I wish this thread could stay remotely OT. If you sift out all of the insults and posturing it is only about 3 good pages.

If you sift out all the BS Mediacom has thrown out there you find there is no case either....thus this thread follows the lead of the case in more ways than one.

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.

I'd rather be late than wrong :D

I'd rather be late than wrong :D

As I have said before, when Time Warner Sales even lists Iowa Cable Sales out of the Chicago office, all evidence to the contrary sure made it looks like they have a Iowa System. That combined with over 50+ customized pages for specific Iowa cities with prices for TWC Digital Cable - unless some lives in Iowa and knows every MSO system....whatever, you were actually wrong as well:

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

TWC does NOT offer service in ANY of those Iowa cities listed.

So being late didn't make you right.

I wish this thread could stay remotely OT. If you sift out all of the insults and posturing it is only about 3 good pages.

Kinda like kid talk on the playground. :rolleyes:


Big question.....
Now that the agreement with TWC has been signed how long do the viewers need to wait until TWC gets their act together? Hopefully the HD channels will get turned on before the agreement expires. Milwaukee area TWC never has their act together and the CSR's don't have a clue yet.

Have HD stations other than CBS/ABC/FOX popped up yet?
Milwaukee has CW & MyNet for Sinclair stations. I wouldn't think TWC is bending over backwards to get these channels on in any big hurry.

According to many on here, it has already started and the Sinclair stations are appearing on TWC since last Friday night.

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.

I judge from the specificity of your response, Mr. FanAtic that you are actually the proud posessor of fourth hand knowledge regarding the Sinclair / TWC financial agreement.

I judge from the specificity of your response, Mr. FanAtic that you are actually the proud posessor of fourth hand knowledge regarding the Sinclair / TWC financial agreement.
Wow :rolleyes:

I judge from the specificity of your response, Mr. FanAtic that you are actually the proud posessor of fourth hand knowledge regarding the Sinclair / TWC financial agreement.

Keep trying....one day you'll eventually get something right....just like a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

...when Time Warner Sales even lists Iowa Cable Sales out of the Chicago office...

At the risk of beating a dead horse (and of raising your ire), the site you refereced about Time Warner Sales is actually, the Time Warner Media Sales office (which is their division for selling advertising on the regional cable systems). Given where Iowa is nestled among the several states, it isn't hard to believe that someone in a fringe area of Iowa, or even a company headquartedred in Iowa might want to advertise on various regional cable systems. The best example I can give is from here in Columbus, Ohio, where we often get an ad for an Indiana-based RV dealer that is about 3.5 hours away, but he specifically does advertising within our market area (coz that's where the business comes from).

Stan54, you can take this for what it is worth, but I know from a number of off-forum discussions that HDTVF indeed does have first-hand knowledge of events and happenings in the communications world many of us have not yet imagined.

He has, on occasion, dropped a few hints on various threads: the specific cable ratings for certain shows which are only available to those who pay many thousands of dollars -- they are not printed in the media.

I fully understand that some may be unhappy with HDTVF's abrupt and sometimes(?) prickly manner -- and like all of us -- his interpretation of facts is to be examined carefully.

But he certainly does have the first-hand knowledge he claims.




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.")

Stan54, you can take this for what it is worth, but I know from a number of off-forum discussions that HDTVF indeed does have first-hand knowledge of events and happenings in the communications world many of us have not yet imagined.

He has, on occasion, dropped a few hints on various threads: the specific cable ratings for certain shows which are only available to those who pay many thousands of dollars -- they are not printed in the media.

I fully understand that some may be unhappy with HDTVF's abrupt and sometimes(?) prickly manner -- and like all of us -- his interpretation of facts is to be examined carefully.

But he certainly does have the first-hand knowledge he claims.

Perhaps, FanAtic has read the signed agreement, Fred. If he has not read it, he does not have the first hand knowledge that he claims to have. Considering his general bad attitude and lofty opinion of himself, he deserves to be called on the liklihood of making a false claim.

Personally, I have no idea whether or not TWC paid. I hope they did not, however, it is possible they did. TWC's after-signing comment would lead one to believe they did not, since they said the negotiations took so long because Sinclair wanted payment.

You have to admit that people can be quite different when they get on the internet. It seems to bring out the worst in some people. Very, very few people can get away with it in real life although they would have you to believe otherwise. If they do try it in real life, you can be sure that they have carefully sized up the room first, which says even more about them and what it says is not good.

In any event, good luck to Mediacom.

By the way, the DrudgeReport regular publishes ratings.

Thanks for your comment, Fred.

At the risk of beating a dead horse (and of raising your ire), the site you refereced about Time Warner Sales is actually, the Time Warner Media Sales office (which is their division for selling advertising on the regional cable systems). Given where Iowa is nestled among the several states, it isn't hard to believe that someone in a fringe area of Iowa, or even a company headquartedred in Iowa might want to advertise on various regional cable systems. The best example I can give is from here in Columbus, Ohio, where we often get an ad for an Indiana-based RV dealer that is about 3.5 hours away, but he specifically does advertising within our market area (coz that's where the business comes from).That's probably the best explanation I can think of. If there's an actual Time Warner system in Iowa, that would be news to me. Much of the state is Mediacom, which bought the system from AT&T Broadband (formerly TCI) when they pulled out of the state. Among the minor players here are Cox (Omaha-Council Bluffs), McLeodUSA (which competes with Mediacom in much of Cedar Rapids), and Cable One (Sioux City). Much of the other non-Mediacom cable comes from municipal systems and systems set up by telephone cooperatives.

I'll tell you this, my mom is fed up with this situation. She doesn't see very well and is tired of all her shows having ghosting, shadows, and other poor PQ issues especially the fact that making one look better affects another station's reception. Her OTA antenna just doesn't cut it. She's called me multiple times asking if there was anything else I could do to make it better other than buying a more expensive antenna.

I'll tell you this, my mom is fed up with this situation. She doesn't see very well and is tired of all her shows having ghosting, shadows, and other poor PQ issues especially the fact that making one look better affects another station's reception. Her OTA antenna just doesn't cut it. She's called me multiple times asking if there was anything else I could do to make it better other than buying a more expensive antenna.

You could get a digital tuner.

I judge from the specificity of your response, Mr. FanAtic that you are actually the proud posessor of fourth hand knowledge regarding the Sinclair / TWC financial agreement.
Keep trying.

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.

Just out of curiosity...what percentage of cable subscribers take the lifeline basic package as opposed to the extended basic package? Somehow, I have a feeling that what you describe is more of a problem in the abstract than it is in reality...

Keep trying.
I would say give up.

He provides fascinating, albeit acerbic, insight.

You could get a digital tuner.

Just not worth the cost unless this squabble goes on for a long time and even then I am not sure it is. It's all right side ghosting which I think, it's been a LONG time since I've played with antennas, means reflections.

Keep trying.

Now you know how I feel! ;)

I owe fredfa a little more than what I gave him the other day. I recognize, fredfa, that FanAtic does have inside information on the communications industry and that the ratings you referred to were more than the simple program ratings that we all see from time to time. These ratings can be very sophisticated in their depth of analysis and it's true that companies pay large amounts of money.

On the other hand, unless FanAtic has read the signed agreement between Sinclair and TWC, he may be correct, but he doesn't have the first hand level of information that he claims and due to his attitude with others he deserves nothing less than to be called on it.

God, I hope they didn't pay, but I sure have my doubts.

Sorry, if you thought I brushed you off with my remark about the Drudge Report.

Stan54 -- thanks.

The quality iof your posts is consistently such that I took no offense. There is little need to constantly try to "correct" what could well just be a simple misunderstanding.

But I appreciate your comment a lot.

As to HDTVF, I appreciate the passion and knowledge he brings to the forum. If I were king, he would bring those valued attributes with perhaps less of a prickly attitude, but maybe that is just me.

As to Sinclair and TWC, I am certain (and I would bet some serious money) that he does have specific first hand knowledge.

But then my personal abysmal history with gambling is such that I now limit myself to a Super Bowl pool every few years.

A final thought: thread (and all of them for that matter) would be far more informative if the snide personal attacks were scaled way back.

We all have our favorite shows -- because others don't share our preferences doesn't make them idiots. We all have opinions, many of them strongly held, but they are opinions. Mine work for me, and I am happy to (usually) disclose my reasons, but that doesn't mean you have to agree.

The name-calling and snideness which seems to have infected this thread in particular does (on rare occasions) make for some fun reading -- but a little of that, IMO, goes a very, very long way.

CBS asks FCC to Stay Out of Mediacom-Sinclair Fight
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 1/25/2007

CBS executives were visiting the FCC this week trying to persuade the commission not to intervene in the retransmission consent negotiations between Sinclair and Mediacom.

The commission strongly recommended, and Mediacom seconded the idea, that the two parties to submit to binding arbitration, but Sinclair said no.

Mediacom has asked the commission to force arbitration and is awaiting an answer. It has also asked for a full-commission review of a Media Bureau decision rejecting Mediacom's claim that Sinclair was bargaining in bad faith.

The Media Bureau says that absent a finding of fault, it cannot require arbitration, but Mediacom disagrees, with some backing by Iowa legislators--state and national--hearing it from constituents. Some 250,000 Iowans were affected when Sinclair pulled its stations from Mediacom systems Jan. 5.

The message from CBS to the FCC this week was that the retransmission consent process isn't broke and doesn't need fixing. If the FCC steps in, CBS executives argue, it could set a precedent for future, and unwanted, intervention in what broadcasters say is simply a business negotiation.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6410174

CBS asks FCC to Stay Out of Mediacom-Sinclair Fight
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 1/25/2007

Well, that no surprise considering their position now without the viacom cable networks to help in their retrans negotiations.

Have any markets other than Portland, Greensboro or Columbus had Sinclair stations go HD on their local TWC system? San Antonio seems to be dragging to even get a decent response on the status out to their customers.

I have no first hand knowledge but I do have an educated guess.

I know in the Greensboro situation, TWC had a digital receiver already for the Sinclair station. They did have them on the cable system when they were SD only. When the station went HD, they took them off at Sinclair's request. The receiver sat there (along with the digital channel that did carry the digital SD signal) dark waiting for TWC to get permission to carry the station again. When the authorization came last week, all they had to do was configure that receiver and modulator back into the system.

It may be that the other TWC systems didn't have a Sincalir station to put on the system pre HD days and they are waiting on the receiver and installation of the antenna. That is just a guess.

Wall Street has a line on the amount of money TWC is paying Sinclair for retrans. Also Wall Street has word that Mediacom is bleeding subs badly.


TVT Newsbytes :: Business


Sinclair and Time Warner Reach Retrans Terms



January 26, 2007

Sinclair and Time Warner hammered out a three-year retransmission consent agreement. The deal assures that 6 million Time Warner Cable subscribers will receive the digital and analog signals of 35 Sinclair stations in 22 markets through Dec. 31, 2009.
"We are excited that this agreement not only ensures retransmission of our signals by Time Warner for the next three years, but also provides for the carriage of our digital signals for the first time to most of Time Warner's subscribers," said David Smith, president and CEO of Sinclair.

Sinclair Broadcast Group has been on the forefront of an effort by broadcasters to get paid for their signals vis-à-vis cable networks. Cash terms of the deal were not disclosed, but the chief of another cable company embroiled in a retrans fight with Sinclair said he'd take them.

"Now that Sinclair has reached a long term deal with Time Warner, whose terms presumably reflect the current market for retransmission consent, Sinclair should have no further excuses offering similar terms to Mediacom," said Rocco B. Commisso, chairman and CEO of Mediacom.

Earlier this month, Sinclair pulled 22 of its stations in 13 states off of Mediacom systems after the two companies came to a stalemate on retrans conditions. The companies are about $1 million apart, according to Forbes.

The fallout has affected about 700,000 Mediacom subscribers, one-third of whom live in Iowa. That state's legislature Tuesday called Sinclair and Mediacom to the carpet and told them to settle. The Sioux City Journal said that while state lawmakers can't force the situation, they've put the TV companies on notice that the Iowa congressional delegation will likely get an earful. Commisso earlier implored Congress to hold a hearing on the standoff.

According to analysts, Sinclair is faring better in the showdown than Mediacom, especially in light of the deal with Time Warner--Sinclair's biggest cable carrier. Victor Miller of Bear Stearns said the Time Warner deal put Sinclair on a "run rate" of $35 million to $40 million in overall retrans revenues.

Mediacom, on the other hand, is believed to be bleeding subscribers. Rich Greenfield of Pali Research estimates that the cable company could be losing up to 5,000 subscribers a week.

"We find it hard to believe that Mediacom management does not recognize how poor its negotiating position is relative to Sinclair," Greenfield said.

Does Mediacom encrypt it's local HD channels? I've been following a thread on the HDHomeRun QAM tuner network device and a user in Des Moines hooked it up to Medicom and all the digital channels were encrypted. Now it may be a setup problem but I know that some cablecos do indeed encrypt their digital local channels.

If Mediacom does encrypt that would seem to be a huge slap in the face to their arguments about how the channels are free OTA, that they shouldn't have to pay Sinclair X-amount of dollars, blah, blah, at the same time they're charging their subs extra to get these channels.

The dispute between Cox OKC and Sinclair, and a similar one involving Hearst-Argyle, who owns the local OKC ABC affiliate, convinced me to buy a TiVo Series3. The Series3 has HD tuners for both cable and OTA, so I no longer care whether Cox carries local stations or not. It’s a good feeling.

The drawback to my solution is that TiVo S3s are grotesquely expensive but a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.

Does Mediacom encrypt it's local HD channels? I've been following a thread on the HDHomeRun QAM tuner network device and a user in Des Moines hooked it up to Medicom and all the digital channels were encrypted. Now it may be a setup problem but I know that some cablecos do indeed encrypt their digital local channels.

If Mediacom does encrypt that would seem to be a huge slap in the face to their arguments about how the channels are free OTA, that they shouldn't have to pay Sinclair X-amount of dollars, blah, blah, at the same time they're charging their subs extra to get these channels.

They don't encrypt them, and a couple don't seem to map to their corresponding OTA VHF channel, either.

My TV's QAM tuner found these two weeks ago when I initially scanned everything:

CADTV
1-1 C-span (Hillary's in Des Moines right now...man, that stuff is starting early)
8-1, 8-2 KCCI CBS (8-2 being a weather subchannel)
13-1 WHO NBC (13-2 is absent in my CADTV channel list, but is available OTA and currenly contains only a text page about not being able to offer weather radar images at this time)
115-2 KDIN PBS (11-1 OTA)
115-4 WOI ABC (5-1 OTA)

Absent:
17-1, 17-2 KDSM Fox (not on the cable, but available OTA. However, this is a Sinclair station, and KDSM analog went dark on Mediacom earlier this month. This happened before I got my QAM-enabled TV, so I don't know if Mediacom carried its digital signal prior to that.)

Sometimes it is a viewer set-up problem. From what I understand, if the cable in your dwelling isn't in good condition, QAM doesn't travel through it very well.

Absent:
17-1, 17-2 KDSM Fox (not on the cable, but available OTA. However, this is a Sinclair station, and KDSM analog went dark on Mediacom earlier this month. This happened before I got my QAM-enabled TV, so I don't know if Mediacom carried its digital signal prior to that.)They didn't. Sinclair started demanding payment for digital long before this latest dispute involving their analogs. In fact, that's what this thread was originally about, if I recall correctly.

Fortunately, Sinclair's digital stations ARE included in the deal they reached with Time Warner. Hopefully they'll be included in whatever deal Mediacom hashes out, but nobody's holding their breath out here.

Whatever deal they hash out will include both analog and digital feeds.

Sometimes it is a viewer set-up problem. From what I understand, if the cable in your dwelling isn't in good condition, QAM doesn't travel through it very well.

That would be irritating...all my cabling is only four years old!

Could it be something weird in their PSIP data? Especially in WOI's signal, given how much they got beat up in the HDTV Des Moines thread for months over their technical foot-dragging :p

Of course, I could be missing some simple channel programming thing on my set, but I don't think I can rename the virtual channels it finds.

Wall Street has a line on the amount of money TWC is paying Sinclair for retrans. Also Wall Street has word that Mediacom is bleeding subs badly.


Running some math on the numbers in this article -- they're saying that Sinclair will be generating $35 to $40 million revenue from this agreement, which applies to carriage of Sinclair stations to 6 million TW subscribers.

The low number gives an average monthly per-subcriber fee of just under 49 cents per subscriber; the higher number works out to a fraction over 55 cents per subscriber.

If the numbers in that article are accurate, it sounds like Sinclair got very close to the 50 cent number that we've heard mentioned a number of times...

For San Antonio TWC customers, I received an email from the President of TWC-SA (John Owen) this morning stating that KABB-FOX and KMYS would be available in HD by the end of this week.

Running some math on the numbers in this article -- they're saying that Sinclair will be generating $35 to $40 million revenue from this agreement, which applies to carriage of Sinclair stations to 6 million TW subscribers.

