DirecTV order published on January 14, 2004.

Mediacom's offer is consistent with the strong recommendation made by the Media Bureau in its recent order dated January 12, 2007, which stated:

Although the Commission does not have the authority to require the parties to submit to binding arbitration, we continue to strongly encourage them to submit to binding arbitration. Both parties could agree to final binding arbitration by the Media Bureau. If both parties agree to final binding arbitration by the Media Bureau, we would require Sinclair to authorize Mediacom's continued carriage of its stations' signals during the pendency of arbitration pursuant to the terms of the November 30, 2006 agreement between the parties, or, if so directed by the parties, pursuant to the per subscriber daily rate as proposed by Sinclair to Mediacom on January 11, 2007.

"Despite our disagreement with all the Media Bureau decisions on the Sinclair matter, including whether the FCC already has the authority to order binding arbitration and continued carriage, we are heeding the FCC's strong recommendation so that it orders Sinclair to reinstate the stations immediately, with or without agreement on procedural matters," said John Pascarelli, Mediacom EVP of Operations. "It is readily apparent to Mediacom, the Commission and federal lawmakers that binding arbitration is a realistic solution to this stalemate. We are hopeful that Sinclair will quickly accept this recommendation and not try to undermine the government's clear direction or stall this process by imposing unreasonable conditions on arbitration" concluded Pascarelli.

Mediacom Communications is the nation's 8th largest cable television company and one of the leading cable operators focused on serving the smaller cities and towns in the United States. Mediacom Communications offers a wide array of broadband products and services, including traditional video services, digital television, video-on-demand, digital video recorders, high-definition television, high-speed Internet access and phone service.

It might be interesting if Mediacom put up a web page outlining the exact demands and letting their customers (only) vote on how much extra they would be willing to pay for those services. Make the results public.

- Tom

Well, Wall Street is voting

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

and considering MCCC is signalling there is blood in the water, this might get very interesting.

I am very curious as to how you are coming up with these figures.

For thirty years I've designed cable systems, new build & upgrades, both domestically and interntionally, and have been a project manager on several marquee projects. I know the math like the back of my hand. :D

For thirty years I've designed cable systems, new build & upgrades, both domestically and interntionally, and have been a project manager on several marquee projects. I know the math like the back of my hand. :D


Good for you....you know what 100ft of RG6 cost.

But again, you failed to answer the question.

Where are you coming up with the New Subscriber Acquisition Cost that a MSO incurs and that has nothing to do with building a system just as launching a new satellite has nothing to do with SAC for a DBS company.

You are talking in circles.....they saved money and expense by down resolution - regardless of what they did with that savings.

I'm not going after another Harvard MBA either, so I don't intend to critically proof read everything here before I hit post.....as its not that important to me to do so.

OK, one last chance for you to understand how this works and then we will have to move along.

The company did not save money by reducing the use of available bandwidth for HD. They kept right on purchasing the bandwidth. They merely changed its use so as to not lose revenue. This is a revenue move in business. You must work on this concept.

Oh yeah, all the proofreading you can do won't help if you don't know how to spell the word. Don't feel bad, however, few of us know how to spell every word correctly. It's only wrong to blame it on proofreading or spellcheck. It reflects an inability to admit mistakes and that casts doubt on your credibility.

Now, do you have any fresh information on the status of the Sinclair negotiations with Time Warner regarding the former Adelphia systems? Are we going to have to pay more?

Good for you....you know what 100ft of RG6 cost.

But again, you failed to answer the question.

Where are you coming up with the New Subscriber Acquisition Cost that a MSO incurs and that has nothing to do with building a system just as launching a new satellite has nothing to do with SAC for a DBS company.

Capital costs or expense or both ??? Contract labor ??? Never wired or prewired ??? Aerial or underground ??? Set-tops or not ??? Kansas or California ??? Marketing dollars or direct expense ??? Anywhere from $100 to $1000.

Plus the cost of the installation and maintenance of the physical plant. A good comparison of the economics of a cable system vs. DBS would be the difference between the costs of running a full service restaurant that happens to serve pizza, and the costs of running a low overhead pizza delivery shop.

I can more easily tell you what armored 144 core fiber trunk bundled in 12 core tubes cost than RG-6. :D :D :D

Capital costs or expense or both ??? Contract labor ??? Never wired or prewired ??? Aerial or underground ??? Set-tops or not ??? Kansas or California ??? Marketing dollars or direct expense ??? Anywhere from $100 to $1000.

Plus the cost of the installation and maintenance of the physical plant. A good comparison of the economics of a cable system vs. DBS would be the difference between the costs of running a full service restaurant that happens to serve pizza, and the costs of running a low overhead pizza delivery shop.

I can more easily tell you what armored 144 core fiber trunk bundled in 12 core tubes cost than RG-6. :D :D :D

You da man, posg. You've been there and done that. You even use low case for your sign-in name.

FanAtic is one who memorizes lots of statistics and language to dazzle them in the board room, but it's all about an inch deep, I would wager. He seeks to offset any questioning with a lot of chest pounding. I would sooner look to your guidance in the board room.

You da man, posg. You've been there and done that. You even use low case for your sign-in name.

FanAtic is one who memorizes lots of statistics and language to dazzle them in the board room, but it's all about an inch deep, I would wager. He seeks to offset any questioning with a lot of chest pounding. I would sooner look to your guidance in the board room.

Thanks. :) :) :)

It reflects an inability to admit mistakes and that casts doubt on your credibility.


Go look in the mirror.

And then go 2 pages back and look at the inclusion of a certain County in Neveda in the Denver DM



Now, do you have any fresh information on the status of the Sinclair negotiations with Time Warner regarding the former Adelphia systems? Are we going to have to pay more?

I've never claimed to have inside information on any of the Sinclair negotiations. Everything I have posted has been in the public domain and business sense. That is the way real companies release information and the way TWC and SBGI have conducted their negotitations - between the 2 parties and not in the press - a lesson MCCC should learn from.

Are you going to pay more? Again, that depends on what cost the MSO wants to pass on - but a simple guess would be yes.

Capital costs or expense or both ??? Contract labor ??? Never wired or prewired ??? Aerial or underground ??? Set-tops or not ??? Kansas or California ??? Marketing dollars or direct expense ??? Anywhere from $100 to $1000.

Plus the cost of the installation and maintenance of the physical plant. A good comparison of the economics of a cable system vs. DBS would be the difference between the costs of running a full service restaurant that happens to serve pizza, and the costs of running a low overhead pizza delivery shop.

I can more easily tell you what armored 144 core fiber trunk bundled in 12 core tubes cost than RG-6. :D :D :D


Great - and for the second time you have told me you can play General Contractor and price what it cost to build a system. Stan54 doesn't understand the difference, but we've already realized that from his posts - but the real world does.

The system is built and new customers subscribe every quarter - and you state:

The acquistion cost per subscriber is several times more for a cable operator than a satellite operator. Satellite can afford to spend a larger chunk of their revenue on programming.



Again, for the 3rd time, I am asking how you are coming up with that statement for New Suscriber Acquisition Costs as the Capital Buildout is not included in SAC in either DBS or MSO and a real insider (as you say you are) who knew the operation and wasn't a clerk at Cable Supply Outlet would realize this.

Sinclair Responds to Mediacom's Letter to Congress
Tuesday January 16, 10:32 am ET

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070116/phtu026.html?.v=72


BALTIMORE, Jan. 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SBGI - News) today sent the attached letter to members of Congress to respond to the inaccurate and outrageous claims made by Mediacom Communications Corp. (Nasdaq: MCCC - News) in a letter it sent to the same members of Congress on January 13, 2007. Sinclair is releasing a copy of its letter to the public because Mediacom, in a continuing effort to publicly air private business negotiations, publicly released the letter it sent.

As Sinclair pointed out in its letter, Mediacom has been unsuccessful in its past attempts to obtain help from both a Federal court and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). That Mediacom, having failed in both the courts and at the FCC, would now try to obtain intervention from the legislative branch of the Federal government is not surprising. Mediacom's efforts represent nothing more than the desperate attempt of a private enterprise to seek Congressional assistance to remedy its failure to reach agreement during private negotiations. Given 1) that well-established laws exist regarding retransmission consent negotiations, 2) the Federal agency charged with overseeing such negotiations has already found that Sinclair acted properly, and 3) the variety of other means consumers have for receiving the stations, Sinclair is confident Mediacom's efforts with members of Congress will have the same effect as did its unsuccessful efforts to seek judicial and administrative assistance.

Although it may be Mediacom's belief (as stated in its letter) that "any objective observer would have to concede that Sinclair's treatment of Mediacom ... has been unreasonable and unlawful," Sinclair believes that the fact that two such objective observers - a Federal court and the FCC - have reached precisely the opposite conclusion would suggest that Mediacom's belief is completely incorrect.

The impacted stations 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.

Forward-Looking Statements:

The matters discussed in this press release include forward-looking statements regarding, among other things, future operating results. When used in this press release, the words "outlook," "intends to," "believes," "anticipates," "expects," "achieves," and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results in the future could differ materially and adversely from those described in the forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including and in addition to the assumptions identified above, the impact of changes in national and regional economies, successful integration of acquired television stations (including achievement of synergies and cost reductions), FCC approval of pending license transfers, successful execution of outsourcing agreements, pricing and demand fluctuations in local and national advertising, volatility in programming costs, the market acceptance of new programming and our news central strategy, our local sales initiatives, and the other risk factors set forth in the Company's most recent reports on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There can be no assurances that the assumptions and other factors referred to in this release will occur. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly release the result of any revisions to these forward-looking statements.

The following is Sinclair's letter to Congress responding to Mediacom's inaccurate and outrageous statements made in its January 13, 2007 letter to members of Congress:


January 16, 2007

The Senators and Congressmen of the
States of Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri,
North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and
Wisconsin
United States Congress
Washington, DC

Gentlemen:

I am writing in response to a letter you recently received from Rocco Commisso, the CEO of Mediacom Communications Corp, relating to retransmission consent negotiations between Mediacom and Sinclair. Although Mr. Commisso made numerous baseless and outrageous allegations in his letter, I am going to confine my response to the following most material points.

1. Well-established laws already exist which clearly provide that such negotiations are simply, ordinary course of business negotiations between private enterprises, subject to the review by the Federal Communications Commission to ensure the parties meet their obligation to negotiate in good faith. Such laws contemplate the possibility that the parties will at times not reach agreement.

2. Mediacom previously made essentially the same allegation made in Mr. Commisso's letter in filings with the Federal Communications Commission. After a full review of the situations, including lengthy, written submissions and in-person meetings with both parties, the FCC found completely against Mediacom, concluding that Sinclair had not failed to negotiate in good faith.

3. Mediacom previously brought a lawsuit against Sinclair in Federal District Court in Iowa. The Court in that matter denied a request for an injunction sought by Mediacom, finding in favor of Sinclair on all aspects of the matter including a conclusion that Mediacom was not likely to succeed on the merits of its claim.

4. Mediacom's cable systems represent nothing more than one of several means for receiving Sinclair's television stations. These stations are all available completely for free over-the-air. In addition, both DirecTV and Dish Network (direct competitors to Mediacom) carry all of the stations, as do (in certain cases) other cable companies that serve the same customers as Mediacom. Although there may be a minor inconvenience for Mediacom customers who choose to make alternative arrangements to receive the stations, such alternative arrangements do in fact exist.

In the end, Mediacom has written to you about a simple commercial negotiation where two parties have not been able to reach agreement. This matter has already been carefully considered by the FCC, the governmental agency charged with overseeing such negotiations, which has found that Sinclair has fully complied with the law. A process for review and appeal of the FCC's opinion exists and Mediacom has already begun availing itself of this appeal process. To the extent members of the public care strongly about watching Sinclair's programming, they can take simple steps to receive the stations through means other than cable services provided by Mediacom.

In addition, to the extent Mediacom remains interested in obtaining the right to retransmit such stations, Sinclair continues to be willing to negotiate in good faith. We are, however, concerned that the ongoing belief by Mediacom that the government, whether the judicial, administrative or legislative branches, will step in to remedy their failure to complete a transaction has a chilling affect on Mediacom's willingness to agree to fair and reasonable terms.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that you advise Mediacom that this is not a matter that requires Congressional action. To the extent, however, that I can provide you with any additional information, please let me know.


Sincerely yours,

David D. Smith
President & Chief Executive Officer

cc: U. S. Senate
Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
Co-Chairman Ted Stevens
U.S. House of Representatives
Chairman John D. Dingell
Chairman Edward Markey
Ranking Member Joe Barton
Ranking Member Fred Upton

OK, one last chance for you to understand how this works and then we will have to move along.

The company did not save money by reducing the use of available bandwidth for HD. They kept right on purchasing the bandwidth. They merely changed its use so as to not lose revenue. This is a revenue move in business. You must work on this concept.


If you're still talking about DirecTV, they clearly reduce expenditures by compressing HD (and SD) programming to fit on the existing transponder space. To a large extent, these are sunk costs. However, in order to increase bandwidth, large expenditures in new birds need to be made. Reducing bandwidth allows a given amount of programming to be delivered for lower costs.

The revenue side of the equation depends upon how many customers they gain/keep/lose due to the increasing compression and its impact on PQ. If large numbers of customers leave the service due to HD-Lite (and SD-Lite) and are not replaced by new ones, the expenditure savings could have a negative impact on revenues.

If you're still talking about DirecTV, they clearly reduce expenditures by compressing HD (and SD) programming to fit on the existing transponder space. To a large extent, these are sunk costs. However, in order to increase bandwidth, large expenditures in new birds need to be made. Reducing bandwidth allows a given amount of programming to be delivered for lower costs.

The revenue side of the equation depends upon how many customers they gain/keep/lose due to the increasing compression and its impact on PQ. If large numbers of customers leave the service due to HD-Lite (and SD-Lite) and are not replaced by new ones, the expenditure savings could have a negative impact on revenues.

Despite Stans54 post about admitting something when you are wrong, he doesn't practice what he preaches - as anyone can see here. It is worthless to pound this immaterial point about cost savings into the ground as it is not germaine to the SBGI/MCCC conflict and anyone with half a brain knows he's wrong - and you can read Stan's on post about what that does for one's credibility - about the only point on which we agree.

Great - and for the second time you have told me you can play General Contractor and price what it cost to build a system. Stan54 doesn't understand the difference, but we've already realized that from his posts - but the real world does.

The system is built and new customers subscribe every quarter - and you state:



Again, for the 3rd time, I am asking how you are coming up with that statement for New Suscriber Acquisition Costs as the Capital Buildout is not included in SAC in either DBS or MSO and a real insider (as you say you are) who knew the operation and wasn't a clerk at Cable Supply Outlet would realize this.