The low number gives an average monthly per-subcriber fee of just under 49 cents per subscriber; the higher number works out to a fraction over 55 cents per subscriber.

If the numbers in that article are accurate, it sounds like Sinclair got very close to the 50 cent number that we've heard mentioned a number of times...

$0.50 has been the presumed target, and most suspected it would fall somewhere close to that. However, keep in mind that the numbers may be slightly different to account for some of those 6 million customers who are getting 2 Sinclair channels as part of this deal. That would bump it down slightly.

Since TWC decided to pay, I'm wondering if Comcast is still refusing to, since their deal last time may have involved other forms of compensation that aren't being accepted by Sinclair this time. Comcast has said that they are "attempting to resolve this", referring to the possible loss of the local FOX and CW channels. Not sure what kind of resolution they are attempting.

It is too bad some of our more vitriolic posters ran MisterDTV off the Forum a while back.

It would have been interesting to have his insight into the current situation. But then he is a high-level insider, so how much could he possibly know? :(

But his initial post, just over two years ago, provided a clear outline of the Sinclair position. And that position seems not have changed even a little bit since then.

The precedent was set by the DBS companies paying for carriage, and now TWC joining in. Comcast will have no choice but to follow suit. The scary thing is looking ahead and realizing that once the broadcast networks are paid based on the cablenet business model - how long until the networks want their compensation determined relative to their cable counterparts? If ESPN is worth $3 and Fox News is worth $0.75, what is CBS or FOX worth if they generate 10 times the viewership than those two cablenets combined? :eek:

If ESPN is worth $3 and Fox News is worth $0.75, what is CBS or FOX worth if they generate 10 times the viewership than those two cablenets combined? :eek:

The precedent is scary indeed as ESPN or FOX don't receive federally funded broadcast frequencies for free. It's amazing that broadcast networks can demand carriage fees from an entity that provides them a service by retransmitting their programming at higher quality than many customers could receive OTA to begin with.

That's not nearly the "service" provided to the cablenets who have absolutely no alternative method of distribution. Should all cablenets be free?

It is too bad some of our more vitriolic posters ran MisterDTV off the Forum a while back.

(climbs on his soapbox) As you very well know, those of us in the business do not need viewers who have no more idea of how the TV business works than how their own TV set works telling us how to do our jobs just because they watch TV. The misinformation and opinion that passes for fact on here by know nots is just astounding. It ranks along side with the kids at the big box stores selling the HD sets these days and when someone who has the straight skinny speaks up, we are told we have no idea what we are talking about or we must be lying dogs. After awhile you begin to say, "The hell with these idiots. They aren't even in my market. Why should I care about whether they have the correct information or not. They aren't watching my station."

For those who do not know, MisterDTV is a corporate exec at Sinclair who really doesn't need the headache of the know not whiners on Internet bulletin boards. I have PMed in the past on several issues and he was very gratious to me and he didn't have to be. Technically, I am the "enemy" to his company in my market since Sinclair owns two stations here and being a corporate exec, he didn't have to even acknowledge me.

It is truly AVSForum's loss. (climbs off his soapbox)

If TWC is indeed paying for this as expected, wouldnt it make sense for them to add these channels as soon as possible? We still dont have WLFL on TWC here in Raleigh....seems like thats just money down the drain while its not up. I also cant get an answer out of anyone there why they have yet to add this channel either.

I am sure the "money" doesn't start until the station is on line. It would not surprise me if TWC-RDU is waiting on equipment to receive WLFL-DT. It happened to be that WXLV-DT (an ABC affiliate) was on TWC-GSO before they started doing HD so when they went HD, Sinclair pulled them (Sinclair's other station Greensboro station, UPN's WUPN-DT, now WMYV-DT My Network, now in HD, has never been on TWC-GSO and still isn't even though WXLV-DT is now on in HD because WUPN/WMYV was not a Big 4 according to the headend guys there, is in the same boat as WLFL-DT is). When the deal was struck, all TWC-GSO had to do was turn the signal back on since it had been sitting there for 3 years. My guess is that WLFL-DT being a WB and now a CW and not being a Big 4 station didn't have the same priority that the Big 4 did and so no equipment was ordered for it. But then, that is just a guess based on what I have been told by the local TWC headend guys here.

As you very well know, those of us in the business do not need viewers who have no more idea of how the TV business works than how their own TV set works telling us how to do our jobs just because they watch TV.

Those damn customers. Who needs them anyway. :mad: :mad: :mad:

^^I think the lack of priority since its not a Big 4 network affiliate is the main issue here like you said. I actually called them out about a month ago because their website said "get all of your local channels in HD with TWC"...it was changed a few days later...but that gives you an idea of how important they consider it.

Just who is in charge of PR for Medaicom? Good grief.
The Business of TV
Mediacom Announces March Price Hike
By P.J. Bednarski Broadcasting & Cable 1/30/2007

Mediacom, in the midst of a retransmission battle with Sinclair Broadcasting Group in 12 small to middle-sized markets, is telling customers that starting in March, they'll be paying more for some services.

But Tom Larsen, Mediacom's vice president for legal affairs, says the rate increases have nothing to do with the cable company's lingering battle with Sinclair, which on Jan. 6 yanked 23 of its stations off Mediacom systems in a dispute over retransmission.

Larsen says the rate increases largely pertain to charges for Internet service, installation charges and increases for customers getting digital service.

"The rate hikes are limited in scope," Larsen says. "But if we lose this fight with Sinclair, that could have a dramatic effect on rates."

Sinclair has been demanding cash payments for carriage of its channels in Mediacom markets in communities including including Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Altogether the dispute is keeping Sinclair stations out of 700,000 homes in several states. That's about half the homes Mediacom serves.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6411767

Those damn customers. Who needs them anyway. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Less than one percent screw it up for the other 99%. You know EXACTLY what I mean.

The precedent is scary indeed as ESPN or FOX don't receive federally funded broadcast frequencies for free. It's amazing that broadcast networks can demand carriage fees from an entity that provides them a service by retransmitting their programming at higher quality than many customers could receive OTA to begin with.

The broadcast networks -- three of them, anyway -- existed and were reaching 95% of all households in this country back before cable TV was more than a minor blip in the media landscape. They survived without cable in the past, and if cable went away tomorrow, they would do just fine without it in the future.

Let's not kid ourselves -- the cable TV business is doing no favors to OTA stations. Cable needs the big network affiliates far more than those affiliates need cable.

Let's not kid ourselves -- the cable TV business is doing no favors to OTA stations. Cable needs the big network affiliates far more than those affiliates need cable.

Not according to Mr Commisso of Mediacom. I think his business managers are finding out differently though.

Less than one percent screw it up for the other 99%. You know EXACTLY what I mean.

Of course I know what you mean.

However, companies that focus on pleasing the "hard to please" usually end up at the head of the pack.

It's true in the automotive, retail, hospitality, and even in the entertainment (broadcast) industries. ;)

Just who is in charge of PR for Medaicom? Good grief.

You would think the Comcast's and TWC's of the cable association could help out their little cousin with timely advice in such matters. IMHO, all this does is make life tougher for the whole cable industry in the long run. I just don't understand what Mediacom think they can get out of this now. Even Wall Street has bailed on them. I guess we need to start watching for the next stockholders meeting for Mediacom and see if Commisso still has a job.

The broadcast networks -- three of them, anyway -- existed and were reaching 95% of all households in this country back before cable TV was more than a minor blip in the media landscape. They survived without cable in the past, and if cable went away tomorrow, they would do just fine without it in the future.

Let's not kid ourselves -- the cable TV business is doing no favors to OTA stations. Cable needs the big network affiliates far more than those affiliates need cable.

I grew up in those days. I'm not sure I want to go back to four TV channels and six AM radio stations. Those days are long gone.

And it's not the "cable" business you're bashing. It's all subscription based video entertainment alternatives.

Broadcast TV is a delivery technology that is easily bypassed. They have no exclusive license on producing quality entertainment. Their influence is waning. The parallels between the "big three" arrogant domestic automotive companies and "the big three" arrogant networks is profound. If you can't see that, well I guess you still drive a Buick. ;) ;) ;)

Of course I know what you mean.

However, companies that focus on pleasing the "hard to please" usually end up at the head of the pack.

It's true in the automotive, retail, hospitality, and even in the entertainment (broadcast) industries. ;)

The people I am referring to always need something to complain about even if they have no idea what they are complaining about. You can never win with them because the purpose is not to be informed or better themselves, but to pass idle time with useless arguments. Facts to bolster their position only shortens the debate and defeats the purpose in the first place so you will see precious few of those or construed in such a way as to prolong the debate. Opinion passed on as fact lengthens the debate because the opposing side has to then respond with more facts that the other side can then opinionate more on. Those people serve no one any good so in the end you say "the hell with it" and move on. That is what happened with MisterDTV and other media people who no longer frequent AVSForum; a real loss in knowledge for the masses.

Broadcast TV is a delivery technology that is easily bypassed. They have no exclusive license on producing quality entertainment. Their influence is waning. The parallels between the "big three" arrogant domestic automotive companies and "the big three" arrogant networks is profound. If you can't see that, well I guess you still drive a Buick. ;) ;) ;)

Spoken like a true cable guy!! You tote the party line well!. :D

The people I am referring to always need something to complain about even if they have no idea what they are complaining about. You can never win with them because the purpose is not to be informed or better themselves, but to pass idle time with useless arguments. Facts to bolster their position only shortens the debate and defeats the purpose in the first place so you will see precious few of those or construed in such a way as to prolong the debate. Opinion passed on as fact lengthens the debate because the opposing side has to then respond with more facts that the other side can then opinionate more on. Those people serve no one any good so in the end you say "the hell with it" and move on. That is what happened with MisterDTV and other media people who no longer frequent AVSForum; a real loss in knowledge for the masses.

The true challenge is to be able to sort out the "whiners" (without totally offending them) from the "discriminating", who, like it or not, tend to set trends.

Those who abandon a forum because of the "few" don't have much backbone in my book. The "banter" sometimes gets out of control, but overall it's what makes people come back over and over.

And it's not the "cable" business you're bashing. It's all subscription based video entertainment alternatives.

He's not "bashing" anyone - and in the context of this thread, we're discussing MSOs that want their most valuable programming supplied free of charge. Since all the other delivery vehicles pay for that programming, cable does stand alone.

Broadcast TV is a delivery technology that is easily bypassed. They have no exclusive license on producing quality entertainment. Their influence is waning. The parallels between the "big three" arrogant domestic automotive companies and "the big three" arrogant networks is profound. If you can't see that, well I guess you still drive a Buick. ;) ;) ;)

I'm sure the Big 3 automakers would be in much better financial condition if they had agreed to give away their cars for free. After all, the level of penetration would be phenomenal and the Japanese automakers would have had a hell of a time getting a foothold here in the States. :rolleyes:

The parties with unjustified arrogance will be exposed as each of these agreements gets signed. If the cablecos are really convinced that they are in the right and broadcast TV's influence is truly "waning", they'll stand their ground and refuse to pay for their programming. Those cablecos will be easy to spot - they'll be the ones filing for bankruptcy, or looking for new leadership.

Senators Demand FCC Action on Sinclair-Mediacom Fight
By Ira Teinowitz Television Week Jan. 31, 2007

Leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee are demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act to resolve a dispute between cable operator Mediacom and Sinclair Broadcast Group that threatens to leave some subscribers to the cable system without access to Sunday's Super Bowl.

Committee Chairman Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and ranking member Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said the FCC has authority to order binding arbitration in the fight over how much Mediacom should pay Sinclair to retransmit signals from the station group's local outlets. Some Mediacom subscribers currently aren't receiving Mediacom signals.

"If this situation is not resolved promptly, rural Americans in some 12 states will continue to be deprived of valuable local broadcast programming, including in some cases the upcoming Super Bowl," the Senators said in a letter sent Tuesday to FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin. "Last year, some Alaskans were denied access to the Super Bowl and we do not want to see a similar situation happen in other states."

The Mediacom-Sinclair dispute may signal how cable operators and station groups across the country come to terms over the issue of retransmission consent. Industry heavyweights are lining up on each side of the fight, and CBS President and CEO Leslie Moonves has been among the loudest voices demanding cash compensation for retransmission consent, saying such fees could add up to hundreds of millions of dollars.

On the eve of Mr. Martin's first appearance before the Commerce Committee since the election that put Democrats in control, senators rebuted the FCC's claim that it lacks authority to order binding arbitration and urged the agency to at least make sure no one is shut off from programming while the two sides negotiate. Mr. Martin is a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush and a majority of FCC commissioners are Republican.

The senators said they plan to question FCC commissioners about the issue during Thursday's hearing.

Mediacom dropped 22 Sinclair stations from its systems in 12 states on Jan. 5 after being unable to reach an agreement over how much it should pay to retransmit Sinclair signals.

Sinclair wants Mediacom to pay for station signals it had been retransmitting for free, arguing that station groups should get fees like other cable content providers.

Mediacom argues that Sinclair has been unreasonable in negotiating the issue, demanding high fees for local channels and payments to carry both network and non-network affiliates.

The FCC's Media Bureau on Jan. 4 rejected Mediacom's complaint that the Sinclair unfairly refused to negotiate in "good faith" and while advising binding arbitration, said it doesn't have the authority to require the parties to submit to binding arbitration.

Mediacom has appealed the decision to the whole FCC.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11474

It seems to me it would be a great PR move for Sinclair to allow Mediacom to broadcast CBS stations all day Sunday.

That would allow viewers to see the Super Bowl, (and all the CBS promos for upcoming February sweep programming!) and put even more pressure on Mediacom.

It would also position Sinclair as reasonable and willing to give a little for the sake of its customers.

Just who is in charge of PR for Medaicom? Good grief.
The Business of TV
Mediacom Announces March Price Hike
By P.J. Bednarski Broadcasting & Cable 1/30/2007
... Larsen says the rate increases largely pertain to charges for Internet service, installation charges and increases for customers getting digital service ...

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6411767
The Des Moines Register (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/BUSINESS/701310376/1001http://) also did a piece on this today.

Interestingly, at least in Iowa, while the cost of a standard digital converter is going up, the rates for renting HDTV converters and DVRs are actually going down.

Of course, the systems in central and eastern Iowa still lack a network thanks to the Sinclair dispute.

And you're right, there's a lot of second-guessing on the timing, although Mediacom is quick to point out that the price of basic service is not going up as part of this plan.

Speaking of which, the FCC website does not contain a "daily digest" entry for today as of 4:25pm Eastern time. That's nearly three hours after the time they say they normally release it. Hmmm...

Sinclair Responds to Congressional Letter

In a press release (http://www.sbgi.net/press/release_2007131_205.shtml), Sinclair Broadcast Group executives responded to leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee who demanded that the FCC intervene in the company's retransmission dispute with Mediacom.

Sinclair argues that the FCC does not have the authority to force the two sides to binding arbitration, as Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) had proposed in their letter to the FCC.

"[Federal law] on this subject provides that '[n]o cable system or other multichannel programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a broadcasting station, or any part thereof, except with the express authority of the originating station," wrote Sinclair Vice President and General Counsel Barry Faber. "Allowing Mediacom the right to retransmit the signals of Sinclair's stations without Sinclair's consent, whether through binding arbitration or otherwise, would be tantamount to removing the need for Mediacom to obtain Sinclair's consent, in direct contravention of the statute cited above governing retransmission consent."

Faber also restated Sinclair's position that government interference is unwarranted and that the two companies should be left to settle the matter themselves.

"Unfortunately it appears that Mediacom's interest in reaching agreement has been tempered by a belief that it need not complete a deal because the government will step in to remedy such a failure," he wrote.

Interesting that in the Des Moines Register piece Mediacom blames rising HBO and Showtime costs for at least part of the cost increase.

Why don't they just raise the prics of HBO and Showtime?

Does anyone know the date that the FCC first granted the right for local broadcasters to withhold cable carriage of their signals?

Does anyone know the date that the FCC first granted the right for local broadcasters to withhold cable carriage of their signals?

Probably somewhere around 1776 when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations and upheld when Communism failed to take hold in the last half of the 20th Century. ;)

Interesting that in the Des Moines Register piece Mediacom blames rising HBO and Showtime costs for at least part of the cost increase.

Why don't they just raise the prics of HBO and Showtime?They are, if you look at the chart.

They also blame equipment costs for some of the increases, so they've raised the cost of some equipment, while oddly enough lowering the price of HD converters and DVRs.

Does anyone know the date that the FCC first granted the right for local broadcasters to withhold cable carriage of their signals?As I recall it was in the early-to-mid 1990s, and it was Congress which gave broadcasters the right to decide "must carry" or "retransmission consent."

Again, as I remember, the local TCI office (that was our cable company at the time) had a channel all ready to go to replace any broadcaster who demanded cash compensation, but they never had to use it. Of course, that was long before satellite decided they needed the local channels to compete and that they would be willing to pay for them if necessary.