It depends on whether or not you capitalize the drop and NID as "plant" or expense it as "premesis". And whether ALL marketing dollars are charged to SAC. I'm not an accountant, and I don't really know how the DBS guys bury their costs, so I'll concede "no contest".

Can the pissing contest end? I came here to read about the Sinclair carriage agreement and have been bored
of the fighting. Why don't you follow Sinclair's wish and take this battle private via PM?

It depends on whether or not you capitalize the drop and NID as "plant" or expense it as "premesis". And whether ALL marketing dollars are charged to SAC. I'm not an accountant, and I don't really know how the DBS guys bury their costs, so I'll concede "no contest".

But again, you made a statement that the Cable MSO SAC were many times over the DBS SAC - so again, I am trying to get the basis for that statement. You must have some basis for that being stated as fact earlier :confused:

Please don't make me put on an accounting hat as that is really boring.

Can the pissing contest end? I came here to read about the Sinclair carriage agreement and have been bored
of the fighting. Why don't you follow Sinclair's wish and take this battle private via PM?


Ignore works wonders.

Of course, I am not sure how much of the Sinclair/Mediacomm issue you would read if you used it.

Ignore works wonders.

Of course, I am not sure how much of the Sinclair/Mediacomm issue you would read if you used it.

Especially since you are the one trying to win the pissing contest and posting the information.

If the average basic cable bill is around $40, and the pretax profit is 15% ($6), an increase in costs of $2 erases a third of the pretax.

$2 doesn't sound like much when you're looking at a $120 triple play cable bill, but in reality, it is a big chunk out of the bottom line.

In order to maintain a 15% pretax on top of a $2 increase in cost would require a $13.33 increase in revenue.

Just another way of looking at cable's postition.


That doesn't seem quite right.

What I come up with when I do the math is a $2.35 price increase to maintain that 15% profit margin ($2.00/{1-0.15} = $2.35). After all, paying that $2.00 to the broadcasters shouldn't cause an increase in any of the cable companies' other costs.

Of course that assumes that they can pass on a price increase to their customers to maintain their profit margins, as opposed to having to absorb some or all of that cost in the form of accepting lower profit margins. Today that is probably a reasonable assumption, but it may not always be so.

Especially since you are the one trying to win the pissing contest and posting the information.

Unfortunately the internet is sort of like what you do for a living in calibrating TVs - you have to try to minimize the bad and make sure the good is accurate. Unfortunately, in both cases, you cannot totally eliminate the bad and there is nothing 100% accurate.

That doesn't seem quite right.

What I come up with when I do the math is a $2.35 price increase to maintain that 15% profit margin ($2.00/{1-0.15} = $2.35). After all, paying that $2.00 to the broadcasters shouldn't cause an increase in any of the cable companies' other costs.

Of course that assumes that they can pass on a price increase to their customers to maintain their profit margins, as opposed to having to absorb some or all of that cost in the form of accepting lower profit margins. Today that is probably a reasonable assumption, but it may not always be so.

You are correct, but I have given up on his and Stan54's economic models earlier.

Anyway he did it backwards.


$13.33 Revenue
-$2.00 cost
-----
$11.33 pre tax profit = which is 85% profit - not 15% profit.

But remember I know the math like the back of my hand. :D

I guess post #1313 in this thread was an unlucky math number for him.

You are correct, but I have given up on his and Stan54's economic models earlier.

Anyway he did it backwards.


$13.33 Revenue
-$2.00 cost
-----
$11.33 pre tax profit = which is 85% profit - not 15% profit.

But remember

I guess post #1313 in this thread was an unlucky math number for him.

Ooops. Busted. My bad. :o :o :o

Now when Stan54 finally follows his own advice and admits he made a mistake and isn't perfect, all the major pissers will have admitted none of us are perfect.

Now when Stan54 finally follows his own advice and admits he made a mistake and isn't perfect, all the major pissers will have admitted none of us are perfect.

I have made plenty of mistakes, Mr. FanAtic, but this isn't one of them. The satellite provider paid no less for the total bandwidth available and used. By allocating its usage differently, however, they were able to maintain non HD revenue levels. Therefore, the total expenditure level remained as before. Revenue benefited.

Remember, you're the same guy that maintained that a certain portion of revenue was more important to station owners than the TOTAL revenue. It must be that particular piece of the revenue is just so damn 'purty', the fact that the total revenue is greatly increased simply doesn't catch their interest.

(A person would have to have read the applicable previous posts to get the drift of the previous paragraph.)

Hang in there, Mr. FanAtic, and rattle off some more technical, inside baseball gibberish while casually mentioning your Harvard masters degree and 70 words per minute typing speed. Somebody might be impressed. It appears that you are.

I have made plenty of mistakes, Mr. FanAtic, but this isn't one of them. The satellite provider paid no less for the total bandwidth available and used. By allocating its usage differently, however, they were able to maintain non HD revenue levels. Therefore, the total expenditure level remained as before. Revenue benefited.

Remember, you're the same guy that maintained that a certain portion of revenue was more important to station owners than the TOTAL revenue. It must be that particular piece of the revenue is just so damn 'purty', the fact that the total revenue is greatly increased simply doesn't catch their interest.

(A person would have to have read the applicable previous posts to get the drift of the previous paragraph.)

Hang in there, Mr. FanAtic, and rattle off some more technical, inside baseball gibberish while casually mentioning your Harvard masters degree and 70 words per minute typing speed. Somebody might be impressed. It appears that you are.

And then heard in the distance is a chorus of singers singing Alleluia

I have made plenty of mistakes, Mr. FanAtic, but this isn't one of them. The satellite provider paid no less for the total bandwidth available and used. By allocating its usage differently, however, they were able to maintain non HD revenue levels. Therefore, the total expenditure level remained as before. Revenue benefited.

Remember, you're the same guy that maintained that a certain portion of revenue was more important to station owners than the TOTAL revenue. It must be that particular piece of the revenue is just so damn 'purty', the fact that the total revenue is greatly increased simply doesn't catch their interest.

(A person would have to have read the applicable previous posts to get the drift of the previous paragraph.)

Hang in there, Mr. FanAtic, and rattle off some more technical, inside baseball gibberish while casually mentioning your Harvard masters degree and 70 words per minute typing speed. Somebody might be impressed. It appears that you are.

You must have been the one continuing to argue the world was flat 300 years after Columbus - just as you were the one giving high fives to someone else yesterday when later it was determined information he posted was incorrect, lol.

And when everyone else goes to the grocery store and buys a 2 liter bottle of coke for a loss leader 99 cents instead of 1.50 - and you buy a candy bar with the left over 50 cents - just remember you did not save anything on the bottle of coke according to Stan54 - I guess they just give Candy Bars away for free when he checks out.

Today From Barron's

Television Stocks to Watch
By Andrew Bary Published: January 17, 2007


http://www.smartmoney.com/barrons/index.cfm?story=20070117&afl=yahoo


THE BROADCAST television business has been viewed warily by many investors because of a fragmenting TV audience, a shift in ad dollars to the Internet from traditional media and the growing use of Tivo-type recorders that let viewers skip commercials.

Shares of the owners of TV stations, which carry CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and other network programming, generally have declined in recent years. But Wall Street is warming toward the group amid optimism that TV operators will be able to secure retransmission fees from cable operators and that the business will prove more durable than newspapers, thanks in part to the popularity of local news broadcasts. The publicly traded TV operators generally own stations in mid-sized to small cities, which aren't as threatened by the Internet as big-market stations.

There could be more upside this year in the low-profile TV group, which includes Hearst-Argyle Television (HTV), Sinclair Broadcast (SBGI), Lin TV (TVL), Gray Television (GTN) and Nexstar Broadcasting (NXST), if Sinclair is successful in its current battle with Mediacom Communications (MCCC) to be paid for providing local stations to Mediacom cable systems. Sinclair has pulled its stations from Mediacom in a bid to force the cable operator to cave in.

Cable operators historically have paid little or nothing for local network TV stations, while anteing up for cable networks like Walt Disney's (DIS) ESPN, which receives about $2 a month per cable subscriber. Major satellite TV providers generally pay for local stations.

The broadcasters have a big ally in CBS (CBS), which owns 39 stations and is eager to be paid by cable operators. Its CEO, Les Moonves, said at an investor conference last week that he's "optimistic that we will get paid for our content," with significant revenue likely by 2009. Moonves said "every nickel" in retransmission fees "goes right to the bottom line." If the broadcasters win the retransmission battle, it could boost annual cash flow 15% to 25%. CBS might get 50 cents per cable subscriber by 2009.

Another big plus was the recent sale by The New York Times (NYT) of a group of TV stations to Oak Hill Capital Partners, a private-equity group, for $575 million — about $150 million more than some on the Street had expected. Oak Hill paid a stiff 13 times projected 2006 pre-tax cash flow, or earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, for mediocre stations.

This suggests that private equity still has a strong appetite for TV stations, which could put a floor under television-station stocks. As the table shows, the Times got a price that comfortably exceeds the current valuation of the public broadcasters, which are valued at 8 to 11 times projected 2006 pre-tax cash flow. Three of the operators, Gray, Lin and Nexstar, have considerable debt, which increases risk — and opportunity. Gray, Lin and Nexstar effectively offers return characteristics of leveraged buyouts, without paying a big fee to an LBO operator.

And, contrary to popular perception, broadcast TV is gaining viewers this season, at the expense of cable.

"Wall Street has sold our industry short," says Bob Prather, president of Atlanta-based Gray Television. "Our stock is way undervalued. I've been preaching the gospel, but not many people seem to believe me." Gray insiders evidently do, because they were buying last month.

Gray focuses on TV stations in university towns and state capitals like Tallahasee, Fla., that have strong growth. Of Gray's 36 stations, 24 lead their markets in ratings. Prather says Gray doesn't want to sell out, but "if the price is right, we'd take a hard look at it." Gray, Sinclair, Lin and Nexstar have market values under $1 billion, making them bite-sized acquisition candidates.

The Bottom Line
The TV group looks undervalued. The New York Times got a rich price for its TV stations, and that could lift the stocks. A retransmission victory would boost cash flow.

Irving, Texas-based Nexstar gets about 16 cents a month per cable subscriber after winning a battle with cable operators in 2006. "We were the pioneer in taking on the cable companies," says Matthew Devine, Nexstar's chief financial officer. "We service our local communities with as much as six hours of news a day." Devine is thrilled that CBS will take on the cable guys. "The retransmission fees will only grow as we draft behind the big dogs."

Given Nexstar's low cash-flow valuation, the stock has plenty of appreciation potential. One bullish investor says the stock could double from its current price of $5 if it gets only a modestly higher valuation or keeps paying down debt.

Hearst-Argyle, largest of the five broadcasters, is the sector's blue chip. Its top shareholder, the privately held Hearst media conglomerate, keeps buying stock in the open market. Hearst owns 74% of the 92 million outstanding shares, which trade around 26. Ultimately, it could buy out the public holders. And Lin TV might get a buyout offer from Hicks, Muse, which owns almost half its stock.

You must have been the one continuing to argue the world was flat 300 years after Columbus - j
It isn't?? Looks pretty flat looking out my window... :eek: :D

Iowa Delays Mediacom-Sinclair Hearing
By Linda Moss MultiChannel News 1/17/2007

An Iowa General Assembly committee postponed a hearing, set for this week, on the Mediacom Communications-Sinclair Broadcast Group dispute, prompting six state senators to call for immediate restoration of the broadcaster’s TV stations in the interim.

The special hearing of the Assembly’s Joint Government Oversight Committee, to review facts in the ongoing retransmission-consent standoff, was delayed until next week so that representatives of Sinclair can attend.

“We are disappointed to learn about the cancellation of today’s meeting,” a group of six Iowa senators said in a press release Wednesday. “Resolution of this protracted dispute is overdue. Iowans want this dispute to stop disrupting their lives. While we understand that the Government Oversight Committee members have canceled today’s meeting to accede to Sinclair’s request for a delay, we also believe that resolution of this protracted dispute is overdue.”

Sinclair pulled the signals for 22 of its stations from Mediacom Jan. 6 in 12 states, impacting 700,000 subscribers.

“Today, we are calling on Sinclair to immediately allow Mediacom to resume carrying the KDSM signal in Des Moines market and the KGAN signal in Cedar Rapids until both sides have a chance to appear before the Government Oversight Committee and to resolve this dispute,” the six senators added. “Clearly, a resumption of carriage is in the best interests of Iowa's television-viewing public. It would show tremendous good faith on Sinclair’s part and go a long way toward restoring public confidence and showing viewers that they aren’t pawns in a game.”

The six state senators who called for Sinclair to restore its TV stations to Mediacom were Joe Bolkcom (D-Johnson), Bob Dvorsky (D-Johnson), Rob Hogg (D-Linn), Jack Hatch (D-Polk), Wally Horn (D-Linn) and Matt McCoy (D-Polk).

While the senators said in their press release that the Joint Government Oversight Committee was set to meet Wednesday on Mediacom-Sinclair, in its press release last week, Mediacom had said that the hearing was slated for Thursday. In any event, it will be rescheduled for next week.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6408147.html?display=Breaking+News

Iowa Delays Mediacom-Sinclair Hearing
By Linda Moss MultiChannel News 1/17/2007

......

“We are disappointed to learn about the cancellation of today’s meeting,” a group of six Iowa senators said in a press release Wednesday. “Resolution of this protracted dispute is overdue. Iowans want this dispute to stop disrupting their lives. While we understand that the Government Oversight Committee members have canceled today’s meeting to accede to Sinclair’s request for a delay, we also believe that resolution of this protracted dispute is overdue.”

I realize that I am wanting to see Sinclair win this one, but I do have to ask, can ANYONE substantiate what the vote hungry Iowa Congressional Caucus is stating that Iowan's lives have been distrupted?

I ask because family who lives in a Mediacom area lost ABC and once it was gone, they made other arrangments and went on and are NO WHERE near disrupted. I would think that the Iowa Congressional Caucus should be interested in things that REALLY disrupt Iowan citizens lives. I mean, come on, it isn't brain surgery but TV we are talking about. This is a business issue between two companies, the government agency that has oversight is involved as much as the law will allow and IMHO, the honorable Iowa Congressional Caucus needs to STAY the heck out of this unless or until legislation is needed.

If the loss of a TV station from a cable system means peoples lives are disrupted like the loss of electricity or water or sewer, we might as well pack the whole country in and turn it over to the terrorists because we are total hopeless. Is this just me or what?

It is not the Congressional delegation in this case (although they have weighed in, too) but the State Senate.