Does anyone know the date that the FCC first granted the right for local broadcasters to withhold cable carriage of their signals?


It was part of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, so it has been almost 15 years now.

It isn't so much a right to withhold signals as a choice local broadcasters were given: (under so-called m,ust-carry provisions) cable systems must carry all local stations, unless a station owner opts to bargain for carriage.

In the past many major corporations have accepted carriage of their cable channels in lieu of payment for their local signals.

But when CBS was split into two divivions (essentially cable and stations) the newly-liberated stations group signalled it would henceforth be charging cable operators for carriage.

NewsCorp has indicated it will seek compensation, too. NBC is likely to follow suit, since the carriage of its weaker cable channels can easily be tied to USA Network and some of its stronger ones.

This can't happen all at once, since a station's retransmission decision can only be made every three years.

(If you care for even more specifics -- and to go crazy with legalese -- the FCC has plenty of information about retrans at its site http://www.fcc.gov/.)

Senators Demand FCC Action on Sinclair-Mediacom Fight
By Ira Teinowitz Television Week Jan. 31, 2007



"If this situation is not resolved promptly, rural Americans in some 12 states will continue to be deprived of valuable local broadcast programming, including in some cases the upcoming Super Bowl," the Senators said in a letter sent Tuesday to FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin.
Isn't that the whole point, Sinclair wants to be paid for that "valuable local broadcast programming"? That "value" will be decided by the market, why should the government get in the middle of a free market negotiation?

Isn't that the whole point, Sinclair wants to be paid for that "valuable local broadcast programming"? That "value" will be decided by the market, why should the government get in the middle of a free market negotiation?

Congress smells votes. Create a situation. Save the day. Get votes. Happens all of the time.

My gut feeling is that David Smith is POed over this and he is out to make Commisso pay, literally and figuratively.

Thanks, fredfa.

My pleasure, Stan :)

Comcast Gets Sinclair Retrans Extension

By Linda Moss 1/31/2007 10:13:00 PM

Comcast received a retransmission-consent extension to continue carrying Sinclair Broadcast Group TV stations until March 1, the end of the February sweep period.

The nation’s largest cable company, which is in the midst of negotiating a retransmission-consent deal with Sinclair, earlier this month sent out notices to subscribers in cities where it has out-of-market Sinclair stations that it might lose those signals as early as Feb. 5.

Under Federal Communications Commission rules, Comcast couldn’t drop Sinclair’s stations in February, one of the sweeps periods when viewership is used to set ad rates.

But Comcast subscribers who are considered out-of-market aren’t covered by the FCC prohibition, which is why the cable operator would have been able to drop Sinclair’s signals in those areas in February.

But now Sinclair granted Comcast an extension to continue carrying all of its stations -- in-market and out-of-market -- until March 1.

The cable operator has just begun sending notices out to its subscribers at systems with in-market Sinclair stations that they may lose those signals March 1.

The Sinclair-Comcast negotiations involve roughly 3 million subscribers in markets such as Pittsburgh; Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.; Nashville, Tenn.; Richmond, Va.; and Tampa. Fla.

http://multichannel.com/article/CA6412272.html?display=Breaking+News

I have no first hand knowledge but I do have an educated guess.

I know in the Greensboro situation, TWC had a digital receiver already for the Sinclair station. They did have them on the cable system when they were SD only. When the station went HD, they took them off at Sinclair's request. The receiver sat there (along with the digital channel that did carry the digital SD signal) dark waiting for TWC to get permission to carry the station again. When the authorization came last week, all they had to do was configure that receiver and modulator back into the system.

It may be that the other TWC systems didn't have a Sincalir station to put on the system pre HD days and they are waiting on the receiver and installation of the antenna. That is just a guess.

(Not directed at you Foxeng - just a convient place to post as someone sent me a personal message I had to retrieve).

No, actually there are no plans within TWC to put on any Sinclair Digital stations outside of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX unless there is some compelling local reason (i.e. Sports Franchise etc). All insiders have known it since Tuesday of last week, but it was interesting to see if Stan54 and POSG would finally connect the dots.

Let's see - if TWC doesn't have a set rate they pay Sinclair for rebroadcast, I am still waiting for POSG and Stan54 to tell people why TWC has no plans to put on CW and MyNetwork (unless some local situation demands it).

So actually POSG got his wish - not paying a cent for CW or MyNetworkTV from TWC.

Congress smells votes. Create a situation. Save the day. Get votes. Happens all of the time.
Yes, I see that, it's just ridiculous to see this type of blowhard'ing in this day and age. I guess I give the public far more credit than they deserve as far as seeing through this sort of BS.

(Not directed at you Foxeng - just a convient place to post as someone sent me a personal message I had to retrieve).

No, actually there are no plans within TWC to put on any Sinclair Digital stations outside of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX unless there is some compelling local reason (i.e. Sports Franchise etc). All insiders have known it since Tuesday of last week, but it was interesting to see if Stan54 and POSG would finally connect the dots.

Let's see - if TWC doesn't have a set rate they pay Sinclair for rebroadcast, I am still waiting for POSG and Stan54 to tell people why TWC has no plans to put on CW and MyNetwork (unless some local situation demands it).

So actually POSG got his wish - not paying a cent for CW or MyNetworkTV from TWC.

Connecting the dots, ................. I think you just said that TWC has no plans to pay for CW and MyNetwork. By the way, have you gained any new 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand knowledge of whether or not TWC had to pay Sinclair?

Burke also said today that he's not concerned that CBS and some broadcast groups such as Sinclair, Belo and LIN TV are demanding fees to carry their high-def channels. To date, Comcast and other cable operators have agreed to buy advertising space rather than give cash for a local station's signals.

"We would assume that the current arrangements would continue until proven otherwise," said Burke.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/burke020107.htm

Mediacom's Commisso Fires Back

The dueling press releases continue.

Yesterday it was Sinclair's turn to tell members of Congress how they felt (see this AVS post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9643741&&#post9643741)). Today, Mediacom CEO Rocco Commisso issued his blunt response (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=98270&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=956981&highlight=).

"I am not surprised by Sinclair's arrogance in lecturing the leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee, including Senator Inouye, who was the principal sponsor of the retransmission consent provision in the 1992 Cable Act, on the meaning of that provision," Commisso said in today's release. "Sinclair's letter was typical of the 'we're untouchable' attitude that David Smith, Sinclair's CEO, has exhibited in all his dealings with Mediacom and the FCC."

By contrast, Commisso said the FCC does, in fact, have "the authority to take action to ensure that broadcasters do not use television viewers as pawns in their retransmission consent negotiations."

"While Sinclair's stock has gone up 50% in the past 4 months, the period in which the dispute with Mediacom has been public, enriching [Sinclair CEO] David Smith and his family, two million viewers in smaller and rural markets, many of them low income, have been left without access to Sinclair's stations," Commisso said. "In contrast to Smith's 'let them eat cake' attitude, Mediacom has provided, at no cost, tens of thousands of rabbit ear antennas to help members of the viewing public regain access to Sinclair's stations. However, many viewers are unable, even with such an antenna, to receive a good quality signal from Sinclair's UHF stations and need the improved quality provided by Mediacom's fiber optic broadband network in order to enjoy their television viewing."

Commisso also called on the FCC to stop Sinclair from using what he calls "abusive and flagrantly discriminatory tactics" in the dispute, including what he calls a "bounty payment" arrangement with DirecTV. And he said that if Sinclair's interpretation of the retransmission consent law is correct, Congress should change the law.

He also called for action before this Sunday's Super Bowl, but according to Sinclair's list, it appears that viewers of only one station -- KGAN in Cedar Rapids -- will be affected. And even there, viewers in the southern and extreme eastern portions of the market have access to overlapping CBS stations through Mediacom.

Does anyone know the date that the FCC first granted the right for local broadcasters to withhold cable carriage of their signals?

I didn't realize broadcasters were ever *required* to allow cable carriage of their signals in the first place ....

My gut feeling is that David Smith is POed over this and he is out to make Commisso pay, literally and figuratively.I don't know either one of these guys, but reading these dueling press releases I'd have to agree, it may be getting personal.

If you read the full press release, Rocco Commisso even accuses Sinclair of "putting negotiations on hold, thereby leaving consumers without access to Sinclair stations, while David Smith went goose hunting and Barry Faber made himself unavailable for extended periods."

I swear, I did not make that quote up. (And how does he know that for sure? Hmmm ...)

I didn't realize broadcasters were ever *required* to allow cable carriage of their signals in the first place ....

Prior to 1992 permission wasn't required! :)

No, actually there are no plans within TWC to put on any Sinclair Digital stations outside of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX unless there is some compelling local reason (i.e. Sports Franchise etc). All insiders have known it since Tuesday of last week, but it was interesting to see if Stan54 and POSG would finally connect the dots.

That explains why MyTV that is owned by Sinclair in San Antonio didn't join the HD lineup with KABB-Fox earlier this week. Of course, MyTV does have some Spurs games on their schedule and they are going to be broadcast in HD next year so we might see MyTV in HD on TWC at that time.

By the way, have you gained any new 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand knowledge of whether or not TWC had to pay Sinclair?

You love digging that hole deeper and deeper. :rolleyes: Face it, you were wrong. TWC paid a carriage fee as you were told all along they were going to. The only issue to be decided was exactly how much.

Time to give it a rest, it's getting embarrasing.

I didn't realize broadcasters were ever *required* to allow cable carriage of their signals in the first place ....

Broadcasters were never required to allow cable carriage. They were, however, granted the authority to charge certain recipients of their signals, namely, cable and satellite companies. Reportedly, this authority was granted in exchange for their cooperation in the government's plan for transition to digital broadcasting. The right to a free signal from broadcasters was removed from cable companies because their cooperation was not needed in the transition to digital broadcasting.

You love digging that hole deeper and deeper. :rolleyes: Face it, you were wrong. TWC paid a carriage fee as you were told all along they were going to. The only issue to be decided was exactly how much.

Time to give it a rest, it's getting embarrasing.

No, Mr. Panther, I wasn't wrong at all! My position all along has been that I did not know if TWC had to pay a carriage fee. (Nor do you KNOW that they did although you are willing to make that assertion.)

There's a big difference between saying "I don't know" and telling anyone who knows they did pay that they're wrong.

Give it up.

Broadcasters were never required to allow cable carriage. .

FYI, I was not asking a question ....

There's a big difference between saying "I don't know" and telling anyone who knows they did pay that they're wrong.

Give it up.

The advice is mutual.

And it's not the "cable" business you're bashing. It's all subscription based video entertainment alternatives.

In the context of this particular thread, it is just cable TV that I'm bashing -- the satellite companies have recognized that the local broadcast network affiliates are important to them, and are paying for the right to carry those stations.


Broadcast TV is a delivery technology that is easily bypassed. They have no exclusive license on producing quality entertainment. Their influence is waning. The parallels between the "big three" arrogant domestic automotive companies and "the big three" arrogant networks is profound. If you can't see that, well I guess you still drive a Buick. ;) ;) ;)

Close. I'm driving a Saturn.

In any event, it remains a fact that the overwhelming majority of highly rated programming runs on the big four broadcast networks, and not on the cable networks. The ratings of "hit" cable programs remain low by broadcast standards. Yank "Fox" from your local cable company, and a lot of viewers are going to scream bloody murder when they can't watch "24", "House" or "American Idol". The number who would scream over the loss of cable exclusives like "Monk" or "Battlestar Galactica" is much lower. And I say this as someone who is a fan of the "Galactica" remake...it's hard to argue with the basic numbers...

Yes, broadcast TV is not as dominant as it once was -- but it is still home for most of the hits that the largest number of viewers want to see. Pull those programs off of cable (or any multi-channel pay provider), and watch the number of subscribers plummet.

Broadcasters were never required to allow cable carriage. They were, however, granted the authority to charge certain recipients of their signals, namely, cable and satellite companies. Reportedly, this authority was granted in exchange for their cooperation in the government's plan for transition to digital broadcasting. The right to a free signal from broadcasters was removed from cable companies because their cooperation was not needed in the transition to digital broadcasting.???

As I recall it had nothing to do with DT, which nobody was really thinking about in the early 1990s, and everything to do with what the broadcasters felt was fair. They felt that their content, which is what most people watch, was worth at least as much as TBS or USA or any other network which cable companies pay for.

Martin to Other FCC Members: No Arbitration
By Ted Hearn MultiChannel News 2/2/2007

Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin asked the other four commissioners to support a staff ruling that the agency can’t legally impose binding arbitration on Sinclair Broadcast Group and Mediacom Communications, an FCC source said Friday.

Martin’s insistence that the agency lacks authority clashed with the view expressed in a Jan. 30 letter he received from Senate Commerce Committee chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who urged FCC intervention.

After testifying before the Senate Commerce panel Thursday, Martin reiterated his position that Congress didn’t authorize the agency to force warring parties into biding arbitration when they can’t agree on carriage terms in retransmission-consent negotiations.

“It’s not clear to me that the commission does have the authority to order arbitration. I would say, however, though, that the commission has been doing its best to try to encourage both parties to agree to binding arbitration, even by the commission’s Media Bureau,” Martin told reporters, according to FCC spokeswoman Tamara Lipper.

Lipper added that Martin also repeated that the agency’s Media Bureau concluded that Sinclair had not engaged in bad-faith negotiations, which the law prohibits.

“The commission very clearly found there has been nothing that was unreasonable,” Martin said. “Despite that, we still encourage the parties to come and agree to binding arbitration by the Media Bureau.”

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6412982.html?display=Breaking+News

???

As I recall it had nothing to do with DT, which nobody was really thinking about in the early 1990s, and everything to do with what the broadcasters felt was fair. They felt that their content, which is what most people watch, was worth at least as much as TBS or USA or any other network which cable companies pay for.

I haven't really looked much, but this is from the FCC site:

"In 1996, the U.S. Congress authorized the distribution of an additional broadcast channel to each TV broadcaster so that they could introduce DTV service while simultaneously continuing their analog TV broadcasts."

The retransmission act was 1992. The intention to reclaim analog spectrum and the plan to accomplish the task preceded this date by a number of years.

Broadcasters said this is going to cost us money and it ain't fair. Congress made it "fair."

Sinclair and Mediacom Enter Into Retransmission Agreement
Friday February 2, 6:27 pm ET

BALTIMORE, Feb. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SBGI - News) announced today that it has entered into a multi-year retransmission consent agreement with Mediacom Communications Corp. (Nasdaq: MCCC - News). The agreement, which expires December 31, 2009, allows Mediacom to carry the analog and digital signals of 24 television stations owned or programmed by Sinclair in 16 markets to approximately 700,000 of Mediacom's subscribers.

About time. More info:

Mediacom Reaches Retransmission Consent Agreement with Sinclair; Broadcast Stations Immediately Restored
MIDDLETOWN, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 2, 2007--MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (NASDAQ: MCCC) announced that it has reached a retransmission consent agreement with Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. The following stations will be immediately restored on the Mediacom cable systems in 12 states:

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).

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.

CONTACT: Mediacom Communications Corporation
Media Relations:
Thomas Larsen
Vice President, Legal Affairs
845-695-2754
Or
Investor Relations:
Matt Derdeyn
Group Vice President, Corporate Finance and Treasurer
845-695-2612

SOURCE: Mediacom Communications Corporation

I just listened to a message left on my answering machine that Mediacom is giving away free pizzas this weekend in Waterloo and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. LMAO!

Sinclair, Mediacom Strike Carriage Deal
by John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable,2/2/2007

After months of negotiation, Sinclair has reached a retransmission agreement with cable operator Mediacom, according to a release from the cable company.

The deal, terms of which were not disclosed, means that stations serving about 700,000 Mediacom subs will be restored immediately, which means before Sunday's Super Bowl.

The deal followed word that the FCC was unlikely to intervene to force arbitration on the parties, despite urgings to do so from some powerful legislators.

Mediacom had asked the FCC to intervene, arguing that Sinclair had negotiated in bad faith, or more to the point was not negotiating, and that at the least the FCC should restore the stations while the commission decided what, if anything, to do. The FCC said no on both accounts, with the Media Bureau finding Sinclair had not argued in bad faith and that the commission did not have the authority to force arbitration absent a finding of fault with Sinclair.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin had also signaled that he supported the Media Bureau and didn't think the FCC had authority to weigh in, though he had urged the parties to resolve the dispute or submit to FCC arbitration.
Mediacom favored that arbitration route, while Sinclair did not.

Sinclair has said all along that it was simply a case of Mediacom not paying what Sinclair's TV station signals were worth.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6413203.html?display=Breaking+News

Fox is back on here, KDSM in Des Moines, now the wait begins for the HD channel. Good to see this ended with both companies coming to a deal without government forcing it to happen.