But I agree. There must be many destitute, hungry, poorly-educated or ill people in Iowa who could use some of the same governmental concern.

I guess one other question that has just popped in my mind, since cable is a local government franchise thing, why haven't we heard the local governments in outrage over this despicable dastardly deed Sinclair has perpertrated on the good citizens of Iowa and other states?

I'm sorry but this is beginning to get to the Rosie/Trump level IMHO. Let the mechanism work itself out.

I'm sorry but this is beginning to get to the Rosie/Trump level IMHO. Let the mechanism work itself out.

The only reason it was made public was because of Mediacom - as that is their game plan.

However, its very clear to me from discussion on multiple levels - Mediacom has totally isolated themselves even in the cable world - as everyone is disgusted at the way they have handled this.

Cable Companies are more concerned that because of Mediacom's mishandling of this - if it does go in front of Politicians - ala carte will be the end result.

And in irony of ironies, I was speaking with another Media Company President who's parent company, it turns out, is the largest private owner of stock in Mediacom (this company, even though a media company, owns no TV).

Upon being informed of their stock position in Mediacom, I said you know this guy running Mediacom is an idiot and has to go - to which the reply was, yes we know - he's a mess and has totally screwed up this negotiation.

NO! NO! Let him stay!! He is the best guy broadcasters have ever had!!! :)

foxeng,

Even though I side with cable (though not specifically Mediacom), I have to agree with everything else you said, the politicians should keep out.

HDTVFanAtic,

Can't disagree with you on this one. In fact, I don't even support Mediacom per se, I just still don't agree with paying for "free" TV, even though that is exactly what's going to happen. I do agree with the sentiment expressed in your last sentence, but if ala carte were to result from all this, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing. :)

Wrong thread, but I think I'd like it if it resulted in some approximation of a la carte.

- Tom

I'd like to know how/why the Democrats in the state Senate thinks it is their business.

They're politicians, they think everything is their business. And then there's catering to those who donate. :)

I don't think anyone has mentioned the best part of the Mediacom letter:

and its CEO is going goose-hunting.

Great stuff. ;)

foxeng,

Even though I side with cable (though not specifically Mediacom), I have to agree with everything else you said, the politicians should keep out.

HDTVFanAtic,

Can't disagree with you on this one. In fact, I don't even support Mediacom per se, I just still don't agree with paying for "free" TV, even though that is exactly what's going to happen. I do agree with the sentiment expressed in your last sentence, but if ala carte were to result from all this, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing. :)


I wouldnt care if ala carte came out of this either - but again - every other cable company thinks that will be horrible - so Mediacom has set themselves up as an Island.

I realize no one else will be able to fill in the blanks - but you will.

So does this make me a "media insider" now? :D ;)

I wouldnt care if ala carte came out of this either - but again - every other cable company thinks that will be horrible - so Mediacom has set themselves up as an Island.Well, I'm probably wrong (and I'm sure you'll correct me :) ), but cable can't even begin to try to implement ala carte until current package contracts are up and renegotiated with ala carte in mind. I am probably wrong again, but I suspect it's the package providers that would be against ala carte more so than cable, though there is certainly some software, billing, etc., work that would need to be done to support an ala carte pricing structure, and that has it's own added costs and headaches. And, where they have it, in Canada, I've tried to do the pricing math. As near as I can tell, I won't save a dime and will end up paying more to keep all the channels I want (as opposed to need :) ). Plus, I don't think cable would want to offer it if satellite weren't also forced to offer it.

I realize no one else will be able to fill in the blanks - but you will.True, but it does bring some added perspective to your posts. :)

I'm still on cable's side in this, but only because it's a departure from current practices and will undoubtedly raise my rates. Sinclair is just one set of channels and many more are waiting in the wings to see what happens before they add their demands to the mix.

I may be naive, but I can't believe the profit margins for cable and sat are all that different and this change to the current pricing model will put cable at a disadvantage. I already believe they are at a disadvantage because of all the regulations that affect them and not satellite, but maybe I'm wrong. I also don't want to be forced to switch for economic reasons resulting from what I feel are unfair demands. Does that make any sense?

True, but it does bring some added perspective to your posts. :)


Again, I have no business dealing with Sinclair or Mediacom. And in other threads, you will see me supporting cable when someone tries to blame them for a bad CableCard TV that was self-verified by the maker. I am not anti-cable.


I'm still on cable's side in this, but only because it's a departure from current practices and will undoubtedly raise my rates. Sinclair is just one set of channels and many more are waiting in the wings to see what happens before they add their demands to the mix.

I may be naive, but I can't believe the profit margins for cable and sat are all that different and this change to the current pricing model will put cable at a disadvantage. I already believe they are at a disadvantage because of all the regulations that affect them and not satellite, but maybe I'm wrong. I also don't want to be forced to switch for economic reasons resulting from what I feel are unfair demands. Does that make any sense?

Does it make sense for me that no one wants their cable bill to rise? Sure.

From the same standpoint, 10 years ago the town I live in put in a reclaimed water system to houses in my area. They already had facilities and were serving every Golf Course in their area - but still had an excess of reclaimed/treated water with no where to put it. So they charged a flat $18 per month.

Well 10 years later - after people figure out how much it saves watering your lawn - and everyone wants the reclaimed water - they go to a metered system. My first bill in November is $65 for the reclaimed water portion - about what i paid 7 years ago to water my lawn each month with regular water - savings to me - zilch.

I don't like the fact that they went from unlimited to metered - but that's life. My choices are simple - accept it and move on - or zeroscape.

Others are made they can't download every tune they want via Napster still. Again, that's life.

You accept life changes and move on - especially the things that you have no control over. And when you are talking about something that is owned by others - no matter how anyone tries to spin it - they have the right to control their rights to that property however they choose.

The bottom line is people think that since it transmitted OTA that the owner relenquishes those rights - which is 100% untrue and has been tested in Court.

If you don't believe that, just try to charge a cover charge in a bar to view the Superbowl - as the NFL has tested that and other Football games and won every court challenge.

The owner of the orignal product still has the final say as to the way the rights are used - whether some times they give it away free and others they do not.

Under the scenario you and others paint, I should be able to record every TV Series in HD - and sell them on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray as all I am doing is making it easy and convenient for the public to see what is on the free airwaves.

We both know that won't fly - and there is absolutely no difference between that and cable charging you for the material.

Well, I'm probably wrong (and I'm sure you'll correct me :) ), but cable can't even begin to try to implement ala carte until current package contracts are up and renegotiated with ala carte in mind.

You are correct - and Congress would have to make it illegal for the providers (i.e. Disney, NBC, Viacom, Scripps etc) to package it to cable as well for that to work.

And so this is why Mediacom is not making ANY FRIENDS anywhere with the very public way that they are going about this.

Under the scenario you and others paint, I should be able to record every TV Series in HD - and sell them on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray as all I am doing is making it easy and convenient for the public to see what is on the free airwaves.Well, I'll give you this, you did real well up to this statement. I've never said Sinclair doesn't have a right to demand cash, I just don't like it, in part, because of the way (I perceive) cable was set up. Part of that was to avoid needing antennas and still not pay for local channels. I don't know all the particulars, but I'm quite sure the FCC/government had a hand in how all this was set up; franchising, the requirement for TVs to be cable-ready (and now digital cable-ready) to avoid the need for set-top boxes for basic cable, etc.

I know this argument falls on deaf ears, but as long as the government has a hand in running things, mostly on the cable side that I can see, I just don't agree with what's happening when it will result in increased costs to me or decreased profits for cable (and decreased capability for future enhancements). I really wouldn't have a dog in this fight if it weren't for the direct involvement by DirecTV to take advantage of the situation.

I honestly don't believe it's all that fair for locals to charge satellite either except that AFAIK there was a need to install some hardware for satellite to receive the signals digitally and thereby have a leg-up on cable.

Then too, maybe I'm looking at the discussion all wrong. I'm under the impression it's just an exchange of ideas, frustrations, etc. I certainly don't expect anything to change and fully expect Sinclair will win. I don't have much respect for how MCCC is handling this, but I don't really object to going public, though I do think they could have done a much better job making their case and not leaving one with the impression all this is just a case of too much ego, which is probably exactly what it is. :)

I'm also not convinced satellite is paying the same (or anything for that matter) or what the actual amount is. Perhaps I missed it, but all I've seen is what people think and what's been gleaned from articles and public documents, but nothing that specifically states that DirecTV is paying Sinclair $.50/sub. Again, I could have missed it.

But, as you said, Sinclair is free to demand whatever they want, I don't know that anyone disputes that. I just think there is a lot more involved in all this than a mere $.50 fee. I think it's just the tip of the iceberg with franchising, packaging, ala carte, must-carry, etc., just below the surface.

And so this is why Mediacom is not making ANY FRIENDS anywhere with the very public way that they are going about this.
How the public reacts is going to vary by market. Cedar Rapids, et al, is a two-station market (the station you tend to watch depends largely on whether you live closer to Cedar Rapids or Waterloo), and the Sinclair station isn't even close to being one of them -- too many cutbacks over the past few years. In Des Moines, the Sinclair-owned Fox station may fare a little better in public opinion because it added its 9 p.m. newscast in 2001, so the current newscast doesn't have any "good old days" to compare with. And I don't know what their full history is in Champaign or Columbus or many of the other places in which they operate.

But there will be places where Sinclair will be disliked more than Mediacom.

The Business of Television
FCC’s Martin Urges Arbitration
By Ted Hearn Multi Channel News 1/18/2007

Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin said Wednesday that he supports binding arbitration to end the bitter carriage dispute between Sinclair Broadcast Group and Mediacom Communications.

"I continue to believe that this would be good for both parties to be submitting to,” Martin told reporters after the agency’s first public meeting of the year. Consumers, he added, shouldn’t lose access to programming while a dispute is in arbitration.

Sinclair pulled 22 TV stations from Mediacom cable systems Jan. 6 after the two parties couldn’t agree on financial terms, triggering an acrimonious contract feud that has spread to the FCC and Congress. Loss of Sinclair’s TV signals involved 2 million viewers in 700,000 Mediacom homes.

After the FCC refused to force Sinclair to restore carriage, Mediacom chairman and CEO Rocco B. Commisso sent a letter to members of Congress to complain that Sinclair singled out his company for discriminatory treatment. Sinclair shot back in its own letter to lawmakers that Commisso’s claims were baseless.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6408350.html?display=Breaking+News

Ok, I'll throw my hat in on this one. I believe MCCC has agreed to arbitration, right? Why won't Sinclair? Do they think the cards are stacked against them? Are they? I'm not trying to be flippant, I'd really like to know.

Because by doing so, they forfeit their rights to control how they sell their product. Why should some third party decide what a product is worth?

Well, I'll give you this, you did real well up to this statement. I've never said Sinclair doesn't have a right to demand cash, I just don't like it, in part, because of the way (I perceive) cable was set up. Part of that was to avoid needing antennas and still not pay for local channels. I don't know all the particulars, but I'm quite sure the FCC/government had a hand in how all this was set up; franchising, the requirement for TVs to be cable-ready (and now digital cable-ready) to avoid the need for set-top boxes for basic cable, etc.


You still haven't said anything to support your opening sentence. Selling the TV shows that I record OTA for free on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is just another way to distribute them for those that do not an antenna and is just as valid as cable's argument that the program is free and they are just making it available.



I know this argument falls on deaf ears, but as long as the government has a hand in running things, mostly on the cable side that I can see, I just don't agree with what's happening when it will result in increased costs to me or decreased profits for cable (and decreased capability for future enhancements). I really wouldn't have a dog in this fight if it weren't for the direct involvement by DirecTV to take advantage of the situation.



1) Cannot cost your more
2) Cannot make cable loose profits

lol.....so the Broadcasters, who are under more government regulation than cable
companies or cable networks should bear the burden? That's laughable.


I honestly don't believe it's all that fair for locals to charge satellite either except that AFAIK there was a need to install some hardware for satellite to receive the signals digitally and thereby have a leg-up on cable.


lol...so maybe satellite should just send out HD-DVDs then huh?


Then too, maybe I'm looking at the discussion all wrong. I'm under the impression it's just an exchange of ideas, frustrations, etc. I certainly don't expect anything to change and fully expect Sinclair will win. I don't have much respect for how MCCC is handling this, but I don't really object to going public, though I do think they could have done a much better job making their case and not leaving one with the impression all this is just a case of too much ego, which is probably exactly what it is. :)


You just don't like Television stations for standing up for their rights - and quite frankly, you haven't explored everything enough and just join the parade of Broadcast Haters without knowing the facts - thats a problem.



I'm also not convinced satellite is paying the same (or anything for that matter) or what the actual amount is. Perhaps I missed it, but all I've seen is what people think and what's been gleaned from articles and public documents, but nothing that specifically states that DirecTV is paying Sinclair $.50/sub. Again, I could have missed it.



As stated, you hate TV Broadcasters and don't know why. You don't hate cable providers who give you less value for your money and take more from the public without giving anything back.



But, as you said, Sinclair is free to demand whatever they want, I don't know that anyone disputes that. I just think there is a lot more involved in all this than a mere $.50 fee. I think it's just the tip of the iceberg with franchising, packaging, ala carte, must-carry, etc., just below the surface.

There really isn't anything more to it. It's TV Stations standing up for their right of something they have ownership to.

As stated, if I purchase ANY FRANCHISE for a Geographic location, I can do whatever I want in that Franchised Geographic location - TV Stations have that right and can set their own prices - of which they are doing.

I realize that, but arbitration is used quite a bit in other areas, isn't it? Perhaps Sinclair believes they can reach an agreement, especially given HDTVFanAtic's recent posts.

Ok, I'll throw my hat in on this one. I believe MCCC has agreed to arbitration, right? Why won't Sinclair? Do they think the cards are stacked against them? Are they? I'm not trying to be flippant, I'd really like to know.

Binding arbitration.

Because if I want a McDonalds hamburger for 25 cents - and McDonalds wants to sell them to me for .79 cents, then its not up to a 3rd party to say, let's cut it in half and you sell hamburgers for 51 cents.

As Sinclair says, you want $200,000 for your home, I want to pay you $100,000 - so we go to binding Arbitration and you get told you must sell your home for anything less than what you want isn't the way business is done.

Mediacom has been able to negotiate carriage deals with every other channel they provide - they should not need a third party to order a price for this one channel.

Just as Dish Network took off Court TV earlier this month, neither side is screaming for Arbitration - they just took it off and moved on.

Binding Arbitration is used where a Company and a Union cannot agree on terms because of bad blood between the two - or in other cases, where Insurance Companies want to screw you out of a claim.

I cannot think of any example where binding Arbitration has ever been used to negotiate a new business deal between 2 unrelated parties - and as Mediacom has said they are not loosing customers, there is no reason to even think about binding arbitration - nor would there be even if they were.

Sinclair knows they can reach a satisfactory conclusion based on the value of their product. Arbitration throws the outcome into doubt.

What CPanther said in less words than I did.

Ok, I'll buy that. I still think if they were so sure of their product value, they'd have nothing to lose, but I guess it would be a crap-shoot. Maybe I'm naive about the arbitration process. We go through arbitration with every 5-year contract and we always win. :)

Ok, I'll buy that. I still think if they were so sure of their product value, they'd have nothing to lose, but I guess it would be a crap-shoot. Maybe I'm naive about the arbitration process. We go through arbitration with every 5-year contract and we always win. :)

Why would one have to go through an arbitration every 5 years unless it was somehow labor related?

Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention - Mediacom wants binding Arbitration as they want the signal turned back on the minute that Sinclair agrees to it - they can then start to cut the bleeding - despite the fact that Rocco said once the signals were removed Sinclair had no more leverage and people that wanted to leave would leave immediately. There is no reason for Sinclair to want to stop the bleeding for Mediacom.

Not going to binding Arbitration makes Mediacom come to the table and get serious themselves - as they apparently have been able to do with every other channel they carry - though from their actions on this - one wonders how.

Finally, the fact that Mediacom is so public about this - It certainly seems that this is the most important suite of stations on all their cable systems - and perhaps given that - they should be paid as top dog - something Sinclair is NOT asking for.

Does anyone seriously believe that CBS or NewsCorp will agree to binding abritration with Time Warner, Comcast, Cablevision or Cox when their contracts begin to expire?

This is a fight between two relatively minor players -- but it carries great ramifications for the future when the big boys get into the battle.

I am sure Sinclair is being cheered on by other station groups -- and certainly by CBS and NewsCorp, which have already announced they will be seeking compensation for their O&Os when their contracts come up for renewal in the next few years. If not, the networks would be howling about their lost viewers in the Sinclair markets. I have heard not even a hint of a peep about such a reaction from them.

On the other hand, MediaCom must be driving the big cable companies crazy. As HDTVF has correctly (in my view) noted, a next logical step could well be a further push to a la carte. And although I think a la carte will eventually come, the big guys would like it to be as far down the road as possible.

Why would one have to go through an arbitration every 5 years unless it was somehow labor related?It is (and it's government with a no strike clause). They get ever so close to an agreement and then it ends up in arbitration. Arbitration always sides with the labor force, but maybe that's pretty much how is always goes, I guess. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's been that way since I started in '94 after I retired from 27 years in the Air Force. Worse management I've ever seen, but then I've only had 4 jobs, one being pumping gas as a teenager, so I really don't have a lot to compare to. :)

HDTVFanAtic,

I forgot about that part of the arbitration offer, but I doubt Sinclair would agree even if turning the stations back on were not part. I give in on the arbitration process, I probably wouldn't agree to it either. Even though they believe their stations are worth $.50, they are in the driver's seat because they are not losing anything at the moment, other than some eyeballs, are they?

Fred,

Isn't it always the case that 2 minor players do battle so the big guys have an easier time of it? :) And, no, I don't think any broadcaster will agree to arbitration, mostly because I'm not so sure they'd win and why take the chance. And I'm sure the other cableco's wish they could support MCCC, but MCCC has done such a good job of botching this so far. They probably still root for them behind the scenes and I'm pretty sure they are taking notes on what is being done wrong, but this certainly doesn't bode well for short-term cable rates. :)

Isn't it always the case that 2 minor players do battle so the big guys have an easier time of it? :) And, no, I don't think any broadcaster will agree to arbitration, mostly because I'm not so sure they'd win and why take the chance. And I'm sure the other cableco's wish they could support MCCC, but MCCC has done such a good job of botching this so far. They probably still root for them behind the scenes and I'm pretty sure they are taking notes on what is being done wrong, but this certainly doesn't bode well for short-term cable rates. :)

I realize that you addressed this to Fred, but let me point out from my conversations with other MSOs, they have no support for Mediacom as they think Mediacom will drag this into the spotlight in government and lawmakers will realize they really cannot do anything about it - but in an effort to look like they are doing something will approach ala carte - an area they don't want to go - so no, they are not secretly rooting for this clown - as they feel he has screwed them all because of his desire to make this negotiation very public.

Combine that with the fact as the suppliers see that as well (and obviously do not want ala carte put into play), the hardball negotiations of Sinclair and Mediacom will look like playschool compared to what they make Mediacom pay for their channels in the future.

That will be interesting indeed.

Because by doing so, they forfeit their rights to control how they sell their product. Why should some third party decide what a product is worth?

This particular product is only worth the price of an antenna and I think Time Warner already has one that they are willing to use to benefit all.

Sure, and Lord of the Rings is only worth $19 plus $1 for a blank DVD. I know a few guys with duplicating facities that could be used to benefit all. :rolleyes:

It all goes back to the fact that if it were truly worth next to nothing to the cablecos - why are they making such a fuss when they lose it.

Sinclair knows they can reach a satisfactory conclusion based on the value of their product. Arbitration throws the outcome into doubt.

Well said. I only hope that Sinclair is incorrect in what they "know."

Here's a dishonest question for the gang. Commercial radio broadcasting began in the 20's and commercial television broadcasting began in the 40's. If no one has been paying for their broadcast signal, why did they ever do it in the first place? Seems like they've been "loosing" a lot of money for a very long time.

Fee based cable channels used to be commercial-free. Now they charge a fee and sell advertising - yet the fee continues to rise. Why is that - were they losing money also?

Fee based cable channels used to be commercial-free. Now they charge a fee and sell advertising - yet the fee continues to rise. Why is that - were they losing money also?

Is that the only way you can answer this dishonest question?

With my own dishonest question? ...... Yes.

The answer is the same for both. They'll try to get whatever the market/system will bear. Businesses don't cap their revenue at the point they break even.

Sorry I didn't see your question earlier Dave.

But HDTVF has answered it with far more in-depth knowledge of the cable honchos than I could have. (But I'll answer the question my way, nonetheless!)

Personally, barring some unforeseen government intervention, I think Sinclair is holding just about all the cards.

All Mediacom is doing in the meantime is alienating other cable operators (many of whom sell their own programming to Mediacom) and reminding every single angry subscriber that alternatives (satellite and antennas) are readily available.

It is already a given that stations will be paid for their signals -- the CBS and NewsCorp statements have seen to that -- and DBS and telcos have been paying all along).

MediaCom is simply fighting a losing battle in a very stupid way. It will end up paying for the carriage, looking foolish and having upset many of its subscribers. When you think about it, if Dish or DirecTV is in your market with locals, and their prices are less than Mediacom (ande they are) and Mediacom isn't paying for the locals as Dish and DirecTV do, what can a subscriber think?

And for any cable company to play the "we are just trying to save our subscribers money" card is disengenuous at best. And the longer this silly food-fight goes on, (and the more people are made aware how much they are unwittinlgy paying for so many channels they neither watch -- and in many cases don't want -- in their homes) the worse things get for cable.

As HDTVF says, there is no way the big cable companies are rooting for Mediacom. They already have a pretty good idea of what the tab will be for locals the next time their negotiations begin, and they have already made plans for that day.


...

Fred,

Isn't it always the case that 2 minor players do battle so the big guys have an easier time of it? :) And, no, I don't think any broadcaster will agree to arbitration, mostly because I'm not so sure they'd win and why take the chance. And I'm sure the other cableco's wish they could support MCCC, but MCCC has done such a good job of botching this so far. They probably still root for them behind the scenes and I'm pretty sure they are taking notes on what is being done wrong, but this certainly doesn't bode well for short-term cable rates. :)

Looks like miracles do happen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable is pleased to announce a long term agreement has been reached with Sinclair Broadcasting to continue providing WGME TV to our customers. This includes WGME's HD signal as well which will be available to most of our customers with access to WGME and HD programming beginning Saturday, January 20. WGME HD will be available on channel 513 in Cumberland County and portions of York County, and channel 713 in the Augusta, Lewiston/Auburn, Conway, New Hampshire and Sebago areas.

We thank our customers again for their patience with this issue and look forward to serving you in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.timewarnercable.com/newengland/programming/notices/sinclair.html

I would assume this includes all former Aldelphia systems that Sinclair has stations on.

Like I said - It's not if, but when.

Yes, but I still don't see a bonafide price. And, I guess I don't expect too . :)

Just for kicks (and sorry of it's already been said), was there any personal bad-blood between the CEO's of Sinclair and MCCC when all this started?

Looks like miracles do happen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable is pleased to announce a long term agreement has been reached with Sinclair Broadcasting to continue providing WGME TV to our customers. This includes WGME's HD signal as well which will be available to most of our customers with access to WGME and HD programming beginning Saturday, January 20. WGME HD will be available on channel 513 in Cumberland County and portions of York County, and channel 713 in the Augusta, Lewiston/Auburn, Conway, New Hampshire and Sebago areas.

We thank our customers again for their patience with this issue and look forward to serving you in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.timewarnercable.com/newengland/programming/notices/sinclair.html

I would assume this includes all former Aldelphia systems that Sinclair has stations on.

To be clear, the WGME-HD station is now up on Time Warner cable channel 513 here in Cumberland County too - NOT a former Adelphia system. So the agreement doesn't just cover the former Adelphia areas.
Are any other Sinclair stations (HD) popping up on TWC systems?

Like I said - It's not if, but when.

Amazing what can be done when business negotiations between 2 parties are done in a private arena instead of a public arena :D

Yes, but I still don't see a bonafide price. And, I guess I don't expect too . :)

Just for kicks (and sorry of it's already been said), was there any personal bad-blood between the CEO's of Sinclair and MCCC when all this started?

Nor have you ever seen the neogiated price released when Coke signs a deal with McDonalds - or any other cable systems with any cable network they have a deal with.

Gee, HDTVF, do you think those folks at MediaCom are listening? (And how about those media-hungry politicians in Iowa?)

Time Warner (and Sinclair, for that matter) said nothing inflammatory, quietly asked for and gave extensions (and actually kept on bargaining, not publicly posturing) and came up with an agreement it and Sinclair could live with.

What a concept!

And apparently the agreement restores CBS HD to at least some areas of New Hampshire which had until earlier this month been receiving the WBS HD feed from Boston (WGME is a CBS affil, too.)

WBZ decided not to allow TWC to carry its HD signal to customers in Masachusetts, and the signal was pulled January 5th. Now, at least for some NH customers, a CBS HD signal will be back as of tomorrow.

It is truly amazing what quiet, real negotiations can get done. And how quickly, too.

Iowa Delays Mediacom-Sinclair Hearing
By Linda Moss MultiChannel News 1/17/2007

An Iowa General Assembly committee postponed a hearing, set for this week, on the Mediacom Communications-Sinclair Broadcast Group dispute, prompting six state senators to call for immediate restoration of the broadcaster’s TV stations in the interim.

The special hearing of the Assembly’s Joint Government Oversight Committee, to review facts in the ongoing retransmission-consent standoff, was delayed until next week so that representatives of Sinclair can attend.

“We are disappointed to learn about the cancellation of today’s meeting,” a group of six Iowa senators said in a press release Wednesday. “Resolution of this protracted dispute is overdue. Iowans want this dispute to stop disrupting their lives. While we understand that the Government Oversight Committee members have canceled today’s meeting to accede to Sinclair’s request for a delay, we also believe that resolution of this protracted dispute is overdue.”

Sinclair pulled the signals for 22 of its stations from Mediacom Jan. 6 in 12 states, impacting 700,000 subscribers.

“Today, we are calling on Sinclair to immediately allow Mediacom to resume carrying the KDSM signal in Des Moines market and the KGAN signal in Cedar Rapids until both sides have a chance to appear before the Government Oversight Committee and to resolve this dispute,” the six senators added. “Clearly, a resumption of carriage is in the best interests of Iowa's television-viewing public. It would show tremendous good faith on Sinclair’s part and go a long way toward restoring public confidence and showing viewers that they aren’t pawns in a game.”

The six state senators who called for Sinclair to restore its TV stations to Mediacom were Joe Bolkcom (D-Johnson), Bob Dvorsky (D-Johnson), Rob Hogg (D-Linn), Jack Hatch (D-Polk), Wally Horn (D-Linn) and Matt McCoy (D-Polk).

While the senators said in their press release that the Joint Government Oversight Committee was set to meet Wednesday on Mediacom-Sinclair, in its press release last week, Mediacom had said that the hearing was slated for Thursday. In any event, it will be rescheduled for next week.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6408147.html?display=Breaking+News

Gosh, maybe Sinclair asked for a delay so they could finish up a TWC deal that was noted last week as just about done - in other words - instead of wasting time defending baseless claims by Mediacom that Sinclair was "discriminating against Iowans" - they were really finalizing the deal with TWC to make sure Iowans had service in Ackley, Adair, Albia, Alden, Algona, Allison, Altoona, Amana, Ames, Anamosa, Anita, Ankeny, Aplington, Armstrong, Arnolds Park, Atlantic, Audubon, Avoca, Bedford, Bellevue, Belmond, Bettendorf, Bloomfield, Boone, Bouton, Buffalo Center, Burlington, Calmar, Cantril, Carroll, Carter Lake, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Center Point, Centerville, Chariton, Charles City, Cherokee, Clarinda, Clarion, Clear Lake, Clermont, Clinton, Clive, Columbus Junction, Coralville, Corning, Correctionville, Corydon, Council Bluffs, Cresco, Creston, Davenport, De Soto, De Witt, Decorah, Denison, Des Moines, Donnellson, Dorchester, Dubuque, Dumont, Dyersville, Eagle Grove, Earlville, Early, Eldora, Elk Horn, Elkader, Emmetsburg, Estherville, Evansdale, Fairfield, Fayette, Forest City, Fort Dodge, Fort Madison, Garnavillo, Garner, Glenwood, Grand Junction, Greenfield, Grimes, Grinnell, Griswold, Grundy Center, Guthrie Center, Guttenberg, Hamburg, Hampton, Harlan, Harpers Ferry, Hartley, Hawarden, Hiawatha, Holstein, Homestead, Hudson, Humboldt, Ida Grove, Independence, Indianola, Iowa City, Iowa Falls, Jefferson, Jesup, Johnston, Kalona, Keokuk, Keosauqua, Knoxville, La Porte City, Lake City, Lake Mills, Lake View, Lamoni, Lansing, Laurens, Le Claire, Le Grand, Le Mars, Leighton, Leon, Logan, Manchester, Manly, Mapleton, Maquoketa, Marengo, Marion, Marquette, Marshalltown, Mason City, Massena, McClelland, McGregor, Milford, Minden, Missouri Valley, Monona, Montezuma, Monticello, Moravia, Moville, Mt Ayr, Mt Pleasant, Mt Vernon, Muscatine, Nashua, Nevada, New Hampton, Newton, Nora Springs, Northwood, Oelwein, Okoboji, Onawa, Orange City, Osage, Osceola, Oskaloosa, Ottumwa, Pacific Junction, Panora, Pella, Peosta, Perry, Pocahontas, Postville, Prairie City, Red Oak, Remsen, Rock Rapids, Rock Valley, Rockwell City, Sac City, Sanborn, Sergeant Bluff, Shelby, Sheldon, Shenandoah, Sibley, Sigourney, Sioux Center, Sioux City, Sloan, Spencer, Spillville, Spirit Lake, Stanton, Storm Lake, Story City, Strawberry Point, Stuart, Sumner, Swedesburg, Tama, Tipton, Toledo, Traer, Underwood, Urbandale, Vinton, Walcott, Walnut, Wapello, Washington, Waterloo, Waukee, Waukon, Waverly, Webster City, West Bend, West Branch, West Burlington, West Des Moines, West Liberty, West Union, Williams, Williamsburg, Winterset, Woodbine, and Wyoming

What a concept!!!!!

http://timewarner.broadbandnational.com/state/iowa/iowa-cable.html

Come on folks! TWC saw the handwriting on the wall and simply gave in. You guys make it seem like Sinclair said $1, TWC countered with $.25, and then they split the difference at $.50. Of course, I suppose Sinclair could have started with $.50, TWC countered with $.25, and they settled on $.375. I find the idea of any negotiation in all this a bunch of hooey. As you all have said many times, Sinclair had nothing to lose, why negotiate? If they are demanding $.50 from MCCC, how is that a negotiation? :)


BTW, before you jump all over me, I'm just trying to keep the thread going until there is more news on MCCC. :)

I had a Dodge Viper 10 years ago that the hood fell apart on. The hoods were about $5G each. After the 3rd one fell apart, Dodge said no more.