It would appear that the government did become involved, by their inactivity. Mediacom really thought either the FCC or Congress would intervene. After yesterday's FCC hearings and the FCC saying they wouldn't get involved and the committee members not mentioning it after saying they would, signaled that Mediacom was out on a limb and no one was going to take their side, Mediacom didn't have much choice.

I'd rather they be involved by inactivity than by activity. :)

Sounds to me that Mediacom decided to bend over and take it from Sinclair. It's probably not the last time either.

If cable companies are now going to pay broadcasters just like the satellite companies have for years, you have wonder why cable is so much more than satellite.

It looks like Sinclair won a major victory. Saturday's Des Molines Register hints at just some of the details:
Sinclair, Mediacom agree on contract
Mediacom paying for retrans rights, Sinclair expenses
By William Ryberg and Donnelle Eller Des Moines Register Business Writers February 3, 2007

Cable TV viewers in eastern Iowa will have a super Super Bowl Sunday after all.

"American Idol" fans in central Iowa can put away the rabbit ears.

Mediacom Communications and Sinclair Broadcasting announced late Friday afternoon that the two companies had reached agreement on a new contract to put Sinclair broadcast stations back on the Mediacom cable system.

The stations were back within a half-hour after the deal was announced. Among them: KDSM-TV, the Fox network affiliate in Des Moines, and KGAN-TV, the CBS affiliate in Cedar Rapids, which will carry the Super Bowl.

Specific details of the agreement weren't disclosed.

The battle between the broadcaster and the cable provider was over money. Mediacom agreed, for the first time, to pay money for the right to carry the stations, said Thomas Larsen, Mediacom's vice president for legal affairs.

Larsen said he could not say whether the new contract will mean an increase in rates for Mediacom cable subscribers.

Twenty-two Sinclair broadcast stations in Iowa and 11 other states were pulled from the Mediacom cable lineup Jan. 6 after a contract expired that had given Mediacom the right to retransmit the stations' signals. The dispute affected more than 700,000 Mediacom subscribers, including 450,000 in Iowa. Roughly 200,000 of those Iowa subscribers, depending on where they live, were able to get Fox or CBS programming on another channel on the Mediacom lineup.

Larsen said the deal was reached after a day of intense discussions.

The contract does include paying money for the right to carry the stations, Larsen said, although he couldn't say whether the payments are on a per-subscriber basis as Sinclair had wanted. Sinclair had said it was asking less than 50 cents per month per subscriber.

The contract runs through Dec. 31, 2009.

Barry Faber, Sinclair's vice president and corporate attorney at its headquarters in Hunt Valley, Md., declared his side the winner.

He said the deal was reached because Mediacom concluded that no government agency was going to intervene on Mediacom's behalf. He said the approach of the Super Bowl was a factor in the agreement.

Faber said that as part of the deal, Mediacom will drop legal and regulatory complaints against Sinclair and will reimburse Sinclair for its expenses, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, in defending itself.

Stephen Winzenburg, professor of communications at Grand View College in Des Moines, said Mediacom was likely losing customers to satellite companies.

"Mediacom, at some point, had to look at the economics and say, 'We're losing too much money. We need to settle this,' " Winzenburg said. He added that Mediacom's ill-timed price increase for some services probably added to the loss of customers.

The enormous fan base for "American Idol" - the highest rated regular entertainment program with about 33 million viewers - probably pushed Mediacom into a deal.

"A lot of people were upset they weren't getting American Idol," he said.

Mediacom subscriber Jeff Zahrt of Cedar Rapids is happy that the two companies reached an agreement. "I'm glad to see CBS back on Mediacom, which is the way it is supposed to be, since it is supposed to be a free network," he said.

Zahrt didn't get rabbit ears to see KGAN programming while it was off Mediacom's lineup. He is looking forward to "seeing some of the network's programming - and Hawkeye basketball - again."

The deal ended up being an agreement between two private companies, but the dispute drew the attention of lawmakers in Iowa and Washington.

An Iowa legislative committee held a hearing on the dispute in Des Moines. Members of Iowa's congressional delegation urged the two sides to settle.

"I'm glad Mediacom and Sinclair settled this on their own and without the heavy hand of government," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia., said in a statement. "I was happy to help give them a nudge back to the negotiating table to reach and agreement."

Mediacom, based in Middletown, N.Y., has tried to ease subscriber pain with football viewing parties at bars and free rabbit ears so subscribers could get Sinclair channels over the air.

Among the latest plans: giving away 10,000 free frozen pizzas today to subscribers in Cedar Rapids and Waterloo to help them enjoy the Super Bowl. Subscribers will now see the game on cable, but the giveaway will go on anyway, said Phyllis Peters, a Mediacom spokeswoman.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070203/BUSINESS/702030332/1029/business

will this have any effect on getting sinclair channels in HD?

Bad news for consumers! ................... I now have second hand information from a reasonably reliable source that Mediacom had to pay. ........ Oh, woe is me! The future looks bleak indeed.

The deal includes both analog and digital, mach_71.

Second hand or "reasonably reliable source", Stan54?

Seems to me the Mediacom VP for legal affairs quoted by the Des Moines Register is a bit farther up the food chain than that.

Mediacom also paid Sinclair's legal expenses. :eek:

Thanks to Sen. Grassley for the "nudge back to the negotiating table." :rolleyes: If anything, their involvement only prolonged the situation.

Second hand or "reasonably reliable source", Stan54?

Seems to me the Mediacom VP for legal affairs quoted by the Des Moines Register is a bit farther up the food chain than that.

Well, Fred, I wasn't there and I have not read the agreement so I do not have first hand information, but I would call this pretty darn good second hand information.

will this have any effect on getting sinclair channels in HD?
KGAN-HD (CBS) is in the channel guide here in eastern Iowa. It's channel 802. I'm happy we didn't have to wait for it.

Interestingly, neither the Register nor the companies seemed to note that February is a ratings month.

Human nature being what it is, there's bound to be a sizable segment of the population which will reduce or eliminate their viewing of the affected stations if it's too much trouble to get them. Mediacom's rate increase for some equipment rentals may have been poorly timed, but February is probably not the best time for Sinclair to be making viewers jump through hoops to get their programming. If it makes viewership drop off, it could affect them for months.

817, KDSM-DT is up on Mediacom in Des Moines.

(Not directed at you Foxeng - just a convient place to post as someone sent me a personal message I had to retrieve).

No, actually there are no plans within TWC to put on any Sinclair Digital stations outside of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX unless there is some compelling local reason (i.e. Sports Franchise etc). All insiders have known it since Tuesday of last week, but it was interesting to see if Stan54 and POSG would finally connect the dots.

Let's see - if TWC doesn't have a set rate they pay Sinclair for rebroadcast, I am still waiting for POSG and Stan54 to tell people why TWC has no plans to put on CW and MyNetwork (unless some local situation demands it).

So actually POSG got his wish - not paying a cent for CW or MyNetworkTV from TWC.

Wrong, I'll be paying for both the SD and DT/HD versions, and only getting the SD version. But no worries. I'd rather TWC not waste the precious bandwidth at this point. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

817, KDSM-DT is up on Mediacom in Des Moines.

I'm trying to figure out is it actually broadcasting in HD (as there's no real HD content on at the moment). Would you say it's good to go and I can put my old HD OTA receiver back in the attic?

There's a big difference between saying "I don't know" and telling anyone who knows they did pay that they're wrong.

Give it up.

You know he's right CPanther, TWC did not have to pay a fee, but for some strange reason they aren't putting on those freebies CW and MyNetworkTV.....lol. He probably believes there is a good reason for not putting those on for free I guess.

And now he probably believes that Mediacom didn't pay through the nose either :rolleyes:

Sounds to me that Mediacom decided to bend over and take it from Sinclair. It's probably not the last time either.

That's the understatement of the year.

It would appear that the government did become involved, by their inactivity. Mediacom really thought either the FCC or Congress would intervene. After yesterday's FCC hearings and the FCC saying they wouldn't get involved and the committee members not mentioning it after saying they would, signaled that Mediacom was out on a limb and no one was going to take their side, Mediacom didn't have much choice.


If you read Mediacom's release earlier this week they said they had handed out TENS OF THOUSANDS of rabbit ears - thus the backlash clearly was greater than they were expecting.

They knew that the lack of SuperBowl this weekend, combined with the lack of 24 and American Idol as the competition really starts, not to mention LOST firing back up for the Feb Sweeps, would start the second tier of customers leaving to D* and E* in mass this time as it had been 1 month - thus the heavy pressure on their "so called Congressional Friends" early this week.

But then, or course, Sinclair fired back in their letter:

"Finally, I would like to make you aware that I believe that any suggestion, such as the one contained in your letter, that government intervention will be forthcoming has had a chilling effect on the ability of the parties to reach a mutually acceptable agreement on their own. Unfortunately it appears that Mediacom's interest in reaching agreement has been tempered by a belief that it need not complete a deal because the government will step in to remedy such a failure. Accordingly, I respectfully suggest that the best way to increase the likelihood that the free market for negotiations will yield a successful result would be for Mediacom to understand that, consistent with the clear intent of 47 USC Section 325(b)(i), it will only be permitted to retransmit the signals of Sinclair's television stations if it (and not the government) obtains Sinclair's express authority to do so."

And one day after a Congressional hearing where all of Mediacom's so-called allies in Congress revealed their issues with the FCC:

Senators reveal top issues
Members of the Senate Commerce Committee as a group made it clear to Commissioners what issues weighed heaviest on their minds at yesterday's two-hour session. At first it looked like the Commissioners, particularly Chairman Kevin Martin, would get off fairly easy. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) questioned aspects of the AT&T/BellSouth deal which Martin handled as clarification/point of information. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was worried about universal service, John Sununu (R-NH) had questions about white space utilization, and newcomer Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) wondered about the digital divide. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) kicked off the first fireworks when he wondered how Secaucus NJ's own WWOR-TV could get away with calling itself My Nine New York, without seeming to make any particular effort to serve its northern New Jersy base, getting the localism/postcard license renewal debate started. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) was next, asking if free markets are desirable, what's so free market about ownership consolidation, which decreases competition and therefore makes the market less free. He hit on the "spectacular failure" of the 6/2/03 ownership rulemaking, the loss of localism since 1996, and the need to protect Internet neutrality. Barbara Boxer wondered how many more buried reports were going to turn up at the FCC, prompting Chairman Kevin Martin to enumerate all the steps he took to unearth and publish any such reports. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) hit on indecency, violence and the lack of public affairs programming. Another newcomer, Claire McCaskill (D-MO), complained about the high cost of political advertising time and relative lack of public debate time, although she praised the news coverage of her race. Still, she graciously put in a word for the competitiveness of her own future opponent, who she said should come into the next political contest on a level playing field. What didn't come up? Any mention at all of the boiling-over retransmission battle between Sinclair and Mediacom.

Furthermore, FCC Chairman Martin said at the hearing:


....in his prepared remarks, Martin complained about cable prices going up "at a disproportionate rate - 38 percent between 2000 and 2005 - when compared against other communications sectors." And he offered support for a la carte programming options for consumers.

Martin also pointed to broadcast digital technology, including a small mention of multicast, and how the advances could benefit consumers. He said with digital spectrum television broadcasters can offer high def programming, multiple programming streams, data services and video over mobile devices.

"Many of these business plans are in their infancy, with revenue streams uncertain, while the costs of the transition are large and immediate," Martin said. "And those costs come at a time of increased competition for advertisers from other media - many of which, unlike broadcasters, have a subscription revenue stream in addition to advertising revenue."


By Thursday Afternoon, Mediacom knew their goose was cooked.

Friday morning the leak about Martin's supporting the FCC Staff http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9667474&&#post9667474 in their determination that Sinclair did no wrong (WOW....who told you this in January) and the FCC would not get involved - further sending panic through Mediacom.

At that point it was bend over as Mediacom realized that just like their effort to try and get the FCC to rule against Sinclair 48 hours before the deadline, this effort was dead in the water - so they bent over and said whatever it takes 48 hours before the Superbowl.

To add to it, a number of Sinclair Executives were heading to Miami to be CBS's guest for the weekend at the SuperBowl (gee, imagine that - wonder if Rocko got invited?) so to stop another "goose hunting vacation", all Mediacom could say is give us the figure and here's our check - fax us the contract - which explains the paying of legal expenses and other things you heard CPanther95.

So Mediacom ended up paying so much more than they originally could have paid in the beginning its comical. They have now set the high water mark of what retransmission is worth and ended up helping other broadcasters with the high amount instead of hurting them.

Thanks Rocco! You must have had Stan54 as your advisor on this one!

Another great example of why people that believed Mediacom press releases had no idea how this game is actually played.

Well, HDTVF, we actually had an insider -- he started this thread -- but the venomous, often far off topic and ill-informed replies to his posts led him to (more wisely as best I can tell) spend his time elsewhere.

There are few who understand the HDTV revolution (or who have seen it at close hand long) more than he does, but the arrogant, self-centered and vicious replies he got caused us to lose a spectacularly informed first-hand source.

Sadly, so many seem far more interested in pushing their own agenda than in listening.

Agree with the Sinclair position or not, it really doesn't matter. Rereading the early posts in this thread just shows how little so many know about how the business works -- not to mention how to debate a topic with good humor and civility.

It also shows a startling and sad lack of maturity and common decency.

So to satisfy the personal egos of a handful of posters we lost the input of a good man with startingly in-depth knowledge of the political, technical and commercial sides of the HDTV revolution, and all of us are the poorer for it.

From the Wall Street Journal - Monday, 2/5/2007

"On Friday, with a blacked-out Super Bowl looming for some customers, the battle was resolved in Sinclair's favor. After first refusing to buckle in what he called "a huge fight about principles," Mediacom's CEO Rocco Commisso acknowledged his adversary got much of what it was asking. "I don't feel good about this," he said, as the stations began flicking back on.


All over the country, a shift in the balance of power between cable operators and broadcasters has station owners -- including giants such as CBS Corp. -- lining up to demand new cash payments."



Also -

"Last July, Mr. Commisso, a former Bronx disco owner, called for a meeting with Sinclair Chief Executive David Smith, son of the broadcast company's founder, to resolve their differences "CEO to CEO." People at the meeting said Mr. Commisso warned Mr. Smith he wasn't easily intimidated, saying that in the rough neighborhood where he grew up, "I've had people hold a gun to my head and I've told them to pull the trigger." Mr. Smith wasn't intimidated either: He laughed out loud, say some people familiar with the meeting."

Guess this is where a used car salesman beat the club owner! You never mess with a used car salesman!! :)

Can anyone on this thread say that they are happy about the cable companies (us) paying the broadcasters? If so, what is there about it that is so pleasing to you?

(Please, skip the part about your overwhelming concern for "fairness.")

No, we would all much rather have all our programming free of charge. We may as well get rid of advertisements and logos bugs, popups and reruns while we're at it.

Saying "Please, skip the part about....fairness" is like me asking you what's wrong with cash payments and please skip the part about costs.

Can anyone on this thread say that they are happy about the cable companies (us) paying the broadcasters? If so, what is there about it that is so pleasing to you?

(Please, skip the part about your overwhelming concern for "fairness.")

I'm happy.

(I'm skipping the part of explaining my happiness though).

Can anyone on this thread say that they are happy about the cable companies (us) paying the broadcasters? If so, what is there about it that is so pleasing to you?

(Please, skip the part about your overwhelming concern for "fairness.")
Of course I would like my programming for free OTA and cable. However, these broadcasters are businesses and have the right to make money on their product.

If we are going to throw out the concern for "fairness" I also think I pay too much for rent, car payments and food so I think that should be free to me as well.

You obviously work for a broadcaster.

It still amazes me Stan54, how the DBS companies have been able to pay for LIL carriage ($230 million just this year, according to today's Wall Street Journal) -- and consistently have charged less than cable. And, of course, the DBS price increases have been far less frequent and nowhere near the 93% price hike of cable in the past decade.

So (skipping the part about fairness), DBS has higher programming costs (because of LIL) than cable. Yet charges less.

Hmmm, that is a wonderful business model -- especially for consumers with no choice in providers.

You obviously work for a broadcaster.
If you are referring to me, no I do not work for a broadcaster or any media company for that matter.

However, I am looking for a new job, and wouldn't mind working in broadcasting.

Mediacom's Commisso: ‘Industry Has Major Issues’
By Tom Steinert-Threlkeld MultiChannel News 2/5/2007

The cable-television industry must seek significant changes in laws governing relationships with broadcasters, the chairman of Mediacom Communications said Monday after his company came to terms with Sinclair Broadcast Group late Friday to carry the signals of its 23 TV stations in 16 markets.

The pact put Sinclair stations back on Mediacom systems after two months of darkness just in time for Sunday’s Super Bowl championship game in professional football.

“The industry has some major issues to face,” Rocco Commisso said in an interview with Multichannel News Monday morning.

Commisso and Mediacom officials have not disclosed terms of the agreement reached Friday with Sinclair after a long, contentious dispute.