I sued for them to make it right or buy the car back. They would do neither. At that point it would have cost them roughly $70k. As they refused, time drug on etc. etc. I went out and leased another Viper for 12 months at over $5k a month (and yes I did that just to f... them), storage fees of $25 a day as the old car was not drivable with no hood - etc etc etc. A year later I would not have thought of settling for $70k as my costs (including Attorney Costs) had skyrocketed.

They again offered slightly less than $100k a year later but again, my costs were much higher than that.

Finally 3 years later they tried to low ball me again prior to going to trial. I said bring it on even though my attorney said at minimum it would cost me another $20k in legal fees. They lost in court and that was that.

So yes, you run up legal expenses and guess what - the final price goes up and up and up.

In fact, we know their legal bill alone was slightly north of $90k - and probably hit 6 figures before it was over - and no this was not a Corporate Lawyer - but one they hired in the state.

It would have been much cheaper for them to do what they should have done in the beginning - but they didn't - and yes, they paid dearly for it in the end.

That's what happens when you try something like that with 2 Type A Personalities who refuses to get run over (guess you would have never thought that about me, lol).

I have to disagree, (very respectfully, I hasten to note) Dave. Let's assume you want to sell your home in Peoria. Unless there is some outside reason you MUST sell it, you will wait until someone offers you a figure you are comfortable with.

You have a minimum price in mind, and unless you positively, absolutely have to have cash fast, you wait until either a) someone meets your minimum figure, or b) you decide it was unrealistic and lower it.

It seems to me Sinclair has listened carefully to Les Moonves at CBS and he has mentioned getting, at a minimum, 50 cents for his O&Os. Now you could argue that the CBS O&Os are more valuabe than Sinclair's CBS stations, because CBS is known for heavy local news content...and Sinclair is (to be generous here) generally not so known for that.

But the base price seems to be about 50 cents a sub a month for a big four network affiliate. That is apparently far too rich for Mediacom's taste. So be it. MediaCom has been getting those stations for nothing.

But what harm is therte to viewers? The stations are still available to those in the Sinclair markets -- just not on MediaCom cable. Inconvenient, perhaps, but where is the real harm to anyone?

Sinclair apparently has a figure (just like you would when selling your house) and has seen no reason to go substantially below that. They own the licenses, and it seems to me it is their right to set a price. Just as Sinclair can set advertising rates. If local merchants find those rates too high, they won't buy spots.

Those kinds of negotiations go on -- many of them real hard ball -- all the time at local TV and radion stations. And never does either the merchant or the station call for federal protection.

They just sit down, grit their teeth, and make a deal. Or they don't.

Come on folks! TWC saw the handwriting on the wall and simply gave in. You guys make it seem like Sinclair said $1, TWC countered with $.25, and then they split the difference at $.50. Of course, I suppose Sinclair could have started with $.50, TWC countered with $.25, and they settled on $.375. I find the idea of any negotiation in all this a bunch of hooey. As you all have said many times, Sinclair had nothing to lose, why negotiate? If they are demanding $.50 from MCCC, how is that a negotiation? :)

BTW, before you jump all over me, I'm just trying to keep the thread going until there is more news on MCCC. :)

Hey, Fred, I'm not arguing that at all, but that IMHO is far from a negotiation. A negotiation is when someone offers me something for my house, I seriously consider it, and then accept or offer a counter. If I just hold pat, like many are doing waiting for some of you CA folks to come back this summer looking to buy :) , I'm not negotiating at all, it's all or nothing until one of us blinks. I know that's all part of the "game" and I suppose it fits the defintion of a "negotation", but that is certainly not negotiating in my book. I suspect that with all MCCC's shenanigans, TWC did a bunch of number crunching and simply decided to accede to Sinclair's demand as the lesser of 2 evils, kind of like Dodge should have done with HDTVF's Viper. :)

I know you'll say that's all part of negotiating, but I suspect the FCC would not see that as negotiating "in good faith" since there seems to be no movement by either side. We all know MCCC is going to cave, like CP said, it's just a matter of when. Also, I suspect TWC is large enough to better deal with the cost than maybe MCCC is.

It was great to see WGME HD appear like magic on TWC about 8:15 tonight. We now have a great HD channel lineup for what is available.

An Ohio newspaper website just posted a story on the settlement with this noted:
"The companies have negotiated so long over an agreement because Sinclair wanted to charge Time Warner a fee to carry the two local channels, while Time Warner officials said they disagreed with paying for something customers could get for free with an antenna."

Time Warner has been saying this right through the reports that they had reached a deal and were only finalizing the details.

It has appeared all along that Sinclair is working their way up to the big guys and for now they are willing to take the 8th largest provider (Mediacom) to the wall. They will probably try to pick off one or two more on the next go around.

I hope Mediacom continues the good fight, don't you?

I hope Mediacom continues the good fight, don't you?

What good fight? They've been getting an revenue generating asset for free that all of their competitors have been paying for all along. They can't seriously think that arrangement will continue in today's marketplace.

Hey, Fred, I'm not arguing that at all, but that IMHO is far from a negotiation. A negotiation is when someone offers me something for my house, I seriously consider it, and then accept or offer a counter. If I just hold pat, like many are doing waiting for some of you CA folks to come back this summer looking to buy :) , I'm not negotiating at all, it's all or nothing until one of us blinks. I know that's all part of the "game" and I suppose it fits the defintion of a "negotation", but that is certainly not negotiating in my book. I suspect that with all MCCC's shenanigans, TWC did a bunch of number crunching and simply decided to accede to Sinclair's demand as the lesser of 2 evils, kind of like Dodge should have done with HDTVF's Viper. :)

I know you'll say that's all part of negotiating, but I suspect the FCC would not see that as negotiating "in good faith" since there seems to be no movement by either side. We all know MCCC is going to cave, like CP said, it's just a matter of when. Also, I suspect TWC is large enough to better deal with the cost than maybe MCCC is.

Dave - remember according to that fine head of Mediacom - and you can hear it out of his mouth on the conference call - so no transcribing errors - he claims that the price has been fluid - and when Mediacom has come to a price that at one time Sinclair asked for, their price is different at that point (sounds like a Viper case).

So negotiations are happening by your definition.

Furthermore, as noted and documented - on Friday - 24 hours before the Sinclair stations were turned off - Sinclair made a counter proposal to Mediacom which would have settled this and Mediacom did not respond - instead starting their public relations campaign against Sinclair.

So again, if Sinclair puts a proposal out 24 hours prior to lights out - and Mediacom doesn't respond - who's really not negotiating in good faith?

Again - and I am sure Sinclair loves this - they made the final counter offer 24 hours prior to the shut off of the stations - and it was Mediacom that never responded - 1) accept, 2) we don't accept, or 3) Here's our counter.

Another brilliant strategic error on Mediacom's part.

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

For those not in the business or fully do not understand how these types of negotiations work, the stations and cablecos start negotiating months if not years ahead of the contract end dates and in many cases continue to extend YEARS past those dates without subs on the cableco systems even aware of it.

Case in point; FOX O & O's and TW recently agreed to a new agreement until 2009. What most people DIDN'T know was the O & O's contract with TW ran out FOUR YEARS AGO and had been on the TW systems on a month to month basis using the pricing structure of the old contract ever since while both parties continued to negotiate. This is only one of many cases with not only FOX, but CBS, ABC and NBC not to mention the hundreds of other station owners and thousands of cablecos nationwide.

With that kind of historical track record, Mediacom doesn't have much of a footing when asking for governmental intervention and every new deal that is announced with station cash reimbursement only eats away from Mediacom's position. In the end, all this does for Mediacom is erode their subscriber base, puts their stock in a tailspin, causes employees of all strips to loose their jobs, the company to loose position in the industry and oh yeah, pay money to stations. All for what? A principle? Whether Commisso realises it or not, he is locked in battle with a used car salesman in David Smith. When ever does the used car salesman not win?

Just a little perspective.

Both of those add a lot of perspective. Maybe I should have taken the time to read ALL of what's been posted, including all the links. I'll admit many of my comments were based just on what had been posted, and I joined the discussion kind of late. It does sound like there was some negotiating on both sides, so I guess I need to rethink this.

Then too, I'm a little frustrated because our local CBS recently started mulitcasting. Although I didn't notice it right away because I wasn't watching the reruns, it's apparent now that this has diminished the PQ on their HD channel. Add to that the fact that soon we will end up paying an added fee for this and it all just really sucks. DirecTV subs in the area may not have noticed because of HDLite, but OTA and cable subs sure do. Our CBS used to be #1 in PQ, now they are 4th at best, even behind The CW. :(

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=MCCC&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=SBGI
Dang, Sinclair would have been a great buy back when all this started, I suspect once this dispute is settled the stock will drift back down a bit and level off.

Gosh, maybe Sinclair asked for a delay so they could finish up a TWC deal that was noted last week as just about done - in other words - instead of wasting time defending baseless claims by Mediacom that Sinclair was "discriminating against Iowans" - they were really finalizing the deal with TWC to make sure Iowans had service in Ackley, Adair, Albia, Alden, Algona, Allison, Altoona, Amana, Ames, Anamosa, Anita, Ankeny, Aplington, Armstrong, Arnolds Park, Atlantic, Audubon, Avoca, Bedford, Bellevue, Belmond, Bettendorf, Bloomfield, Boone, Bouton, Buffalo Center, Burlington, Calmar, Cantril, Carroll, Carter Lake, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Center Point, Centerville, Chariton, Charles City, Cherokee, Clarinda, Clarion, Clear Lake, Clermont, Clinton, Clive, Columbus Junction, Coralville, Corning, Correctionville, Corydon, Council Bluffs, Cresco, Creston, Davenport, De Soto, De Witt, Decorah, Denison, Des Moines, Donnellson, Dorchester, Dubuque, Dumont, Dyersville, Eagle Grove, Earlville, Early, Eldora, Elk Horn, Elkader, Emmetsburg, Estherville, Evansdale, Fairfield, Fayette, Forest City, Fort Dodge, Fort Madison, Garnavillo, Garner, Glenwood, Grand Junction, Greenfield, Grimes, Grinnell, Griswold, Grundy Center, Guthrie Center, Guttenberg, Hamburg, Hampton, Harlan, Harpers Ferry, Hartley, Hawarden, Hiawatha, Holstein, Homestead, Hudson, Humboldt, Ida Grove, Independence, Indianola, Iowa City, Iowa Falls, Jefferson, Jesup, Johnston, Kalona, Keokuk, Keosauqua, Knoxville, La Porte City, Lake City, Lake Mills, Lake View, Lamoni, Lansing, Laurens, Le Claire, Le Grand, Le Mars, Leighton, Leon, Logan, Manchester, Manly, Mapleton, Maquoketa, Marengo, Marion, Marquette, Marshalltown, Mason City, Massena, McClelland, McGregor, Milford, Minden, Missouri Valley, Monona, Montezuma, Monticello, Moravia, Moville, Mt Ayr, Mt Pleasant, Mt Vernon, Muscatine, Nashua, Nevada, New Hampton, Newton, Nora Springs, Northwood, Oelwein, Okoboji, Onawa, Orange City, Osage, Osceola, Oskaloosa, Ottumwa, Pacific Junction, Panora, Pella, Peosta, Perry, Pocahontas, Postville, Prairie City, Red Oak, Remsen, Rock Rapids, Rock Valley, Rockwell City, Sac City, Sanborn, Sergeant Bluff, Shelby, Sheldon, Shenandoah, Sibley, Sigourney, Sioux Center, Sioux City, Sloan, Spencer, Spillville, Spirit Lake, Stanton, Storm Lake, Story City, Strawberry Point, Stuart, Sumner, Swedesburg, Tama, Tipton, Toledo, Traer, Underwood, Urbandale, Vinton, Walcott, Walnut, Wapello, Washington, Waterloo, Waukee, Waukon, Waverly, Webster City, West Bend, West Branch, West Burlington, West Des Moines, West Liberty, West Union, Williams, Williamsburg, Winterset, Woodbine, and Wyoming

What a concept!!!!!

http://timewarner.broadbandnational.com/state/iowa/iowa-cable.html

TWC does NOT offer service in most of the areas listed above.

TWC does NOT offer service in most of the areas listed above.

Check the url - its there for a reason - then you can admit you are wrong.

What good fight? They've been getting an revenue generating asset for free that all of their competitors have been paying for all along. They can't seriously think that arrangement will continue in today's marketplace.


TWC has not aired the Sinclair stations in HD in any of their markets - in fact its the only major missing in most markets. It's clear they are being paid now or they would never have been put as Sinclair would have just continued to refuse them retransmission rights.