But the case may wind up buttressing broadcasters’ contentions that they should be paid for the signals of their local TV stations. Mediacom may have agreed to pay as much as 50 cents per subscriber, per month for each of Sinclair’s stations, according to one party close to the company. The Wall Street Journal Monday put the payments in the range of 40-50 cents.

Those payments will likely get passed on to Mediacom’s customers at some point. But Commisso said his company doesn’t have any other major renewals of contracts with broadcasters coming up for another couple of years.

Nonetheless, Mediacom is one of the nation’s 10 largest cable operators, with approximately 1.4 million subscribers. About 700,000 of those subscribers were affected by the blackout of Sinclair stations.

Mediacom handed out over-the-air antennas to customers to help them get the signals while the dispute went on. Sinclair offered rebates to those Mediacom subscribers who agreed to switch over to the DirecTV direct-broadcast satellite service.

And while Sinclair pulled its signals from Mediacom systems Dec. 1, the broadcaster came to terms with a larger operator -- Time Warner Cable, which serves 13.5 million customers -- in mid-January.

Commisso Monday said Congress should look again at the rules governing how cable operators and broadcasters deal with each other over the carriage of local TV station signals on cable systems.

His set of prescriptions:

• 1: Discrimination should not be acceptable. Rates afforded to large operators should also be afforded to small operators. All small operators, for instance, compete with DBS services that have more than 10 million subscribers.

• 2: Local monopolies on broadcast-TV signals should be eliminated. Cable operators should be allowed to import signals when there is an impasse. Competition should be fostered in local markets.

• 3: Anticompetitive marketing campaigns should be outlawed. A broadcaster should not be allowed to subsidize customers to switch to another provider of multichannel-video services, such as occurred in this case.

• 4: Eliminate the requirement that broadcast TV stations be part of the basic tier of cable programming. If broadcasters’ signals can be placed on a separate tier of service, as occurs on satellite services, they should be separable on cable, as well.

• 5: Treat broadcast networks like cable networks. Cable operators shouldn’t be forced to distribute local TV signals to 100% of their subscribers and should be able to make agreements directly with national networks to take their full lineups or individual shows.

• 6: Allow operators to share in the revenue. Cable operators should be entitled to two minutes of advertising per hour. In effect, cable operators, if they’re paying for carriage of a network, should also get to share in the revenue generated by having that network on their systems.

• 7: Stop further relaxation of rules governing consolidation of media operations. Particularly, no broadcaster should be allowed to own or operate more than one TV station in a market.

Imagine what would happen if broadcasters had two or three stations in a market, the right to charge for each of those stations and force carriage of them to 100% of the subscribers in each market, Commisso said, adding, “They’d put you in bankruptcy.”

Broadcasters should be required to establish rates and publish their rate cards so that the same rates are available to all multichannel pay service providers.

And whatever the price may be, the price shouldn’t be based on the leverage a broadcaster holds over a cable operator. The pricing should be based on a rate card, “where no one is discriminated against,” he said.

In any case, “The consumer should not go dark,” Commisso added.

In this case, Commisso placed blame for the outcome squarely on the shoulders of Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin J. Martin.

Commisso had urged Martin to force binding arbitration in the dispute with Sinclair. Mediacom last month, producing a set of comments made by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) indicating that the lawmaker believed the FCC did have the authority to mandate arbitration. Those comments came in 1992, when rules governing getting consent to retransmit broadcast-TV signals were first established.

Martin more than once said he wasn’t sure that the FCC had the power to mandate arbitration.

But, Commisso said Monday, “The FCC could have easily done it. If we had a different chairman, that would have taken place, guaranteed. Just change the chairman, and you’ll see what different results you would have gotten.”

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6413340.html?display=Breaking+News

Anyone have any info on Sinclair Vs Charter?

No, we would all much rather have all our programming free of charge. We may as well get rid of advertisements and logos bugs, popups and reruns while we're at it.

Saying "Please, skip the part about....fairness" is like me asking you what's wrong with cash payments and please skip the part about costs.

Huh?

I'm happy.

(I'm skipping the part of explaining my happiness though).

Just a "fair" kind of guy, I guess.

Of course I would like my programming for free OTA and cable. However, these broadcasters are businesses and have the right to make money on their product.

If we are going to throw out the concern for "fairness" I also think I pay too much for rent, car payments and food so I think that should be free to me as well.

Still another "fair" kind of guy.

Still another "fair" kind of guy.
You make it sound like a bad thing being fair.

Just a "fair" kind of guy, I guess.

Wrong. Following the argument that cable companies don't have to pay...

The cable companies make money by carrying the local stations be it in HD or SD because they charge
consumers for their service because these people can't get an OTA signal or don't want to use an antenna.

The cable companies charge consumers for a HD box or a cable card so they can decode their HD signals.

The cable companies charge consumers for their DVR, thus hurting the advertisers because the advertisements aren't seen.

The advertisers then will pay less for the advertisements to be carried.

The local broadcasters make less revenue.

The local broadcasters lay people off due to less revenue.

The local broadcaster gets out of the business all together because money can not be made.

This hurts everyone.

So now that the cable company pays the broadcaster they can try to make money and thus stay in business and not have to lay people off.

Better for everyone but the cable company because now they have a smaller profit.

Mediacom's Commisso: ‘Industry Has Major Issues’
By Tom Steinert-Threlkeld MultiChannel News 2/5/2007

The cable-television industry must seek significant changes in laws governing relationships with broadcasters, the chairman of Mediacom Communications said Monday after his company came to terms with Sinclair Broadcast Group late Friday to carry the signals of its 23 TV stations in 16 markets.

The pact put Sinclair stations back on Mediacom systems after two months of darkness just in time for Sunday’s Super Bowl championship game in professional football.

“The industry has some major issues to face,” Rocco Commisso said in an interview with Multichannel News Monday morning.

Commisso and Mediacom officials have not disclosed terms of the agreement reached Friday with Sinclair after a long, contentious dispute.

But the case may wind up buttressing broadcasters’ contentions that they should be paid for the signals of their local TV stations. Mediacom may have agreed to pay as much as 50 cents per subscriber, per month for each of Sinclair’s stations, according to one party close to the company. The Wall Street Journal Monday put the payments in the range of 40-50 cents.

Those payments will likely get passed on to Mediacom’s customers at some point. But Commisso said his company doesn’t have any other major renewals of contracts with broadcasters coming up for another couple of years.

Nonetheless, Mediacom is one of the nation’s 10 largest cable operators, with approximately 1.4 million subscribers. About 700,000 of those subscribers were affected by the blackout of Sinclair stations.

Mediacom handed out over-the-air antennas to customers to help them get the signals while the dispute went on. Sinclair offered rebates to those Mediacom subscribers who agreed to switch over to the DirecTV direct-broadcast satellite service.

And while Sinclair pulled its signals from Mediacom systems Dec. 1, the broadcaster came to terms with a larger operator -- Time Warner Cable, which serves 13.5 million customers -- in mid-January.

Commisso Monday said Congress should look again at the rules governing how cable operators and broadcasters deal with each other over the carriage of local TV station signals on cable systems.

His set of prescriptions:

• 1: Discrimination should not be acceptable. Rates afforded to large operators should also be afforded to small operators. All small operators, for instance, compete with DBS services that have more than 10 million subscribers.

• 2: Local monopolies on broadcast-TV signals should be eliminated. Cable operators should be allowed to import signals when there is an impasse. Competition should be fostered in local markets.

• 3: Anticompetitive marketing campaigns should be outlawed. A broadcaster should not be allowed to subsidize customers to switch to another provider of multichannel-video services, such as occurred in this case.

• 4: Eliminate the requirement that broadcast TV stations be part of the basic tier of cable programming. If broadcasters’ signals can be placed on a separate tier of service, as occurs on satellite services, they should be separable on cable, as well.

• 5: Treat broadcast networks like cable networks. Cable operators shouldn’t be forced to distribute local TV signals to 100% of their subscribers and should be able to make agreements directly with national networks to take their full lineups or individual shows.

• 6: Allow operators to share in the revenue. Cable operators should be entitled to two minutes of advertising per hour. In effect, cable operators, if they’re paying for carriage of a network, should also get to share in the revenue generated by having that network on their systems.

• 7: Stop further relaxation of rules governing consolidation of media operations. Particularly, no broadcaster should be allowed to own or operate more than one TV station in a market.

Imagine what would happen if broadcasters had two or three stations in a market, the right to charge for each of those stations and force carriage of them to 100% of the subscribers in each market, Commisso said, adding, “They’d put you in bankruptcy.”

Broadcasters should be required to establish rates and publish their rate cards so that the same rates are available to all multichannel pay service providers.

And whatever the price may be, the price shouldn’t be based on the leverage a broadcaster holds over a cable operator. The pricing should be based on a rate card, “where no one is discriminated against,” he said.

In any case, “The consumer should not go dark,” Commisso added.

In this case, Commisso placed blame for the outcome squarely on the shoulders of Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin J. Martin.

Commisso had urged Martin to force binding arbitration in the dispute with Sinclair. Mediacom last month, producing a set of comments made by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) indicating that the lawmaker believed the FCC did have the authority to mandate arbitration. Those comments came in 1992, when rules governing getting consent to retransmit broadcast-TV signals were first established.

Martin more than once said he wasn’t sure that the FCC had the power to mandate arbitration.

But, Commisso said Monday, “The FCC could have easily done it. If we had a different chairman, that would have taken place, guaranteed. Just change the chairman, and you’ll see what different results you would have gotten.”

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6413340.html?display=Breaking+News

Hey, now, we're REALLY starting to talk fairness. If you're going to have to buy, you might as well be buying on a wide open market rather than a closed monopoly. If you have to pay, it might as well be the lowest price you can find. Certainly, my "fair" friends can support this alternative along with some of the other things mentioned.

Responding to Stan54's plea for "fairness" here are my reactions to Rocco Commisso's points:

Point 1: No problem with this one. But then perhaps large cable companies would have to provide all their owned channels to every competitor who wants them on the same terms they offer themselves?

Point 2: That would work out great. The major networks would simply undercut the local guys so Disney, CBS, GE and NewsCorp would get all the money.

Point 3: OK, great. But then a cable company shouldn’t be able to offer bundled rates, either. If DBS/Telco can’t offer incentives, then cable sholuldn’t be allowed to, either. Fair is fair, right, Stan? :)

Point 4: When cable is able to provide truly local news and information on a consistent basis (as is done in a number of markets) and when it can guarantee to run crawls on all channels in case of emergency, I see no problem with this.

Point 5: Seems like point 1 to me. Same reaction.

Point 6: Then the cable nets, I assume will also get to share in the cable provider’s profits?

Point 7: No problem with me on this one. But while we are at it, let’s strike down the exclusivity cable companies have in almost every market. Open everything up and don’t allow anyone (broadcast or cable or DBS or telco) to hog control of a TV market.

Commisso obviously wants to have the government shackle his competition and allow cable providers free rein.

That doesn't sound fair to me at all.

The local broadcaster gets out of the business all together because money can not be made.



I don't recall ANY broadcast licenses being relinquished lately. :D

Can anyone on this thread say that they are happy about the cable companies (us) paying the broadcasters? If so, what is there about it that is so pleasing to you?

(Please, skip the part about your overwhelming concern for "fairness.")

Please stop asking such asinine questions. It is obvious you are NOT happy, that doesn't mean others can't be happy if they so choose. Sour grapes. And fairness has EVERYTHING to do with it. Had it gone the other way, you would be touting how the outcome was fair all day long. Geez! :confused:

A few small licenses have been -- but mostly the broadcasters are having terrible trouble dealing with an market which only provides them a 20-some per cent annual return instead of the 70%+ they had been used to a decade ago.

Yet the big guys still want to be able to buy and operate even more stations, so the market must not be all that bad.

Hey, now, we're REALLY starting to talk fairness. If you're going to have to buy, you might as well be buying on a wide open market rather than a closed monopoly. If you have to pay, it might as well be the lowest price you can find. Certainly, my "fair" friends can support this alternative along with some of the other things mentioned.
No I could not support this suggestions from Mediacom unless there was protections for the OTA channels that would be placed at a significant disadvantage by these ideas. I would also like to see more requirements on cable systems to provide public service and safety roles in the communities they serve.

Wrong. Following the argument that cable companies don't have to pay...

The cable companies make money by carrying the local stations be it in HD or SD because they charge
consumers for their service because these people can't get an OTA signal or don't want to use an antenna.

The cable companies charge consumers for a HD box or a cable card so they can decode their HD signals.

The cable companies charge consumers for their DVR, thus hurting the advertisers because the advertisements aren't seen.

The advertisers then will pay less for the advertisements to be carried.

The local broadcasters make less revenue.

The local broadcasters lay people off due to less revenue.

The local broadcaster gets out of the business all together because money can not be made.

This hurts everyone.

So now that the cable company pays the broadcaster they can try to make money and thus stay in business and not have to lay people off.

Better for everyone but the cable company because now they have a smaller profit.

Does your response boil down to this:

The broadcasters need the money to stay in business.

You make it sound like a bad thing being fair.

Fair is a good thing and noble, but when people are anxious to pay even more for something that is an "extra" in life, I suspect other motives. Oh, you know, like being in the business or something.

Sometimes "fair" and "honest" are not both present in the same person. Very, very fair (in this case), but not intellectually honest about it.

There is nothing wrong with someone saying, "Yeah, I love it because it is possible that I will benefit financially." ................ Anyone?????

Fair is a good thing and noble, but when people are anxious to pay even more for something that is an "extra" in life, I suspect other motives. Oh, you know, like being in the business or something.
As I said earlier in this thread I'm not in the business.


There is nothing wrong with someone saying, "Yeah, I love it because it is possible that I will benefit financially." ................ Anyone?????
Not at all, I respect that opinion, however, at the same time I respect the opinion that broadcasters have the right to make money on their product.

It still amazes me Stan54, how the DBS companies have been able to pay for LIL carriage ($230 million just this year, according to today's Wall Street Journal) -- and consistently have charged less than cable. And, of course, the DBS price increases have been far less frequent and nowhere near the 93% price hike of cable in the past decade.

So (skipping the part about fairness), DBS has higher programming costs (because of LIL) than cable. Yet charges less.

Hmmm, that is a wonderful business model -- especially for consumers with no choice in providers.

Infrastructure, franchise obligations, local taxes/fees/personnel...

It's a rhetorical ressponse so don't feel obligated to reply.

GoIrish

Fair is a good thing and noble, but when people are anxious to pay even more for something that is an "extra" in life, I suspect other motives. Oh, you know, like being in the business or something.

Sometimes "fair" and "honest" are not both present in the same person. Very, very fair (in this case), but not intellectually honest about it.

There is nothing wrong with someone saying, "Yeah, I love it because it is possible that I will benefit financially." ................ Anyone?????

Who's being more intellectually dishonest, those who feel the "extra" in life should be free of charge, or those that feel that the "extra" should cost extra?

Sounds like you are the one who will benefit financially. You should just say that instead of trying to remove "fairness" from the argument.

Does your response boil down to this:

The broadcasters need the money to stay in business.

No it boils down to Rocco trying to have Congress hogtie the broadcasters and free himself from any contraints.

Failing to reach an agreement, he screamed to Washington (and Des Moines) for help.

Failing that, he sees the system as flawed. The change in retransmission rules went into effect in 1992. Sorry if Rocco is just figuring that out. It took Nexstar a while, too, and Time Warner finally understood. When these guys faces off against CBS and Fox who do you think will blink?

By the way Stan54, you still haven't responded to my question earlier: if DBS is paying $230 million this year for local rights, how come their average bills are lower (even with bundling!) than cable? It is even more amazing when you consider that DBS has fewer than half the subs of cable, and thus must sopread those extra payments out to fewer subs.

And why do you seem so protective over a group of companies which have raised its rates (almost always on an annual basis) by a total of 93% over the past decade?

Any time a guy like Rocco says with a straight face that he is engaged in "a huge fight about principles" (as Commisso was quoted today in the WSJ) you should make sure your wallet can't be easily taken.

Seems to me the more understandable principles were on Sinclair's ide. Somone is making money from our investment and we want a cut. (As you'll notice, Commissio urges exactly the same thing in one of his seven "points" -- cable companies should get a share of the cable network earnings.)

And if he truly was fighting for "principle" why did he give up just because he seemed to be losing. Someone who cares about principles doesn't just say "never mind" and walk away when he gets behind. He just fights harder, because, well, its the principle of the thing.

I am no big fan of Sinclair -- going into its myriad failings (IMO) would take us far OT. But in this case Sinclair does not come up looking, acting, speaking, and smelling like a hypocrite.

Unlike the Mediacom CEO.

Infrastructure, franchise obligations, local taxes/fees/personnel...

It's a rhetorical ressponse so don't feel obligated to reply.

GoIrish


The DBS guys don't pay for infrastructure, personnel or taxes?

And, of course, they aren't trying to finance a whole new infrastructure to accomodate VOIP and high speed internet on the backs of the TV subscribers.

It is not rhetorical at all. If the DBS and telco guys can deliver a product at less expense, why can't cable? Are you saying there is no infrastructure cost for the telco buildout?

And don't worry, Stan54 stays strictly on message! :)

Who's being more intellectually dishonest, those who feel the "extra" in life should be free of charge, or those that feel that the "extra" should cost extra?

Sounds like you are the one who will benefit financially. You should just say that instead of trying to remove "fairness" from the argument.

I do not feel that the "extra" in life should be free of charge. I WANT the extra in life to remain free of charge. Is that honest enough?

Remove fairness so that we can see if there are REAL reasons.

There is only just so much nobility (fairness) in folks that I can accept as a genuine reason.

Quote from fredfa:

"By the way Stan54, you still haven't responded to my question earlier: if DBS is paying $230 million this year for local rights, how come their average bills are lower (even with bundling!) than cable? It is even more amazing when you consider that DBS has fewer than half the subs of cable, and thus must sopread those extra payments out to fewer subs.

And why do you seem so protective over a group of companies which have raised its rates (almost always on an annual basis) by a total of 93% over the past decade?"

In response to your first question: I ain't got the foggiest! On the other hand, if DBS has the cheapest price for 3 tv's when they acquire their increased and improved capacity, I will drop cable like a hot potato.

I am protective of cable because for the moment they provide me with the best deal.

Now, that we are into payments for signal, however, I am all in favor of cable companies being able to buy network signals from whatever source provides the best business deal. Gosh, you might even think of that as being ........... (gulp) fair! If I have to pay, I want to pay as little as possible.

The DBS guys don't pay for infrastructure, personnel or taxes?

And, of course, they aren't trying to finance a whole new infrastructure to accomodate VOIP and high speed internet on the backs of the TV subscribers.

It is not rhetorical at all. If the DBS and telco guys can deliver a product at less expense, why can't cable? Are you saying there is no infrastructure cost for the telco buildout?

And don't worry, Stan54 stays strictly on message! :)

If you are not being rhetorical I'll try to answer. :) (Go Google)

Sure DirecTV has infrastructure, but the national footprint has it's benefits! :D

For comparison purposes I'll use Time Warner Cable 14.4 million subscribers, DiercTV 15 million. Time Warner 44,900 employees, DirecTV 9,200. Property taxes, how much do you think DirecTV pays compared to the real estate holdings required for TWC to operate a land based network? How many local payment centers does DirecTV have? How much free service/programming does DirecTV provides for schools/fire houses/police stations/coomunity centers?

When you mention telco infrastructure costs and cable building HSD networks in the same post I have to chuckle.... Who's ponying up the money for Verizon to build it's FIOS network? Are the shareholders putting up the cash or is Verizon maybe using telco money for this? FIOS TV could never stand on it's own, bundling is where it is at, I wonder where they got that idea?

Apples to oranges, apples to oranges... :) I'm sure they will all manage to make a buck despite what we here at AVS have to say. :D

It's a moot point unless you can make a case as to why the local broadcast affiliate should be subsidizing the cable company's infrastructure costs. Otherwise, an MSOs costs of doing business is their own issue.

I was just answering fredfa's question, no ther point to make! :)

Amazing that in the links that Mediacom put in their press release 2 weeks ago they showed a number of Network Affiliate Contracts and even provided the links. Of course, Stan54 wouldn't know this as he won't read the facts and examine the evidence. However, if he would have taken less time than it took for him to keep posting his position, he would know that according to the evidence that Mediacom has presented, the Network Controls the Programming and will not allow any local station to sign a carriage deal outside of the DMA.

If they do sign a deal for carriage outside their DMA, they violate their contract and I am sure there is another Independent (or CW or MyNetworkTV affiliate) that would love to have that big 4 Network Affiliation as well and not sign an agreement for network programming outside the DMA.

But don't feel bad Stan54 - it shows that Rocco can't even read the evidence in the contracts he supplied as references - so both of you are still joined at the hip.

Can anyone on this thread say that they are happy about the cable companies (us) paying the broadcasters? If so, what is there about it that is so pleasing to you?

(Please, skip the part about your overwhelming concern for "fairness.")


I am loving it....because it pisses you off!

I won't miss $5 a month and its worth it to see you eating crow.

Beyond that, it was the right thing to do.

Beyond that, it was the right thing to do.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's very ................. FAIR!

A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article on the Sinclair-Comcast negotiation extension (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07037/759670-28.stm). This one should be interesting, as Comcast is a much bigger gorilla than Mediacom. Hopefully they can resolve it more amicably.

Being bigger won't give Comcast any more leverage. A Comcast customer is just as likely to bolt over a missing broadcast network as a TWC or Mediacom customer.

I know the people running Comcast operate at an entirely different level than those running Mediacom. It is not that Mediacom is small, just that forward-thinking has never (before) been used in the same sentence with the mediacom name.

Although, to be fair, Comcast has said repeatedly that it doesn't, as a matter of policy, pay for local carriage.

But obviously, with CBS and Fox (at the very least) O&Os about to charge cable ops for carriage, that policy might have to change. And with Zucker taking iver at NBCU, and finding money from digital one of his prime job requirements, NBC could be in the same boat.

(I don't know when the Fox O&O contracts run out, but if NewsCorp is lucky it will be right before next year's Super Bowl.)

And I agree totally with CP95: it dosn't matter if it is a Mediacom sub in DesMoines or a Comcast sub in Philadelphia: roughly the same percentage in each DMA will be upset losing access to "American Idol", "CSI", "Grey's Anatomy" or "Heroes".


A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article on the Sinclair-Comcast negotiation extension (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07037/759670-28.stm). This one should be interesting, as Comcast is a much bigger gorilla than Mediacom. Hopefully they can resolve it more amicably.

And I agree totally with CP95: it dosn't matter if it is a Mediacom sub in DesMoines or a Comcast sub in Philadelphia: roughly the same percentage in each DMA will be upset losing access to "American Idol", "CSI", "Grey's Anatomy" or "Heroes".

Trust me, the Comcast sub in Philly will be MORE ticked off than Des Moines, especially if it is FOX and it is football season!! :D

The Business of Television
CBS Gets Cash in Retrans Deal
By Michael Malone Broadcasting & Cable, 2/22/2007

CBS Corp. announced it has reached retransmission consent agreements with nine cable operators, covering over a million subscribers. The deals cover analog, digital, multicast and high-definition rights to CBS programming.

As has been previously reported, CBS has sought 50 cents a subscriber in past dealings with cable operators and Verizon FiOS. A source familiar with the negotiations suggested that the new CBS deals are close to that figure.

CBS Corp. President and CEO Leslie Moonves, who’s long pushed for retransmission payments, hinted at future retrans battles. “Clearly there is a new paradigm in the marketplace—one that recognizes the value of the content that we bring to our various audiences,” said Moonves. “This is a trend that bodes well for us going forward as future retransmission deals are negotiated.”

CBS Corp. did not specify which cable operators it formed pacts with or the terms of the deals.

CBS was not available for comment.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6418604

In all honesty, considering the television markets that CBS owns stations in, 9 cable companies and a million subs really sound like small cable companies....which is probably why they won't tell which systems they are.

In all honesty, considering the television markets that CBS owns stations in, 9 cable companies and a million subs really sound like small cable companies....which is probably why they won't tell which systems they are.

While probably true (gut feeling says it is), the headline here is that a major owner got money. Cable can't fight it now. It will be a loosing battle. Mediacom did broadcasters more than they could have possibly thought could happen. The government at ANY level will not step in and cable can't afford to have a major net off their system even if the station owner is not a power player.

Mediacom did broadcasters more than they could have possibly thought could happen.

Hmmm......I seemed to remember some poster said this would happen on this very thread back in January and that Mediacom had alienated themselves even in the Cable Community.... Now, who was that poster....its right on the tip of my tongue........

The Business of Television
CBS Reaches Deals With 9 Cable Operators for Compensation to Carry Its Programs
Moonves: “The world is changing and this proves it.”
By Bill Carter The New York Times February 23, 2007

In a move that could have implications for both the broadcast and cable television industries, the CBS Corporation announced yesterday that it had concluded a series of agreements with cable system operators that would generate a new stream of revenue for the network.

Leslie Moonves, the CBS chief executive, called the deals, in which cable systems will compensate the network for the right to carry its programs, “a major milestone” that could result in broadcasters’ achieving a long-held goal of creating a regular source of revenue beyond advertising.

Other broadcasters were more cautious, saying that since the deals were only with smaller cable systems at this stage, the crucial test — whether a big cable operator will pay cash to carry the content of broadcast stations — has not yet been faced.

For years, broadcasters have tried to compel cable operators to pay fees for the right to retransmit their programs, and cable operators have declared the demand for cash compensation to be non-negotiable, though cable has offered better fees and carriage deals for cable channels owned by the broadcasting companies.

The Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns 58 television stations, engaged in a much-publicized showdown with Mediacom Communications in January and withdrew its signal from about 700,000 homes when it was unable to obtain a cash payment from the cable system. With rights to carry the Super Bowl looming, Mediacom eventually consented to pay undisclosed fees to regain the Sinclair signal.

Sinclair announced last week that it expected to almost double the revenue it receives from retransmission consent this year. The news drove the Sinclair stock price to a 52-week high.

Now, much of the television industry is waiting to see what will happen in the next several weeks when Sinclair tries to obtain similar fees from the largest cable operator, Comcast, for 30 of its stations.

In a measure of how sensitive the issue is to the cable operators, CBS did not disclose which systems had agreed to the new deals yesterday, noting only that nine operators, reaching more than a million subscribers, were involved. Nor did CBS publicly declare that cash would change hands in the deal, saying only that it was receiving value for its content.

But Mr. Moonves made clear that he had achieved a significant goal with these deals. He previously predicted at investor conferences that CBS could gain 50 cents a subscriber from these agreements. That amount was widely speculated to be exactly what CBS did secure from at least some of the nine systems involved.

“The important thing here is the precedent,” Mr. Moonves said in a telephone interview. “The world is changing and this proves it.”

How significant the change will be may not be determined until 2010 when CBS’s deals with the biggest cable system operators, like Comcast, must be renewed. Comcast executives have been among the most insistent in saying that they will never pay broadcasters a subscriber fee.

A spokeswoman for Comcast said its executives would have no comment on the CBS deals with the smaller cable operators.

But Lucas Binder, who analyzes the television industry for UBS, said in a telephone interview that he expected CBS and other broadcasters to begin using all the leverage at their disposal to break the opposition of the cable operators to cash payments for retransmission rights.

“CBS has the Super Bowl again in 2010,” Mr. Binder said. “They also have the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament every year and ’C.S.I.’ and other popular programs. They always have N.F.L. games. Can you imagine if that Colts-Patriots game this year could not have been watched?”

He said viewers were likely to blame cable operators, not broadcasters, if stations were dropped in a fight over retransmission fees.

The upside for CBS could be enormous, Mr. Binder said. While the deals announced yesterday would amount to just $6 million, based on 50 cents a subscriber, Mr. Binder estimated that if CBS won its battles for fees with the big cable operators, it could generate as much as $240 million extra a year.

“I’m very aggressive with that figure,” he acknowledged, declaring that whatever money CBS was able to add to the fees would involve no extra costs at all.

And it would set a precedent, he said. “If CBS starts getting a second revenue stream, the other broadcast guys have to follow,” Mr. Binder said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/business/media/23cable.html?pagewanted=print

The Business of Television
CBS Reaches Deals With 9 Cable Operators for Compensation to Carry Its Programs
By Bill Carter The New York Times February 23, 2007

... the crucial test — whether a big cable operator will pay cash to carry the content of broadcast stations — has not yet been faced.

Yep, I've always thought TWC was a "small cable system" ;)

Hmmm......I seemed to remember some poster said this would happen on this very thread back in January and that Mediacom had alienated themselves even in the Cable Community.... Now, who was that poster....its right on the tip of my tongue........

I said it several years ago in these pages that cable wasn't the giant everyone thought they were, and I got fried for it by many now posting for it.

And privately, in conversations with other TV people, we have been saying if someone would just get some kahuna's, they could force the issue and it would go their way. But alas, no one in my circle of people were high enough up to make something like that happen, even though several tried to persuade higher ups to try.

Of course, that is all water under the bridge now and I am just glad it is finally happening. Cable has been exposed. Some will last longer than others in a hold out, but in the end, the hold outs will fail. There is just too much competition in the MSO field now that cable can't hold customers or content providers hostage anymore and they know it. They just hope the rest of us don't realize it.

Well, Well, Well.....what do we have here from the MCCC SEC filings for 4Q 2006:

Sinclair Spat Impacts Mediacom 4Q
In its fourth quarter results released this morning, Mediacom said its basic cable subscriber base was impacted somewhat by the company's retransmission consent dispute with Sinclair Broadcast Group. But the MSO reported customer gains for other services.

Mediacom said basic subscriber losses amounted to 14,000 for the three-month period, a drop the company attributed partly to the negative impact of its retransmission dispute with Sinclair that heated up in early December.


http://www.thebridgemediagroup.com/archives/view?publication_id=17&release_id=81

Let's remember that usually subs increase in 4Q as so many buy new TVs for the home over the holidays.

And that was just from the commercials on Sinclair stations with the offer to switch to D* for free.

This doesn't include the WHEN THE SIGNAL WAS TURNED OFF IN JANUARY.

Those number come May might be real ugly.....

Yep, I've always thought TWC was a "small cable system" ;)

From what I see, TWC seems conflicted. While it has apparently paid for carriage in some areas, in others (Spokane is one that I recall) it is refusing, and the Fox station there (KAYU) has been dark on TWC for more than two months.

Here is what the station says: "...Since KAYU came off their systems on December 14, 2006, Time Warner has not made a single offer. Our last offer remains on the table. There have been no negotiations. Not one exchange. Not one phone call, letter, e-mail or fax from Time Warner. Nothing...."

I am waiting with anticipation to see TWC pull that act on NewsCorp for rights to retransmit KTTV here in Los Angeles. :)

Mediacom 4th Quarter Results. Here's a different link. http://stocks.usatoday.com/custom/usatoday-com/html-story.asp?guid=%7B27157B0E%2DF3AF%2D4E10%2D81B6%2D01F1577BB7 0B%7D

What does this quote from the NY Times article mean? (particularly the first sentence.)

"Other broadcasters were more cautious, saying that since the deals were only with smaller cable systems at this stage, the crucial test — whether a big cable operator will pay cash to carry the content of broadcast stations — has not yet been faced.

For years, broadcasters have tried to compel cable operators to pay fees for the right to retransmit their programs, and cable operators have declared the demand for cash compensation to be non-negotiable, though cable has offered better fees and carriage deals for cable channels owned by the broadcasting companies."

Could it be that cable giant TWC did not pay?

Sinclair Fight Cost Mediacom Subs

By Mike Farrell 2/23/2007 1:15:00 PM

Mediacom Communications’ three-month stand-off with Sinclair Broadcast Group cost the cable operator about 7,000 basic customers, or one-half of the total basic-subscriber losses it incurred during the fourth quarter.

Sinclair and Mediacom concluded their often-heated retransmission-consent battle for several Sinclair stations in 12 states in Mediacom markets in early February. While terms were not disclosed, it was expected that Mediacom agreed to pay cash for the right to carry the Sinclair stations.

Commisso said he decided to end his battle with Sinclair after reading reports that the Federal Communications Commission would not give him relief.

“At the end of the day, we caved in to their demands,” he added on a conference call with analysts to discuss fourth-quarter results.

Mediacom said it lost 7,000 basic customers as a result of the Sinclair deal during the period. Because the dispute continued into January, The MSO added that losses from that spat should also affect first-quarter basic-subscriber numbers.

For the period, Mediacom reported an 11.7% increase in revenue to $313.1 million and cash flow rose 9.7% to $111 million, its best growth quarter since 2002.

While basic-customer losses were higher than the 6,000-subscriber decline in the third quarter, the cable operator added about 14,000 digital customers, 34,000 high-speed-Internet customers and 22,000 telephone customers.

Mediacom also said it recently launched an all-digital-video service in selected markets with about 100,000 subscribers, and it will expand that offering to an additional 200,000 customers by the end of 2007.

Executive vice president of operations John Pascarelli said on the call that plans are to eventually establish two regional networks allowing Mediacom to provide full digital programming to 85% of its customers through two superheadends.

Mediacom also issued guidance for the full year of 2007, with revenue growth expected to be 8%-9%, cash flow to rise 7%-8% and capital expenditures to total about $215 million.

Mediacom shares were down one cent each to $7.94 per share in afternoon trading Friday.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6419059.html?display=Breaking+News

From what I see, TWC seems conflicted. While it has apparently paid for carriage in some areas, in others (Spokane is one that I recall) it is refusing, and the Fox station there (KAYU) has been dark on TWC for more than two months.