According to the Greensboro, NC local thread the Sinclair ABC HD station showed up on TWC overnight for the first time in history.

I hope Mediacom continues the good fight, don't you?

I have yet to see Mediacom put up a good fight. Thus far they seem like a loud drunken bar patron yelling nonsense at a bouncer while being thrown out of the bar and yelling I'm gonna sue as he hits the pavement.

At least we now know what your definition of "good" is.

SYTHD just showed up in the guide and on ch 868
just in time for football on Sunday [and 24 and House]

I live in Iowa City/ Coralville area, and TWC is not available here. To the best of my knowledge they are not in eastern Iowa at all. I did click on the link that was provided, but if you click on this http://www.timewarnercable.com/Localization/Corporate.ashx?Zip=52241&x=10&y=8
you will see that TWC is not in Iowa at all. I wish they were here to give us another choice.

TWC has not aired the Sinclair stations in HD in any of their markets - in fact its the only major missing in most markets. It's clear they are being paid now or they would never have been put as Sinclair would have just continued to refuse them retransmission rights.

According to the Greensboro, NC local thread the Sinclair ABC HD station showed up on TWC overnight for the first time in history.

TWC had Sinclair's WGME on in HD for the first time last night. As I said earlier, an Ohio newspaper said in the announcement that TWC didn't want to pay for what went to others free. Ohio, New York and Maine were in the same deal.

I guess Sinclair will continue to fight on with Mediacom as they try to knock off the cable companies one by one. They can't afford to "loose" all their business at one time.

I live in Iowa City/ Coralville area, and TWC is not available here. To the best of my knowledge they are not in eastern Iowa at all. I did click on the link that was provided, but if you click on this http://www.timewarnercable.com/Localization/Corporate.ashx?Zip=52241&x=10&y=8
you will see that TWC is not in Iowa at all. I wish they were here to give us another choice.

Just because they are not at your house doesn't mean they are not in Iowa.

Again, all you had to do was click on the url and click on the city.

So, your claim is that time warner has websites for these Iowa cities that offer 275 digital channels, but they really aren't there?


http://timewarner.broadbandnational.com/state/iowa/iowacity-iowa-cable.html

Time Warner Digital Cable in Iowa City, Iowa
Get over 275 channels* - all of your favorite TV programming from Time Warner for Iowa City, Iowa, including dozens of music channels, all with crystal-clear digital picture and sound. Plus, if you subscribe to a premium service like HBO®, Showtime®, Cinemax®, STARZ!®, or The Movie Channel®, you get multiple channels of that service at no extra cost.


Time Warner Digital Sports Packages - Are you the ultimate sports fan? Then check out these great Digital Sports packages from Time Warner Cable for Iowa City, Iowa! Whether your sport is on the field, court or track, we've got the ticket for you! NHL Center Ice, MLB Extra Innings, MLS Direct Kick, NBA League Pass, and NASCAR IN CAR.


You'll always know what's on - with the push of a button on your digital remote, you can access the easy-to-use on-screen program guide to search for shows by title, time, or theme.




http://timewarner.broadbandnational.com/state/iowa/coralville-iowa-cable.html

Time Warner Digital Cable in Coralville, Iowa
Get over 275 channels* - all of your favorite TV programming from Time Warner for Coralville, Iowa, including dozens of music channels, all with crystal-clear digital picture and sound. Plus, if you subscribe to a premium service like HBO®, Showtime®, Cinemax®, STARZ!®, or The Movie Channel®, you get multiple channels of that service at no extra cost.


Time Warner Digital Sports Packages - Are you the ultimate sports fan? Then check out these great Digital Sports packages from Time Warner Cable for Coralville, Iowa! Whether your sport is on the field, court or track, we've got the ticket for you! NHL Center Ice, MLB Extra Innings, MLS Direct Kick, NBA League Pass, and NASCAR IN CAR.


etc etc etc

So, your claim is that time warner has websites for these Iowa cities that offer 275 digital channels, but they really aren't there?

Yes, that is what I am saying.

http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/aboutus/companyhighlights.html

TWC operates in 33 states, and Iowa is not one of them.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/aboutus/companyhighlights.html

TWC operates in 33 states, and Iowa is not one of them.

Then why in the hell do they have websites on line showing service for all those Iowa Cities :confused:

I really don't have an answer for the TWC website. If TWC was here, this Sinclair/Mediacom fiasco probably would have been settled long ago.

Then why in the hell do they have websites on line showing service for all those Iowa Cities :confused:

Simple... the referenced website (broadbandnational.com) has nothing to do with Time Warner. Check this out:

Time Warner?

http://timewarner.broadbandnational.com

or Comcast?

http://comcast.broadbandnational.com

Simple... the referenced website (broadbandnational.com) has nothing to do with Time Warner. Check this out:

Time Warner?

http://timewarner.broadbandnational.com

or Comcast?

http://comcast.broadbandnational.com


Well, I still don't get it. Even here under Time Warner Sales Offices, they list they sell advertising for their Iowa Systems out of the Chicago Regional Office:

http://www.cablemediasales.com/pages/contc/?cp=contc&sp=state&id=IA

So this is without a doubt one of the most screwed up things I've seen to date on offerings if what you are saying is correct.

TWC has not aired the Sinclair stations in HD in any of their markets - in fact its the only major missing in most markets. It's clear they are being paid now or they would never have been put as Sinclair would have just continued to refuse them retransmission rights.

According to the Greensboro, NC local thread the Sinclair ABC HD station showed up on TWC overnight for the first time in history.

I would caution against this kind of presumptive statement. We don't know that is the case and to say such is simple speculation. For example, in Baltimore we have all the Sinclair HD stations available (Sinclair's home market) and local cable is not paying a fee for the channels. So, alternatives to the scenario you presume above are possible and already in place.

GoIrish

Well, I still don't get it. Even here under Time Warner Sales Offices, they list they sell advertising for their Iowa Systems out of the Chicago Regional Office:

http://www.cablemediasales.com/pages/contc/?cp=contc&sp=state&id=IA

So this is without a doubt one of the most screwed up things I've seen to date on offerings if what you are saying is correct.

You are exactly correct, Mr. FanAtic, you "still don't get it." This is what I have been telling you all along.

I hope Mediacom hangs on and comes up with the same deal Time Warner did. NO PAY FOR FREE STUFF!

I hope Mediacom hangs on and comes up with the same deal Time Warner did. NO PAY FOR FREE STUFF!

How do you know they didn't? My guess is they did.

How do you know they didn't? My guess is they did.And IMHO, that is the problem with this whole thread, anyone that does know isn't saying, so it's all speculation. Reading between the lines though, my assumption is that you (and HDTVF) do know, so I take your comments as confirmation. If that is an incorrect assumption, then I go back to my opening statement. :)

If GoIrish is correct about Baltimore, then I believe that is BS on Sinclair's part. If Stan54 is also correct, then it is simply more BS on Sinclair's part.

And, yes, I know that Sinclair is free to do what they want with whom they want, just all part of this (shady) business, but I still don't have to like it. Maybe growing up in the 50's and 60's I'm naive enough to think there used to be such a thing as fair-play vs simple greed (and personal vendettas). :)

How do you know they didn't? My guess is they did.

My guess is that they didn't based on my previously posted quote from an Ohio newspaper's website right after the Time Warner settlement:

"The companies have negotiated so long over an agreement because Sinclair wanted to charge Time Warner a fee to carry the two local channels, while Time Warner officials said they disagreed with paying for something customers could get for free with an antenna."

I know some people here really want cable consumers to have to pay for what is otherwise put out free for the taking, but I'm one of those wild and crazy guys that would just as soon this not happen.

Go Mediacom! Fight as long, hard and publicly as possible.

A quote from Kentucky.Com might help to explain what has occurred:

"Broadcasters also have argued cable companies should pay for their signals because satellite companies do. But while satellite companies can bundle local channels and sell them as an optional package, federal law requires cable customers buy a basic tier, which generally must include local broadcast signals, before being able to buy additional channel lineups."

If you believe TWC received these channels for free, you haven't been paying attention to the industry very closely.

If you believe TWC received these channels for free, you haven't been paying attention to the industry very closely.

Are you referring to the fact that some smaller cable companies have already been paying, as I said back along or have you seen somewhere that TWC was forced to pay in this settlement? The quotes I provided suggest otherwise to me until I learn something new. Please fill me in.

And IMHO, that is the problem with this whole thread, anyone that does know isn't saying, so it's all speculation. Reading between the lines though, my assumption is that you (and HDTVF) do know, so I take your comments as confirmation. If that is an incorrect assumption, then I go back to my opening statement. :)

If you think that Sinclair will ask for money for a channel for 4 years and then all of a sudden NOT take money for it, then I am REALLY beginning to worry about you!! ;)

I would caution against this kind of presumptive statement. We don't know that is the case and to say such is simple speculation. For example, in Baltimore we have all the Sinclair HD stations available (Sinclair's home market) and local cable is not paying a fee for the channels. So, alternatives to the scenario you presume above are possible and already in place.

GoIrish

It is well known as fact that TWC systems around the Country have never had Sinclairs HD Signals and last I checked Comcast was the the biggie in Baltimore - not TWC.

You are exactly correct, Mr. FanAtic, you "still don't get it." This is what I have been telling you all along.

I hope Mediacom hangs on and comes up with the same deal Time Warner did. NO PAY FOR FREE STUFF!

I based what I posted on facts - and when there are over 50 customized webpages listing TWC available in specific pages in Iowa - as well as the TWC National Sales listing the same - that's pretty overwhelming evidence. As I posted the url from the first post - as I have never been to Iowa - if its wrong, its wrong - but it is very screwy.

It's certainly more than what you provide pulling information with no basis for facts and only your speculation.

Just because they have never paid when the quotes were made, that's why there was no agreement. Now there is an agreement and a price has been paid.

Ditto Belo which has pulled their stations off most cable systems in the last week.

If you believe TWC received these channels for free, you haven't been paying attention to the industry very closely.

As stated, Stan54 posts his beliefs with no basis for any fact.

If you think that Sinclair will ask for money for a channel for 4 years and then all of a sudden NOT take money for it, then I am REALLY beginning to worry about you!! ;)

Beginning?????

I based what I posted on facts - and when there are over 50 customized webpages listing TWC available in specific pages in Iowa - as well as the TWC National Sales listing the same - that's pretty overwhelming evidence. As I posted the url from the first post - as I have never been to Iowa - if its wrong, its wrong - but it is very screwy.


I actually think those pages are generated, not customized. Also, the "TWC national sales for Iowa" page that you found looked to be more a generic page for the region. If someone was from Iowa, looking to find the advertising sales for TW, they would contact that number. That page didn't look to be an official TW page, either. It looked to be more of an industry directory instead.

Not being from Iowa, I can't honestly say one way or the other, but the fact that the official TimeWarnerCable.com website says they do business in 33 states-- none of which are Iowa, leads me to believe that the other sites are the ones that are wrong, and that you have, unfortunately, been misled by very authentic looking sites that are not, actually, owned by Time Warner.

-R

I actually think those pages are generated, not customized. Also, the "TWC national sales for Iowa" page that you found looked to be more a generic page for the region. If someone was from Iowa, looking to find the advertising sales for TW, they would contact that number. That page didn't look to be an official TW page, either. It looked to be more of an industry directory instead.

Not being from Iowa, I can't honestly say one way or the other, but the fact that the official TimeWarnerCable.com website says they do business in 33 states-- none of which are Iowa, leads me to believe that the other sites are the ones that are wrong, and that you have, unfortunately, been misled by very authentic looking sites that are not, actually, owned by Time Warner.

-R

I think you misunderstood that post - I have no issue admitting that TWC isn't in Iowa - I am stating that when I google it and those 50+ pages come up and its on the TWC National Sales website - usually that's enough confirmation as fact - as most people don't put up webpages for an area they are not in.

That is what is screwy and I don't think I've ever seen over 50+ custom webpages for ordering cable in an area of a state that it isn't available - and the Time Warner National Sales is their website.

As also stated, if Stan54 had just one link to what he posts instead of pulling his opinion out as fact, we might cut down on his credibility problem - but as he and POSG admitted, they seldom to ever read an entire post of facts or click on a link - which answers a lot.

I based what I posted on facts - and when there are over 50 customized webpages listing TWC available in specific pages in Iowa - as well as the TWC National Sales listing the same - that's pretty overwhelming evidence. As I posted the url from the first post - as I have never been to Iowa - if its wrong, its wrong - but it is very screwy.

It's certainly more than what you provide pulling information with no basis for facts and only your speculation.

Just because they have never paid when the quotes were made, that's why there was no agreement. Now there is an agreement and a price has been paid.

Ditto Belo which has pulled their stations off most cable systems in the last week.

Quote from Mr. FanAtic:

"Just because they have never paid when the quotes were made, that's why there was no agreement. Now there is an agreement and a price has been paid."

Mr. FanAtic, is there any basis of fact in what you say or is it just more of your speculation?

Quote from Mr. FanAtic:

"Just because they have never paid when the quotes were made, that's why there was no agreement. Now there is an agreement and a price has been paid."

Mr. FanAtic, is there any basis of fact in what you say or is it just more of your speculation?

Yes - statements that David Smith made that he would not sign retransmission agreements unless paid and was willing to wait it out as long as it took.

There's absolutely no question that TWC is paying some sort of carriage fee. Sinclair is winning every single legislative challenge with Mediacom - if they gave their channels away for free to TWC and singled out Mediacom for payment, they'd lose that legislative support immediately.

Beginning?????Well, since your "opinion" is obviously the only one that is apparently welcome here, I bid you farewell.

There was absolutely no need to get personal in any of this. I don't have to like what Sinclair or Belo or anyone else is doing just to please you (or foxeng). You may be correct in all your technical postings, but that doesn't make you correct in your "opinion" of what is right and wrong. It would be one thing if Sinclair were crying that they need this $.50/sub to stay in business, but you and I both know exactly where this money is going, to fill Sinclair's greedy pockets at the expense of cable subs, pure and simple.

Correcting inaccuracies is one thing, but putting people down simply because they have a different opinion is wrong and should be beneath both of you, but it's something one has to expect here on AVS. I'm just a working stiff trying to get the most for my money. I don't have friends in the business who are the ones who will benefit from all this and I'm just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours without being subjected to your personal BS.

I have no problem when people have different opinions if those opinions are based on correct facts.

When the only facts are

1) They haven't paid before

2) Broadcast Stations pay no spectrum fee and thus get a free ride

3) It's all the NAB's fault and Government's fault that we cannot sub to any stations anywhere in the country we want

Those facts have been disproven as in countless other ways. If you base opinion on facts, there is no issue - but if it purely opinion and not based on facts - yes, thats where I get arrogant and pissed.