Here is what the station says: "...Since KAYU came off their systems on December 14, 2006, Time Warner has not made a single offer. Our last offer remains on the table. There have been no negotiations. Not one exchange. Not one phone call, letter, e-mail or fax from Time Warner. Nothing...."

I am waiting with anticipation to see TWC pull that act on NewsCorp for rights to retransmit KTTV here in Los Angeles. :)

As I noted weeks ago, TWC has not added all Sinclair stations Systemwide as they would then have to pay for them systemwide. Unless it was one of the big 4, they are letting the local systems decide whether to carry and pay for the CW/MyNetworkTV/Independents that Sinclair owns.

Of course, Stan54 is the only one who still can't comprehend that - especially if they didn't pay anything how the big 4 got added but the other "freebies" weren't added, lol.

And for those that missed, Sinclair hit their 52 week high with the stock the other day...while Mediacom continues to wander lower:

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

Assuming that CBS and other station groups prevail in the battle to get cash for retransmission rights (which appears rather likely), I can't help but wonder where it will lead.

We've now seen the spectacle of "Monday Night Football" moving from ABC to ESPN, both owned by the same company, because ESPN can transfer part of the cost of the rights package to cable/satellite subscribers through it's monthly carriage fees and ABC couldn't. But if the broadcasters win the retransmission consent compensation battle, that could change.

For example, when the NFL rights packages next come up for renewal, why wouldn't CBS be able to use the retransmission consent cash to outbid so-called basic cable networks to retain (or regain) football packages for the CBS broadcast network? In essence, CBS would simply tell the cable and satellite companies that they will pony up the extra money to pay for these rights packages -- just as cable networks have done for years -- and inform them that if they want to keep running CBS stations they will be accepting some pretty hefty rate hikes when the retrans deals come up for renewal...

Frankly, I'll be laughing my head off if (or when) this happens. And I won't be feeling any sympathy for the cable industry, since they established all the precedents that can now be turned around and used against them.

CBS Eyes New Deals

Network Hopes Cash-for-Carriage Pacts Set Precedent

By Linda Moss 2/26/2007

Crowing about the start of “a new paradigm,” CBS appears to have succeeded in scoring cash payments from nine smaller cable companies for permission to retransmit the signals of its TV stations.

But two other broadcasters will likely face a much tougher time this week, as they try to extract cash compensation for their stations from Comcast and Cox Communications.

Those two large cable operators, ranked Nos. 1 and 4 in size, each have retransmission-consent pacts with TV-station owners that expire later this week. In theory, if new agreements aren’t reached or additional extensions are not granted, Comcast could lose carriage of Sinclair Broadcast Group-owned stations and Cox could lose the right to retransmit a New Orleans station belonging to Belo Corp. Negotiations are ongoing in both cases.

In the past, Comcast and Cox have been vocal about their reluctance to pay cash compensation to carry the signals of TV stations. In 2005, Cox lost carriage of Nexstar Broadcasting Group stations for most of the year over that issue.

Deals to Watch
Retransmisson-consent agreements about to expire:
March 1
Cable operator: Comcast
Station operator: Sinclair Broadcast Group
What happens: Retransmission-consent extension expires
TV stations involved: More than 30 in 23 markets
Cable subscribers affected: 3 million
Signals under discussion: Analog and digital
March 2
Cable operator: Cox Communications
Station operator: Belo Corp.
What happens: Retransmission-consent extension expires
Cable subscribers affected: 183,000
Signals: CBS affiliate WWL-TV, WWL-TV HD and NewsWatch 15, a newschannel, all in New Orleans.

NEW PRECEDENT
So it remains to be seen if the new CBS deals, which CEO Les Moonves triumphantly hailed, will set a precedent followed by larger cable operators, with millions of subscribers — or whether the deals will only have a bearing on negotiations with smaller operators, who may have just 100,000 subscribers or fewer to bargain with.

After literally years of Moonves calling for cash for his stations, last week the Tiffany Network finally announced it had new retransmission-consent deals with nine unidentified cable companies. The nine deals covered a total of 1 million cable TV subscribers who can watch CBS owned-and-operated stations.

Moonves has publicly said he would seek the equivalent of a 50 cent per-month, per-subscriber fee from cable operators for CBS stations. But, to date, there is no public confirmation from CBS or any other party of the exact amount of cash being paid by any of the cable operators under the agreements announced Thursday.

That sets the stage for this week’s events. Comcast has a retransmission-consent extension from Sinclair Broadcast Group that expires Thursday (March 1).

“We are continuing to work with Sinclair to reach a fair agreement,” Comcast senior director of corporate communications Jenni Moyer said last Friday.

As a precaution, and in line with federal law, Comcast has already notified its subscribers in Sinclair markets that they may be losing those TV stations. That negotiation involves more than 30 Sinclair TV stations reaching roughly 3 million subscribers in 23 markets, including Pittsburgh, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., Nashville, Tenn., Richmond, Va., and Tampa, Fla.

“These things, a lot of time, come down to the wire,” Sinclair general counsel Barry Faber said. “I like to think about getting deals done and that’s what I’m hoping we’ll be able to accomplish in the next week.”

Like CBS, Sinclair has been vocal about demanding cash for its stations and recently succeeded on that score. The broadcaster just concluded a very nasty, public retransmission-consent fight with Mediacom Communications.

Sinclair pulled 23 stations from Mediacom for a month before reaching a deal on Feb. 2 in which the cable operator is reportedly paying per-subscriber license fees for the broadcaster’s stations.

CBS's 'New Paradigm' Deals
Who and what's involved in the retransmission consent agreements CBS Corp. made last week:
Number of cable operators: Nine, unidentified
Number of cable TV subscribers, in total: 1 million
TV stations: CBS owned-and-operated CBS stations
Markets where CBS owns and operates stations: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, Dallas, Detroit, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Sacramento, Calif., Pittsburgh, Baltimore, St. Lake City, Austin, Texas, and Green Bay, Wis.
Covers: Analog, digital, multicast and HDTV signals
Source: Multichannel News research



Cox’s looming retransmission-consent deadline involves just one market. Belo Corp. has granted Cox, with its 183,000 subscribers, an extension until Friday, March 2, to continue carrying its CBS affiliate in New Orleans, WWL-TV. The Belo-Cox retransmission-consent negotiations involve the station’s analog and HD signals, as well as a news channel, NewsWatch 15, which reruns the station’s newscast.

“The issues are consistent with those across cable and broadcast negotiations, and I think they’re going to be resolved,” said WWL president and general manager Bud Brown.

CBS tried to position its deals with the nine cable companies as establishing a template.

“Clearly, there is a new paradigm in the marketplace — one that recognizes the value of the content that we bring to our various audiences,” Moonves said in a prepared statement. “This is a trend that bodes well for us going forward as future retransmission deals are negotiated.”

CBS spokesman Dana McClintock declined to name the operators the company reached agreements with, citing “confidentiality” — a sign of how touchy retransmission-consent payments are within the cable industry.

When asked about the terms and whether cash is involved, McClintock would only say, “We’re receiving value.”

NOT SO FAST
One industry executive familiar with the negotiations said CBS was receiving cash for carriage, much as it did nearly a year ago in a retransmission-consent pact with Verizon. CBS reportedly garnered monthly license fees of 50 cents, per-subscriber, in that agreement.

But several Wall Street analysts and at least one broadcaster were skeptical that CBS was getting just cash from these operators. Part of the compensation, or “value,” could be barter advertising time, for instance.

Assuming a 50-cent license fee, the investment firm Bear Stearns & Co. estimated that will create $6 million in annual revenue for CBS and open the door for a lot more down the line.

“CBS can capture $155 million to $175 million in retrans fees, making CBS one of the broadcasting industry’s greatest retrans beneficiaries,” Bear Stearns analyst Victor Miller wrote last week.

In its report, Bank of America said “the market value for broadcast retransmission rights won’t really be determined until CBS’s agreements with the largest cable operators come up for renewal starting in ’09-’10.”

NOT SO BIG
Some Wall Street analysts believe neither the Sinclair-Mediacom deal, nor last week’s CBS deal with smaller cable companies, will set any kind of precedent for a giant cable operator like Comcast.

For example, Craig Moffett, a Sanford C. Bernstein & Co analyst, stressed that Mediacom’s position with Sinclair is very different than that of Comcast.

“The pain to the broadcasters is felt immediately, in the form of lost advertising revenue, if they’re losing a big piece of the marketplace,” Moffett said. “Mediacom’s problem was it simply didn’t account for enough of Sinclair’s distribution to stand toe to toe with Sinclair at the bargaining table. The negotiation with Comcast is completely different.”

The Sinclair stations involved in the Comcast deal represent one-third of the broadcaster’s ad revenue, according to an individual familiar with negotiations.

Faber declined to comment on what Sinclair is specifically seeking from Comcast.

Cox and WWL reached a retransmission extension Jan. 31, which kept the CBS affiliate — and Super Bowl XLI — on the air for the cable system’s subscribers. Neither Cox nor WWL’s Brown are commenting on details of their talks, but one of the hangups is reportedly the financial terms for WWL’s HD channel, which Cox isn’t currently carrying.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6419389.html

Assuming that CBS and other station groups prevail in the battle to get cash for retransmission rights (which appears rather likely), I can't help but wonder where it will lead.

We've now seen the spectacle of "Monday Night Football" moving from ABC to ESPN, both owned by the same company, because ESPN can transfer part of the cost of the rights package to cable/satellite subscribers through it's monthly carriage fees and ABC couldn't. But if the broadcasters win the retransmission consent compensation battle, that could change.

For example, when the NFL rights packages next come up for renewal, why wouldn't CBS be able to use the retransmission consent cash to outbid so-called basic cable networks to retain (or regain) football packages for the CBS broadcast network? In essence, CBS would simply tell the cable and satellite companies that they will pony up the extra money to pay for these rights packages -- just as cable networks have done for years -- and inform them that if they want to keep running CBS stations they will be accepting some pretty hefty rate hikes when the retrans deals come up for renewal...

Frankly, I'll be laughing my head off if (or when) this happens. And I won't be feeling any sympathy for the cable industry, since they established all the precedents that can now be turned around and used against them.


Down the road you are probably right -- the networks could get back in any sports game they wished.

But not on 50 cents a household per month. ESPN is getting in the $3 range and the RSNs routinely get well over $2.

Being bigger won't give Comcast any more leverage. A Comcast customer is just as likely to bolt over a missing broadcast network as a TWC or Mediacom customer.

Apparently the analysts don't agree with your leverage assessment.

Some Wall Street analysts believe neither the Sinclair-Mediacom deal, nor last week’s CBS deal with smaller cable companies, will set any kind of precedent for a giant cable operator like Comcast.

For example, Craig Moffett, a Sanford C. Bernstein & Co analyst, stressed that Mediacom’s position with Sinclair is very different than that of Comcast.

“The pain to the broadcasters is felt immediately, in the form of lost advertising revenue, if they’re losing a big piece of the marketplace,” Moffett said. “Mediacom’s problem was it simply didn’t account for enough of Sinclair’s distribution to stand toe to toe with Sinclair at the bargaining table. The negotiation with Comcast is completely different.”

The Sinclair stations involved in the Comcast deal represent one-third of the broadcaster’s ad revenue, according to an individual familiar with negotiations.

I maintain my previous statement. For Sinclair, dealing with Comcast will not be the same as dealing with Mediacom in these negotiations. It should be interesting.

In the end, it appears that retrans fees will be the way of the future for all, large or small. It's just a question of when and how much. My only hope is that these negotiations can be resolved with minimal disruption and expense to us, the consumers.

We'll see who's right soon enough. Comcast will cave, as will every other cableco. If a smaller broadcaster gives in, they're throwing money away.

Analysts: CBS Cable Deals Not Likely To Be Repeated
By Peter Lauria New York Post February 27, 2007

Ole! Les CBS boss Les Moonves may find Time Warner Cable and Comcast will be all he can handle in the network's next content deal.

CBS might have been able to bully nine tiny cable operators into paying the media company to carry its broadcast signal, but when it comes time to negotiate with Comcast and Time Warner, the Tiffany network may find that it is the one being shoved around.

While CBS CEO Les Moonves is likely to boast about the 50-cent per subscriber monthly fee CBS received for its broadcast signal on today's fourth-quarter and full-year 2006 conference call, a source said the news was literally a nonevent at Comcast and Time Warner.

That's because the deal CBS struck last week with nine unnamed cable operators covers a miniscule 1 million subscribers in total. By contrast, Comcast alone has 24.1 million subscribers and Time Warner Cable has 13.5 million customers.

Neither Comcast and Time Warner is scheduled to renew their respective contracts with CBS until 2009, but already both companies are maintaining the position that they won't pay CBS or any network to carry a broadcast signal.

"Clearly, Comcast and Time Warner have a lot of leverage in any negotiation," said Miller Tabak analyst David Joyce.

Part of the cable companies' leverage comes from CBS making its TV shows available through Web sites like YouTube and CBS' own Internet site, InnerTube.

"It's going to be pretty difficult to argue with a straight face that Comcast or Time Warner should pay for what anyone who has a television antenna or an Internet connection can get for free," said Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett.

The cable operators also have the advantage of being able to inflict serious damage on CBS' advertising revenue in the event of a standoff.

According to Moffett, 34 percent of CBS' advertising revenue is derived from Comcast and 13 percent from Time Warner.

That said, CBS will not exactly be in a position of weakness, either.

Comcast and Time Warner are under increasing pressure from video competitors including satellite companies EchoStar and DirecTV, telecom giants Verizon and AT&T and, yes, YouTube. With both sides able to inflict considerable pain on the other, UBS analyst Aryeh Bourkoff said any discussion CBS has with the cable companies will include video-on-demand rights and carriage of CBS' College Sports Television.

Bourkoff pointed to Comcast's recent deal with Walt Disney Co. as a possible framework for CBS talks. In that deal, Comcast didn't pay a retransmission fee for Disney's ABC network but agreed to distribute its suite of cable networks including ESPN and got the rights to put Disney shows and movies on its VOD platform.

CBS, Comcast and Time Warner all declined to comment.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272007/business/cbs_recent_cable_deals_are_unlikely_to_be_repeated_business_ peter_lauria.htm

Down the road you are probably right -- the networks could get back in any sports game they wished.

But not on 50 cents a household per month. ESPN is getting in the $3 range and the RSNs routinely get well over $2.

That's only if one expects that the broadcast networks will remain in the 50 cent range. I suspect that one of the reasons why cable is fighting so hard on this issue is that the industry damned well knows that once broadcasters get money, the amount of money will go up rapidly.

Which would hurt a cable company the worst: not having ESPN or an RSN, or not having the local CBS or Fox affiliate?

It would only hurt the cable companies during the NFL season, the World Series, the NCAA Tournament, "American Idol", "24", NASCAR, "House", the "CSIs", the Masters, "NCIS", "Shark", and the other prime time shows.

Other than that, no one would notice. :)

Analysts: CBS Cable Deals Not Likely To Be Repeated
By Peter Lauria New York Post February 27, 2007

Ole! Les CBS boss Les Moonves may find Time Warner Cable and Comcast will be all he can handle in the network's next content deal.

CBS might have been able to bully nine tiny cable operators into paying the media company to carry its broadcast signal, but when it comes time to negotiate with Comcast and Time Warner, the Tiffany network may find that it is the one being shoved around.

While CBS CEO Les Moonves is likely to boast about the 50-cent per subscriber monthly fee CBS received for its broadcast signal on today's fourth-quarter and full-year 2006 conference call, a source said the news was literally a nonevent at Comcast and Time Warner.

That's because the deal CBS struck last week with nine unnamed cable operators covers a miniscule 1 million subscribers in total. By contrast, Comcast alone has 24.1 million subscribers and Time Warner Cable has 13.5 million customers.

Neither Comcast and Time Warner is scheduled to renew their respective contracts with CBS until 2009, but already both companies are maintaining the position that they won't pay CBS or any network to carry a broadcast signal.

"Clearly, Comcast and Time Warner have a lot of leverage in any negotiation," said Miller Tabak analyst David Joyce.

Part of the cable companies' leverage comes from CBS making its TV shows available through Web sites like YouTube and CBS' own Internet site, InnerTube.

"It's going to be pretty difficult to argue with a straight face that Comcast or Time Warner should pay for what anyone who has a television antenna or an Internet connection can get for free," said Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett.

The cable operators also have the advantage of being able to inflict serious damage on CBS' advertising revenue in the event of a standoff.

According to Moffett, 34 percent of CBS' advertising revenue is derived from Comcast and 13 percent from Time Warner.

That said, CBS will not exactly be in a position of weakness, either.

Comcast and Time Warner are under increasing pressure from video competitors including satellite companies EchoStar and DirecTV, telecom giants Verizon and AT&T and, yes, YouTube. With both sides able to inflict considerable pain on the other, UBS analyst Aryeh Bourkoff said any discussion CBS has with the cable companies will include video-on-demand rights and carriage of CBS' College Sports Television.