No one likes to pay higher prices for anything - but perhaps in this case maybe ESPN should cut their fees to pay so it all evens out? HBO went up a $1 on most carriers this year - yet HBO lost the rights to a major movie studio. Is this fair? Sometime one has to make decisions when cost rise.

As POSG had has in his signature, unless its the whole truth its not the truth.

Yes - statements that David Smith made that he would not sign retransmission agreements unless paid and was willing to wait it out as long as it took.

Mr. Smith made that remark BEFORE the TWC agreement. The quote from the Ohio newspaper website came AFTER the agreement.

"The companies have negotiated so long over an agreement because Sinclair wanted to charge Time Warner a fee to carry the two local channels, while Time Warner officials said they disagreed with paying for something customers could get for free with an antenna."

Notice the use of the past tense WANTED (not wants). That "proof" one-ups YOUR "proof." You seem to accept anything as evidence as long as it comes from you.

If you ever do come up with a "fact" regarding payment, please let me know.

I'm not sure I buy off on the assumption that TWC coughed up cash without some offsetting consessions, like a whole bunch of unsold spot inventory on the Sinclair stations.

Maybe to save face, TWC simply committed to buying millions of dollars in spots in lieu of cash for carriage. But whatever works. I applaude the two parties for coming to an agreement without disrupting their customers. See, it can be done.

As much flak as TWC has taken for not ADDING a channel (NFL Network), at least avoid taking existing channels away.

Are you listening, Mr. Ergen ???

There's absolutely no question that TWC is paying some sort of carriage fee. Sinclair is winning every single legislative challenge with Mediacom - if they gave their channels away for free to TWC and singled out Mediacom for payment, they'd lose that legislative support immediately.

"There's absolutely no question", huh?????

Please, Mr. Panther. You know better than to make that assumption.

Does that sound like an assumption?

Well, since your "opinion" is obviously the only one that is apparently welcome here, I bid you farewell.

There was absolutely no need to get personal in any of this. I don't have to like what Sinclair or Belo or anyone else is doing just to please you (or foxeng). You may be correct in all your technical postings, but that doesn't make you correct in your "opinion" of what is right and wrong. It would be one thing if Sinclair were crying that they need this $.50/sub to stay in business, but you and I both know exactly where this money is going, to fill Sinclair's greedy pockets at the expense of cable subs, pure and simple.

Correcting inaccuracies is one thing, but putting people down simply because they have a different opinion is wrong and should be beneath both of you, but it's something one has to expect here on AVS. I'm just a working stiff trying to get the most for my money. I don't have friends in the business who are the ones who will benefit from all this and I'm just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours without being subjected to your personal BS.

The most successful people are the one's that have about 40% technical knowledge and skills, and about 60% people skills, and I'll leave it at that. ;) ;) ;)

"There's absolutely no question", huh?????

Please, Mr. Panther. You know better than to make that assumption.
It's no assumption.

Mr. Smith made that remark BEFORE the TWC agreement. The quote from the Ohio newspaper website came AFTER the agreement.

"The companies have negotiated so long over an agreement because Sinclair wanted to charge Time Warner a fee to carry the two local channels, while Time Warner officials said they disagreed with paying for something customers could get for free with an antenna."

Notice the use of the past tense WANTED (not wants). That "proof" one-ups YOUR "proof." You seem to accept anything as evidence as long as it comes from you.

If you ever do come up with a "fact" regarding payment, please let me know.

Yes, that is what the disagreement was about and the disagreement is over and the agreement is signed - thus it is now past tense.

You seem to want to correct my spelling and grammar, but perhaps you should look in the mirror when it comes to verb usage.


"The companies have negotiated so long over an agreement because Sinclair wanted to charge Time Warner a fee to carry the two local channels, while Time Warner officials said they disagreed with paying for something customers could get for free with an antenna."

On another subject, it's quite quite comical to see you cheering for Mediacom while your WGNE was restored. Fight the battle - just don't take away my stations, lol.

Please clarify for me. Did TWC and Sinclair reach an agreement?

CSR in San Antonio this afternoon denies any settlement in this division. No Fox HD yet.

Originally Posted by GoIrish
I would caution against this kind of presumptive statement. We don't know that is the case and to say such is simple speculation. For example, in Baltimore we have all the Sinclair HD stations available (Sinclair's home market) and local cable is not paying a fee for the channels. So, alternatives to the scenario you presume above are possible and already in place.

GoIrish


It is well known as fact that TWC systems around the Country have never had Sinclairs HD Signals and last I checked Comcast was the the biggie in Baltimore - not TWC.

I was referring to your presumptive comment that TWC had paid for carriage if Sinclair's HD signals were now available. Further, the example offered that Comcast has had their HD signals for more than two years and not paid a fee was the example that your statement would not have to be the only way this could get done.

Finally, I never stated TWC was in Baltimore.

GoIrish

I think you misunderstood that post - I have no issue admitting that TWC isn't in Iowa - I am stating that when I google it and those 50+ pages come up and its on the TWC National Sales website - usually that's enough confirmation as fact - as most people don't put up webpages for an area they are not in.

That is what is screwy and I don't think I've ever seen over 50+ custom webpages for ordering cable in an area of a state that it isn't available - and the Time Warner National Sales is their website.

I live in eastern Iowa and can confirm there is no TWC here. Our options are limited to Mediacom or locally owned cable systems if you want cable.

There was a running joke around here when AT&T sold their cable system to Mediacom in 2001. Once people found out who was running it they started calling them 'Mafiacom'. :D A lot of people were pissed off at them because the quality of service went downhill for the first year or two as prices went up.

Another thing I found funny was that their CEO, Rocco Commisso, told all their offices to remove any 'Sopranos' posters that were hanging up on the walls. Apparently he was offended.

I think things have gotten better over the last few years, but this thing with Sinclair is just another knock against them and is hurting their reputation. They need to get off their high horse and just make a deal with them.

I've heard rumors of Comcast buying them out, so maybe this would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by GoIrish
I would caution against this kind of presumptive statement. We don't know that is the case and to say such is simple speculation. For example, in Baltimore we have all the Sinclair HD stations available (Sinclair's home market) and local cable is not paying a fee for the channels. So, alternatives to the scenario you presume above are possible and already in place.

GoIrish




I was referring to your presumptive comment that TWC had paid for carriage if Sinclair's HD signals were now available. Further, the example offered that Comcast has had their HD signals for more than two years and not paid a fee was the example that your statement would not have to be the only way this could get done.

Finally, I never stated TWC was in Baltimore.

GoIrish

So, you are suggesting that cities should woo Sinclair to move their Corporate Office to their city with tax breaks and incentives so that the Corporate Office can watch the Sinclair station on cable in their house and thus everyone in the city will get the station?

Somehow, I don't think that is likely.

Please clarify for me. Did TWC and Sinclair reach an agreement?

CSR in San Antonio this afternoon denies any settlement in this division. No Fox HD yet.

It certainly appears to be the case given the number of markets that now have Sinclair on which have never had Sinclair HD on prior to now.

As to why it did not show up everywhere I can speculate - but after speaking with 2 different NOCs, its because it came down so late on Friday - well after 5pm and most systems do not want to do System Maintenance on the weekend.

A few were motivated when the flash came down, but clearly not the majority.

So, you are suggesting that cities should woo Sinclair to move their Corporate Office to their city with tax breaks and incentives so that the Corporate Office can watch the Sinclair station on cable in their house and thus everyone in the city will get the station?

Somehow, I don't think that is likely.

Simply have no idea what the relevance of this comment has to the point being made or, how local governmental tax breaks affect retransmission consent negotiations.

Do you read what you're responding to or just respond....

GoIrish

Simply have no idea what the relevance of this comment has to the point being made or, how local governmental tax breaks affect retransmission consent negotiations.

Do you read what you're responding to or just respond....

GoIrish

Yes - and if you don't think that the corporate office of Sinclair being in Baltimore had any bearing to why Comcast in Baltimore had the Sinclair Digital Channels on it, then you missed the boat.

The most successful people are the one's that have about 40% technical knowledge and skills, and about 60% people skills, and I'll leave it at that. ;) ;) ;)


Another assumption on your behalf. Your description fits Indianapolis and former Tampa Coach Tony Dungy who can build you a team to get you into the playoffs, but cannot get you to win in the Superbowl.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to win and we all know where nice guys finish.

I just received an email update from Melinda Witmer, VP Programming TWC that they signed a carriage agreement with Sinclair on 1/19. I asked for clarification on when the local franchises might start carrying the HD feeds of the Sinclair stations and will report back with anything that I hear.

This should be great news for those of of us living in TWC cable areas with major networks affiliates owned by Sinclair!

Another assumption on your behalf. Your description fits Indianapolis and former Tampa Coach Tony Dungy who can build you a team to get you into the playoffs, but cannot get you to win in the Superbowl.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to win and we all know where nice guys finish.
Are you sure you are not going to have to edit that analogy again in two weeks?

Are you sure you are not going to have to edit that analogy again in two weeks?
Good question.....

Are you sure you are not going to have to edit that analogy again in two weeks?

Doubtful, but thats why i dont bet on sports.

Another assumption on your behalf. Your description fits Indianapolis and former Tampa Coach Tony Dungy who can build you a team to get you into the playoffs, but cannot get you to win in the Superbowl.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to win and we all know where nice guys finish.

Another assumption on your behalf. Having "people skills" doesn't necessarily mean being a "nice guy". It has more to do with maturity in your behavior. ;) ;) ;)

Go Colts. :D

Please clarify for me. Did TWC and Sinclair reach an agreement?

CSR in San Antonio this afternoon denies any settlement in this division. No Fox HD yet.

The agreement applied to the old Adelphia systems in Ohio, New York and Maine.

I just received an email update from Melinda Witmer, VP Programming TWC that they signed a carriage agreement with Sinclair on 1/19. I asked for clarification on when the local franchises might start carrying the HD feeds of the Sinclair stations and will report back with anything that I hear.

This should be great news for those of of us living in TWC cable areas with major networks affiliates owned by Sinclair!

Stan - this seems to indicate that its everyone. The fact that we're getting WGME-HD in non-former Adelphia TWC areas seems to support that. I think we got it so fast because TWC and WGME have had the infrastructure in place for a while now, literally just waiting to flip the switch.

Why are FanAtic, Ken and Panther so eager to presume or assume that TWC is now paying a carriage fee to Sinclair? The very best evidence offered so far is that Mr. Smith said he wouldn't do it without a fee. Wow! That IS a pretty heavy FACT.

Despite the bolstering and statements to the media, it was never an issue of carriage fee or not - only how much. If you want to stick to the opinion that Sinclair is handing over their programming free of charge to TWC but demanding compensation from Mediacom, that's your right - but I wouldn't back yourself too far into that corner.

At this point in time everyone needs to accept the reality that you may never know what agreement has been reached between TWC & Sinclair. You know what happens when you "assume"?

Anyway the following does answer a few questions about which markets are affected.

http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_2007122_201.shtml

Sinclair has now let TW in Greensboro, NC carry the HD feed. Yay, ABC in HD finally.

Please clarify for me. Did TWC and Sinclair reach an agreement?

CSR in San Antonio this afternoon denies any settlement in this division. No Fox HD yet.

I reached someone in TWC-SA Engineering and they were going to forward the email that I received from Melinda Witmer and the press release from Sinclair up their chain. I also contacted the Business Desk of the Express-News and provided the same information. They said they are going to contact the local TWC Marketing staff to follow up!

We might just get Cowboys/NFC football and 24 in HD yet :cool:

All, it's done. There's an agreement across the board which includes HD!

http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_2007122_201.shtml

Why are FanAtic, Ken and Panther so eager to presume or assume that TWC is now paying a carriage fee to Sinclair? The very best evidence offered so far is that Mr. Smith said he wouldn't do it without a fee. Wow! That IS a pretty heavy FACT.

Maybe because we have high level sources in the Industry, unlike you?

Despite the bolstering and statements to the media, it was never an issue of carriage fee or not - only how much. If you want to stick to the opinion that Sinclair is handing over their programming free of charge to TWC but demanding compensation from Mediacom, that's your right - but I wouldn't back yourself too far into that corner.

I am not saying that TWC is not paying a carriage fee to Sinclair. They may have and they may not have. You pro-carriage fee people seem to be the only ones that are certain based on nothing but speculation.

Actually, the Ohio newspaper's comment leads me in the opposite direction. In reality, only the parties involved know the real answer. The very recent announcement by Sinclair may provide a clue, however, when it included this language:

"..............a mutually acceptable economic agreement between the parties,....."

I SPECULATE that TWC did something other than a direct money payment since Time Warner said after the agreement that the delay was due to the fact that Sinclair WANTED money. I hope they didn't pay, but they might have. Now, you folks should post that you hope they did pay, but they might not have. That way we would both be honest with the known facts. (I can just imagine FanAtic doing that. Yeah, sure!)

(I can just imagine FanAtic doing that. Yeah, sure!)

Interesting - as I am the one that posts url to facts when I am able confirm info in the public domain....something you seldom ever do.

I SPECULATE that TWC did something other than a direct money payment since Time Warner said after the agreement that the delay was due to the fact that Sinclair WANTED money.

I SPECULATE that WWII was won by Germany and Japan because the United States said the delay in ending the war was that Germany WANTED control of Europe and the Atlantic while Japan WANTED control of the Far East and the Pacific. The United States WANTED the opposite.

But back to reality - speculate all you want, but I have first hand knowledge you are wrong.

Time Warner didn't WANT to pay, but they did.

Time Warner didn't WANT to pay, but they did.

And it doubtful that we will find out what those arrangements were. Not that I even care really, I just want my local Sinclair affiliates in HD.

Today's agreement includes the following stations and markets:

Birmingham, AL: WABM/WTTO
Buffalo, NY: WNYO/ WUTV
Cape Girardeau, MO/Paducah, KY: WDKA/KBSI
Charleston, SC: WMMP/WTAT
Charleston, WV: WCHS/WVAH
Cincinnati, OH: WSTR
Columbus, OH: WSYX/WTTE
Dayton, OH: WKEF/WRGT
Greensboro/High Point/Winston Salem, NC: WMYV/WXLV
Lexington, KY: WDKY
Norfolk, VA: WTVZ
Milwaukee, WI: WCGV/WVTV
Pensacola, FL/Mobile, AL: WEAR
Pittsburgh. PA: WPGH/WPMY
Portland, ME: WGME
Raleigh, NC: WLFL/WRDC
Rochester, NY: WUHF
San Antonio, TX: KABB/KMYS
Springfield. MA: WGGB
Syracuse, NY: WNYS/WSYT
Tallahassee, FL: WTWC
Tampa, FL: WTTA

You pro-carriage fee people

I'm not really "pro-carriage fee" for any advertising supported network. More than anything else, I'm pro-free broadcast television. That may seem like a contradiction, but the current system is shifting more and more programming and sports to cablenets because increasingly they are the only ones who can afford it. If this trend continues, the only thing available for free over the air won't be much worth watching.

If MSOs are profitting from the programming, let them pay a fee to do so (just like they do with every other network). That becomes part of the cost of programming delivered into the home. However, the option to receive these local affiliates completely free of any monthly charge, remains an option to the vast majority of citizens. That's not a bad "worst case scenario" for families that end up in a financial crunch.

So how long will it take for our local Time Warner offices to add the Sinclair stations in HD? I called my wife and she says no changes thus far on our lineup.

So how long will it take for our local Time Warner offices to add the Sinclair stations in HD? I called my wife and she says no changes thus far on our lineup.
I called my local TW affiliate just a few min ago and spoke to sales and the guy I talked to didn't even know about this yet. He was like "I'm gonna have to find out about this and let the other folks here know.".

So I wouldn't look for it to happen very quickly. Hopefully for those that are missing out on CBS HD it will be before the Super Bowl. For the rest of us, just hopefully sooner than later.

Interesting - as I am the one that posts url to facts when I am able confirm info in the public domain....something you seldom ever do.



I SPECULATE that WWII was won by Germany and Japan because the United States said the delay in ending the war was that Germany WANTED control of Europe and the Atlantic while Japan WANTED control of the Far East and the Pacific. The United States WANTED the opposite.

But back to reality - speculate all you want, but I have first hand knowledge you are wrong.

Time Warner didn't WANT to pay, but they did.

You lost your credibility a long time ago. ("first hand knowledge") This assertion does nothing to restore it.

I called my local TW affiliate just a few min ago and spoke to sales and the guy I talked to didn't even know about this yet. He was like "I'm gonna have to find out about this and let the other folks here know.".

So I wouldn't look for it to happen very quickly. Hopefully for those that are missing out on CBS HD it will be before the Super Bowl. For the rest of us, just hopefully sooner than later.


I tried to prod along the process here in San Antonio by calling TWC-SA Engineering, the local Business Editor from our newspaper and the Chief Engineer at KABB-KMYS. None of them was aware of the announcement until I called them so at least they all know now it is time to get it on the air :)

I'm not really "pro-carriage fee" for any advertising supported network. More than anything else, I'm pro-free broadcast television. That may seem like a contradiction, but the current system is shifting more and more programming and sports to cablenets because increasingly they are the only ones who can afford it. If this trend continues, the only thing available for free over the air won't be much worth watching.

If MSOs are profitting from the programming, let them pay a fee to do so (just like they do with every other network). That becomes part of the cost of programming delivered into the home. However, the option to receive these local affiliates completely free of any monthly charge, remains an option to the vast majority of citizens. That's not a bad "worst case scenario" for families that end up in a financial crunch.

One thing that seems unfair, Mr. Panther, is that cable is required to carry locals in the basic cable tier rather than where the consumer has a choice to pay for them or not. Perhaps, they should be treated like the satellite channels if they want payment.

Cable isn't required to carry them at all if they are seeking compensation. TWC didn't have to place them on the basic tier - they could have simply said "no, thanks".

D* offers the locals at no charge as part of their basic package, so the customer doesn't have the choice not to pay for them. Plus, with TWC dead-set against a la carte, why would they be concerned with giving the customer a choice of what they would like to pay for? Do their customers have that option with any other basic cable channels?

Not to nitpick Panther, cuz I typically agree with you, but up until this next Price change from
DirecTV, you can opt out of your locals and save yourself $5 .

That's supposed to become much more difficult and the discount only applied to those few areas without any LILs - not just for anyone that doesn't need/want them.

But DBS was a different situation because they didn't initially carry LILs, so the fee wasn't practical to apply across the board when only a handful of markets were served. Now that just about everyone is covered, they can just fold that into the basic fee. Cable can certainly do the same thing - I pay $13 a month to my cableco just for the locals (and only pay that because it's required if you want broadband)

You lost your credibility a long time ago. ("first hand knowledge") This assertion does nothing to restore it.

lol. coming from you that means nothing.

Iowa B’cast Group Weighs In on Sinclair-Mediacom
By Ted Hearn1 Multi Channel News January 22, 2007

The head of the Iowa Broadcasters Association said Monday that Sinclair Broadcast Group should be allowed to demand cash for cable carriage from Mediacom Communications without interference by regulators.

"In our view, there is no valid reason for any arm of the government to become involved in the Sinclair-Mediacom matter," IBA president Steve Martinson said in a three-page letter to the entire Iowa congressional delegation.

On Jan. 6, Sinclair pulled 22 local TV stations from Mediacom, a midsized cable operator, impacting 700,000 subscribers. Without success, Mediacom has sought help from Congress, the courts and the Federal Communications Commission.

In 1992, TV stations gained from Congress the right to seek cash from cable and satellite TV providers in a triennial process called retransmission consent. Both sides are required to bargain in good faith.

"Sinclair's position, like that of a growing number of television broadcasters, is simply this: If the cable operators wish to sell to their subscribers the programming that broadcasters invest to produce and acquire, the cable operators should pay broadcasters for the value those programs deliver," Martinson said.

He added that Mediacom subscribers have "several ways to continue to enjoy Sinclair's programming," either by using an off-air antenna or by signing up with a satellite-TV provider.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6409245.html?display=Breaking+News

as of 7:20PM Eastern Time The Sinclair Stations WSYX and WTTE of Columbus Ohio have arrived to Time Warner Cable, ALL Subscribers, not just former Adelphia Markets!

The People of Columbus Ohio Rejoice!

as of 7:20PM Eastern Time The Sinclair Stations WSYX and WTTE of Columbus Ohio have arrived to Time Warner Cable, ALL Subscribers, not just former Adelphia Markets!

The People of Columbus Ohio Rejoice!

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol. coming from you that means nothing.

I wouldn't claim "first hand knowledge" if I didn't have it. You did.

Cable isn't required to carry them at all if they are seeking compensation. TWC didn't have to place them on the basic tier - they could have simply said "no, thanks".

D* offers the locals at no charge as part of their basic package, so the customer doesn't have the choice not to pay for them. Plus, with TWC dead-set against a la carte, why would they be concerned with giving the customer a choice of what they would like to pay for? Do their customers have that option with any other basic cable channels?

Of course, you are correct, Mr. Panther. The cable company is not required to carry local channels.

Beyond that fact, however, lies a problem for the cable company.

If they do carry local channels, they must place them in their basic tier of service whether they pay for them or not. Naturally, the cable company would prefer to place them in a chargeable tier EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR THEM. This would be a huge benefit for the cable company, so the possibility of placing a free local channel in a pay tier has been rightfully precluded.

When local station pay came along, the basic tier requirement was in place and, since it served the best interests of the consumer (voter), it stayed in place. This was to the disadvantage of the cable company who, now, have to load up their basic tier of service with channels they have to pay for acquiring.

Since some here favor cable companies paying broadcasters for what is otherwise a free service of the broadcaster, would those same people favor removing the basic tier requirement from cable companies? You know, ............ in the interest of fairness. In the future, if cable companies had to pay local broadcasters, they could place those broadcasters in the pay tier. ........... Sound fair?

Can any of you "industry insiders" comment on the length of the TWC/Sinclair deal? 2 years seems awfully short, but I have no point of reference.

Since some here favor cable companies paying broadcasters for what is otherwise a free service of the broadcaster, would those same people favor removing the basic tier requirement from cable companies? You know, ............ in the interest of fairness. In the future, if cable companies had to pay local broadcasters, they could place those broadcasters in the pay tier. ........... Sound fair?

Sure, I believe any channel that carries a fee should be offered voluntarily to the consumer. If the cableco offers all channels on an a la carte basis, the local affilates that demand a carriage fee should also be offered a la carte. The basic tier requirement should then only apply to those channels that invoked must-carry status.

But I certainly wouldn't support allowing cablecos to require that consumers who wish to spend $1 for a local broadcaster's programming have to also purchase an $8 ESPN suite of channels (or $40 a month for expanded basic).

Can any of you "industry insiders" comment on the length of the TWC/Sinclair deal? 2 years seems awfully short, but I have no point of reference.

It's 3 years. (I believe retrans agreements are always 3 years)

It's 3 years. (I believe retrans agreements are always 3 years)

Sinclair made a deal with Comcast for its HD channels in 2005 and it's about to expire. In Baltimore they may have to pull the FOX and CW HD channels on 2/5.

IIRC, that was only for the HD feeds. Typically, the must-carry status is determined every three years for a new three year period. As a result, the retransmission agreements follow the same schedule. I'd guess that the HD agreement end date between Comcast and Sinclair sync'd up with the analog agreement expiration. That would mean any impasse would result in Comcast losing both feeds this time around - not just the HD feeds.

IIRC, that was only for the HD feeds. Typically, the must-carry status is determined every three years for a new three year period. As a result, the retransmission agreements follow the same schedule. I'd guess that the HD agreement end date between Comcast and Sinclair sync'd up with the analog agreement expiration. That would mean any impasse would result in Comcast losing both feeds this time around - not just the HD feeds.

The message Comcast sent was only for HD.

"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."

Any idea when the analog contract expires? Sinclair has a helluvalot more leverage when the analog channels are also affected. Seems stupid to separately negotiate the HD feeds.

I'd bet that the only reason the HD feeds were singled out is because they can't pull the analog feed during sweeps. 2/5 is the date for losing the HD feeds - but you may get notice that on 2/28, they could be pulling the analog feeds as well.

Any idea when the analog contract expires? Sinclair has a helluvalot more leverage when the analog channels are also affected. Seems stupid to separately negotiate the HD feeds.

According to Sinclair, "The multi-year agreement relates to the analog and digital signals of the Sinclair stations....Comcast has historically carried the analog signals of all the Sinclair stations located in Comcast markets and such carriage will continue under the new agreement."

http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_2005316_104.shtml

So I guess the analog channels will be pulled also. And it sounds like the new agreement began in 2005 for both analog and digital?

...or the primary agreement ran from 2004 to 2007 and the digital feeds were negotiated in 2005 to expire at the same time. That would be my guess.

It's 3 years. (I believe retrans agreements are always 3 years)

Sorry... my bad math. Dec. 31, 2009 really IS 3 years. :) That does answer my question though..its "Standard"

Define standard...lol.

I can tell you that the companies I deal with usually do 3 years for cable and 5 years for satellite in terms of OTA Network retransmission agreements - unless there is a reason why another term makes sense in that particular instance.

Remember, it takes 2 to sign an agreement - something Mediacom is having trouble grasping the concept.

Of course, Stan54 says I have no first hand knowledge (thus proving his inaccurate posts again), so consider the source, lol.

Sure, I believe any channel that carries a fee should be offered voluntarily to the consumer. If the cableco offers all channels on an a la carte basis, the local affilates that demand a carriage fee should also be offered a la carte. The basic tier requirement should then only apply to those channels that invoked must-carry status.

But I certainly wouldn't support allowing cablecos to require that consumers who wish to spend $1 for a local broadcaster's programming have to also purchase an $8 ESPN suite of channels (or $40 a month for expanded basic).

As you know I have no problem making the playing field even - and have stated as such.

While I don't have an issue with it, I think these are the stumbling blocks

1) As shown over and over in time of emergency, the local channels dump their programming and become the lifeline of the area they serve. Just ask anyone in an area after a hurricane hits and people need water and basic supplies to live. While one can argue that cable might not be working at that time due to power issues, the federal authorities and local authorities want every means possible to get the word out - and what happens if those channels are not part of a basic tier.

2) Politicians passed a bill long ago forcing OTA Broadcasters to sell them time for their election race at the lowest possible price of any advertiser on the station - and they must make the same amount of time available to ALL candidates in that race. Cable does not have that regulation - nor does it has the reach and frequency for the politicians. Do politicians really want to limit which stations can be seen via cable (ala carte) and thus they have no effective way to sling mud on their opponent at the lowest possible rate?

And actually, at the end of the day, after all the politicians make big speeches about this, that and the other, if its cable or OTA TV - which side do you think they will realize does them the most (read = only) good. And do they really want Broadcasters to challenge the law for politicial advertising in court, as odds are it would never hold up.

Mr. FanAtic, you claimed to have "first hand knowledge" that Time Warner agreed to pay a carriage fee to Sinclair.

First Hand Knowledge: You were physically present to witness or you have read the signed, sealed and delivered agreement.

Second Hand Knowledge: Someone that witnessed or read the signed agreement told you what he or she believed to be the facts of the agreement.

Third Hand Knowledge: Someone that spoke with someone with second hand knowledge told you what he or she believed had been told to them as being the facts of the agreement.

Fourth Hand Knowledge: Participant in a rumor mill.

What level of knowledge did you possess when you asserted that you had "first hand knowledge?" (Of course, by now, the parties to the agreement may have filed a copy of the signed agreement with you due to your "level of interest.")

First, no one has to file any documents with me.

You are clearly blind to the people I communicate with as I have posted actual items (jpgs - not my typing) of things on AVS that no one here has ever seen before - nor has access to - but you also are quite blind to most things that are obvious to others so it shouldn't surprise me.

As you know I have no problem making the playing field even - and have stated as such.

While I don't have an issue with it, I think these are the stumbling blocks

There are stumbling blocks (probably never happen) - but I needed to keep my argument consistent. ;)

How can anyone think that the Politicians will allow MLB and NFL to be in the exclusive realm of D* - and take the reverse thinking that they will order Sinclair stations back on Mediacom.

That these deals are flying blows mediacom's position out of the water entirely.

I would also point out that virtually every one of the games that will be shown are being played in a facility that the public paid to build.

Check the url - its there for a reason - then you can admit you are wrong.

No, my statement is fact. Just because they list all of those cities and towns does not mean they provide any services there. What they do provide at the link you posted is a way to CHECK if a particular area is served by them. So go ahead and try some valid addresses and you will soon discover that TWC does NOT offer any services in most of the areas listed in your post.

No, my statement is fact. Just because they list all of those cities and towns does not mean they provide any services there. What they do provide at the link you posted is a way to CHECK if a particular area is served by them. So go ahead and try some valid addresses and you will soon discover that TWC does NOT offer any services in most of the areas listed in your post.

You are about 5 days late - I've admitted that is the most screwed up thing I have ever seen and is most likely incorrect - though it makes no sense.