Bourkoff pointed to Comcast's recent deal with Walt Disney Co. as a possible framework for CBS talks. In that deal, Comcast didn't pay a retransmission fee for Disney's ABC network but agreed to distribute its suite of cable networks including ESPN and got the rights to put Disney shows and movies on its VOD platform.

CBS, Comcast and Time Warner all declined to comment.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272007/business/cbs_recent_cable_deals_are_unlikely_to_be_repeated_business_ peter_lauria.htm


www.tvbrepaper.com

CBS O&Os had double digit growth in Q4
Jim Carnegie, Editor & Publisher TV Business Report Volume 24, Issue 41

Political ad sales powered the CBS Television Stations group to 14.6% revenue growth in Q4, offsetting the advertising decline from the shutdown of the UPN network. Also contributing to the plus side, TV license fees were up 45%, primarily due to the second cycle cable sale of "Star Trek: Voyager." So CEO Les Moonves was happy with overall TV revenue growth of 3% to 2.56 billion for the quarter. Operating income before depreciation and amortization for the television division was up 20% to 531.5 million. With operating income for the entire company up 14% to 759.3 million and net earnings from continuing operations up 44% to 464 million, Moonves proudly proclaimed the Q4 results "clearly way above expectations." Going forward, the CEO said CBS will continue to build on a three-pillar strategy: Get paid for retransmission consent; Reshape the asset portfolio; and Expand into new interactive platforms to be paid multiple times for CBS content. Retrans was a hot topic in Q&A, with Moonves and CFO Fred Reynolds refusing to tip their hand on just how much they are being paid under the deals recently announced with nine MSOs (2/23/07 TVBR #38). Moonves, who repeated his assessment that there is a "new paradigm" in the relationship between broadcasters and the cable operators, predicted that more and more MSOs would come around to having to pay for retrans. The biggest contracts for CBS don't come up for renewal until 2009 and 2010, but Moonves didn't rule out the possibility of negotiating earlier deals with giants Comcast and Time Warner Cable, noting that CBS regularly deals with both on such things as carriage for Showtime and the recently acquired CSTV Networks (College Sports Television). "We are open to dialog," he said.

TVBR observation: Yes, we read the New York Post story yesterday, obviously placed by some cable industry folks, claiming that CBS will not have the leverage it had with the nine smaller MSOs when it comes time to cut deals with the two giants, Comcast and Time Warner Cable. In fact, those two are already paying CBS for retrans, under the multi-media deals cut when it was still part of Viacom. Those current payments will likely be the starting place for negotiations, not zero, as is the case for some other TV groups in their retrans negotiations with the MSOs. The sheer size of Comcast or TWC doesn't really change the equation. They can no more do without WCBS-TV New York on their cable systems in that market than Mediacom could do without Sinclair's KGAN-TV, the CBS affiliate in Cedar Rapids, IA.

www.tvbrepaper.com

Clock ticking down for Comcast & Sinclair
Jim Carnegie, Editor & Publisher TV Business Report Volume 24, Issue 41

There has been no public posturing by either side, which may bode well for cable subscribers as the short-term retransmission consent from Sinclair Broadcast Group for its stations to be carried on Comcast systems is due to run out tomorrow. There's been no word yet of a deal being struck, but also nothing of either side walking away from the negotiating table. As required by FCC rules, Comcast sent out notices to subscribers in markets with Sinclair stations that they might lose those signals on March 1st. The negotiations between Sinclair and Comcast, the nation's largest MSO, involve approximately three million cable subscribers in markets including Pittsburgh, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nashville, Richmond and Tampa-St. Pete.

It would only hurt the cable companies during the NFL season, the World Series, the NCAA Tournament, "American Idol", "24", NASCAR, "House", the "CSIs", the Masters, "NCIS", "Shark", and the other prime time shows.

Other than that, no one would notice. :)

For FOX, that would be about the whole years worth of programming not available on a cableco. I think people would go somewhere else because of that. Look how many cablecos cave just for one day, Super Bowl. You cut off a whole season of sports (multiple sports?) and you have some pretty irate customers.

Comcast viewers face cutoff

Sinclair may halt TV programs to cable giant tomorrow if talks fail


By Hanah Cho
Sun reporter
Originally published February 28, 2007

To collect cash for its television programming, Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. played hardball last month by pulling its stations from cable systems in the Midwest and South and sending a strong message to the industry that its payment demands are serious.

The stakes are higher for the Hunt Valley broadcaster in a fight to obtain similar fees from Comcast, the nation's largest cable operator and the biggest player in the Baltimore area.

A source familiar with the negotiations said yesterday that Sinclair is prepared to cut off its programming to Comcast systems at 2 a.m. tomorrow because talks between the two sides have stalled. Negotiations are expected to continue today.

Pulling the stations would mean viewers in the Baltimore region and elsewhere would not be able to watch popular shows such as American Idol, 24 and Gilmore Girls on their cable systems.

That's because without a deal, Sinclair could order Comcast to remove 30 network-affiliated stations - including Baltimore's WBFF-Fox 45 and WNUV-CW 54 - from cable systems that reach 3 million customers in 23 markets from Tampa, Fla., to Pittsburgh.

Denying the stations to Comcast means Sinclair could lose a lot more than it did the last time it made a similar decision, particularly advertising revenue in some key markets, industry analysts and observers say. But Sinclair is known for its unpredictable nature, so few are predicting the outcome.

"Given their scale, [Comcast has] the economics and influence," said John Blackledge, an analyst at J.P. Morgan Securities, who covers Sinclair. "It'll be interesting to see" how the negotiations turn out.

Comcast said yesterday that "it will continue to offer Sinclair's broadcast stations unless they demand that those stations be removed."

"Our first goal is to protect our customers from being charged extra for free TV," said Comcast spokeswoman Jenni Moyer.

The showdown is the latest salvo in an increasingly loud and bitter battle pitting station owners against cable operators.

Sinclair has been at the forefront of demanding cash to retransmit its stations's content, arguing that cable companies should pay for popular programming that they essentially resell to customers. Comcast, like other cable companies, traditionally have not paid retransmission fees. Cable operators maintain they should not pay for channels like NBC, ABC and Fox that are available free over the airwaves.

But CBS announced last week that nine smaller cable operators agreed to compensate the network for the right to carry its programs, including the NCAA basketball tournaments and shows such as CSI.

CBS did not say whether cash was involved or name the cable companies, but Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves has said publicly that the network would seek payments for its content.

"At the end of the day, these ... negotiations boil down to who could cause whom the most pain," said Craig Moffett, a senior analyst of U.S. cable and satellite broadcasting industry at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.

When talks over a price failed with Middletown, N.Y.-based Mediacom Communications Corp. in January, Sinclair pulled more than 20 local stations it owns from the cable operator's systems, including in Des Moines, Iowa. The impasse left 700,000 customers without popular shows such as the Simpsons and Desperate Housewives.

Nearly four weeks later and two days before the Super Bowl, Mediacom "caved in to their demands," Mediacom Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rocco B. Commisso said last week during a conference call with analysts.

Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Mediacom said it is paying to carry Sinclair's stations for the first time.

Mediacom executives said Sinclair used its leverage to hurt the cable operator: The blackout affected half of Mediacom's 1.4 million cable subscribers while affecting only 3 percent of Sinclair's viewing audience.

Both sides lose when signals are shut down. Subscribers can drop cable service, while viewers and advertisers can abandon television stations.

Mediacom said last week that it lost 7,000 basic cable customers in the final three months of 2006, during which Sinclair threatened to pull its programming. Mediacom said it lost additional subscribers when Sinclair stations were not on the air last month.
Sinclair executives said recently that what the company lost was "immaterial" compared with what it got in return from Mediacom. Sinclair said viewers would find other ways - either by using an antenna or switching to competitors - to watch its programs.

Overall, the company expects to double to $48 million this year revenue it receives from cable operators and others who pay to retransmit its television signals.

Analysts say Comcast, with some 24 million subscribers, has more leverage in its talks with Sinclair because of its size compared with Mediacom.

For one thing, the affected Sinclair stations are in markets with larger viewership such as Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Nashville, Tenn.

"My prediction is that it will not be as acrimonious as the Mediacom dispute was simply because Sinclair has much more to lose," said Matthew M. Polka, president and chief executive officer of the American Cable Association, of which Mediacom is a member. "Comcast is the largest operator in the country ... and it is a lot more highly penetrated in Sinclair markets than Mediacom."

Indeed, if Sinclair were to pull six stations off Comcast's systems - including in Baltimore and Pittsburgh - the broadcaster could lose nearly 12.5 percent of its entire viewer base, according to Moffett's research. And Sinclair would feel the pain immediately in the form of lost advertising revenue, Moffett said.

"Mediacom just isn't large enough to stand toe-to-toe with a broadcaster like Sinclair," said Moffett, the Bernstein analyst. "By the same token, Sinclair isn't large enough to stand toe-to-toe with a cable operator like Comcast."

The last time Sinclair and Comcast squared off on a similar issue was in 2005 when Sinclair sought cash for its digital signals in several markets, including Baltimore.

The dispute almost prevented cable subscribers in the Baltimore region from watching the Super Bowl on high-definition televisions they bought exclusively for that day. Two days before the Super Bowl, the sides reached an agreement.

In its latest talks with Comcast, Sinclair had extended the contract until tomorrow. Sinclair Chief Financial Officer David B. Amy said recently that the company was optimistic about reaching an amicable agreement.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.sinclair28feb28,0,5286641.story?coll=bal-business-headlines

Indeed, if Sinclair were to pull six stations off Comcast's systems - including in Baltimore and Pittsburgh - the broadcaster could lose nearly 12.5 percent of its entire viewer base, according to Moffett's research. And Sinclair would feel the pain immediately in the form of lost advertising revenue, Moffett said.


It amazes me to no end that people that can call themselves experts in the broadcast field and not understand posting, rating guarantees and bonus weight. If they cannot understand the basic structure of how TV advertising works.

Why should I expect the n00bs on avs who don't make a living from it to understand it any better. :(

As shown previously in this thread - and in things as varied in the world from Broadcasting to Iraq, unless you understand all aspects of the the people you are fighting, its very hard to make the correct judgement call as to what is happening. Those who look at single dimensions are almost always wrong.

It amazes me to no end that people that can call themselves experts in the broadcast field and not understand posting, rating guarantees and bonus weight. If they cannot understand the basic structure of how TV advertising works.

Why should I expect the n00bs on avs who don't make a living from it to understand it any better. :(

As shown previously in this thread - and in things as varied in the world from Broadcasting to Iraq, unless you understand all aspects of the the people you are fighting, its very hard to make the correct judgement call as to what is happening. Those who look at single dimensions are almost always wrong.

You still don't get it, do you, Mr. FanAtic? You're so hung up in the inside baseball of your business that you cannot understand the basic structure of how TV advertising works (for advertisers). Perhaps, someday, we'll come across you starving on a street corner and mumbling things about "posting, rating guarantees and bonus weight."

You still don't get it, do you, Mr. FanAtic? You're so hung up in the inside baseball of your business that you cannot understand the basic structure of how TV advertising works (for advertisers). Perhaps, someday, we'll come across you starving on a street corner and mumbling things about "posting, rating guarantees and bonus weight."

lol....you clearly are so clueless its amazing. My Clients spend well into 8 figures a year on local television advertising, so I am pretty sure I know how it works, roflmao.

If I buy 400 points a week, I get 400 points a week. If the TV station misses the point level, its made up to get me to the proper point level.

You are the only one that doesn't understand that GUARANTEE.

So it doesn't matter if the TV Station is on cable or not - the advertiser has guaranteed point levels unless they are buying the last minute crap market at bottom dollar that usually gets pre-empted anyway.

You still can't get it through your head - you buy programs at guaranteed point levels - not just programs. Glad to see you are truly clueless still.

At least Comcast in Richmond gets an extention.

Comcast retains Fox for now

Richmond Times-Dispatch Feb 28, 2007

Comcast customers in the Richmond area will continue to receive "American Idol" and other Fox programming until March 9.

Comcast's contract to carry Fox Richmond, which is owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., was supposed to expire today but has been extended, according to a news report last night on WRLH, the local Fox affiliate.

The two sides still have not reached an agreement, but Sinclair Vice President and General Counsel Barry Faber was quoted as saying he was optimistic that a deal would be struck before the second extension given to Comcast expires.

Cable companies have historically not paid to carry local channels that are available for free by an antenna. But Sinclair and other station owners have started demanding money from cable companies, including Comcast, to carry their channels.

Comcast has 250,000 subscribers in the metro area, including Chesterfield, Henrico and Goochland counties.

Fox's prime-time line-up includes "American Idol," "24" and "House" and "Are You Smarter Than a 5th-Grader?"

"We believe that customers should not have to pay for free TV. Our goal is to avoid impact to our customers and will continue to offer Sinclair's broadcast stations unless they demand that those stations be removed," said Comcast spokeswoman Lisa Altman.

Fox Richmond and other local channels have always been available free by using a TV antenna.

Ed Atorino, a media analyst at The Benchmark Co. who follows Sinclair, said cable companies have their hands tied because broadcasters can force them under law to remove the stations.

Slower growth in television advertising and reduced payments from networks to local stations has left station owners, such as Sinclair, searching for ways to make up lost revenue, Atorino said.

"As these contracts come up, broadcasters are deciding that the world's changed, and you've got to pay for it now," he said. "It sounds like hardball . . . it's just business. It's the new rules of the game."

Comcast does not pay a fee to other Richmond-area television stations -- such as the ABC and NBC affiliates -- to carry the channels on its system.

For about a month this year, 12 states served by Mediacom Communications Corp. had some local channels pulled by Sinclair after the cable company and station owner could not come to terms on an agreement.

The Sinclair-Comcast negotiations involve roughly 3 million customers in markets including Pittsburgh, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., Nashville, Tenn., Baltimore, Tampa, Fla., and Richmond. The deal includes 30 Sinclair stations.

The company owns, operates or provides services to 58 television stations in the U.S., largely Fox, CW and MyTV affiliates. -- Jeffrey Kelley

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193449647

Sinclair stations still on Comcast—

BALTIMORE (AP) -

The 2 a-m deadline has lapsed and Sinclair Broadcast Group's television stations are still being carried on Comcast cable systems.

A Sinclair executive said yesterday the company would pull its stations from Comcast unless there was a new deal with Comcast for retransmission rights. But a spokesman for Comcast tells W-B-A-L Radio that the two sides agreed to extend the deadline and continue talking.

The stations still available this morning on Comcast include Sinclair's Baltimore stations, W-B-F-F T-V and W-N-U-V T-V.

Comcast customers in 23 markets receive Sinclair stations.

http://www.wmdt.com/wires/displaystory.asp?id=59103411

At least Comcast in Richmond gets an extention.

Comcast retains Fox for now

Richmond Times-Dispatch Feb 28, 2007

Comcast customers in the Richmond area will continue to receive "American Idol" and other Fox programming until March 9.


HHHMMMM. That doesn't bode well for Comcast. On the surface it would appear they can't stand the heat if Idol got pulled. And they are right. The defections would be unbelievable.

I'm just wondering, if sinclair does pull its stations, could Comcast get a deal to carry fox from a non sinclair station? That station would get added viewers and additional add revenue and Comcast would still get the prime time line up, which is what is really important.

Adam

No, they can't. That Sinclair station has the rights to that network's programming within that market.

Eventually, all major network affiliates will be receiving retransmission fees, so it would only be a stop-gap solution anyway (if it were legal).

Comcast in Anne Arundel County, MD carries Baltimore and Washington stations. They have both FOX stations in HD, so if the Sinclair-owned Baltimore FOX station is pulled they will still get FOX programming in HD. However, they only carry the Baltimore CW station in HD, and that is also run by Sinclair.

thanks, that makes sense.

Adam

Comcast, Sinclair Extend Retrans Talks

By Glen Dickson -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/1/2007 10:05:00 AM

Cable operator Comcast and station group Sinclair Broadcast Group, which have been embroiled in a retransmission-consent battle in 23 markets including Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Tampa, Fla., and Baltimore, have announced that they are extending negotiations through March 10.

That eliminated the possibility of Sinclair immediately pulling its signals from Comcast's systems, which it threatened to do at 2 a.m. Thursday unless Comcast agreed to pay its price .


The two companies issued a joint release this morning saying that they are "continuing to have productive discussions" and have agreed to "extend the retransmission agreement that was set to expire today through March 10."

For now, Comcast customers will continue to receive Sinclair's stations, which include numerous Fox affiliates, while the companies attempt to reach an agreement.

http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6420560.html?display=Breaking+News

lol....you clearly are so clueless its amazing. My Clients spend well into 8 figures a year on local television advertising, so I am pretty sure I know how it works, roflmao.

If I buy 400 points a week, I get 400 points a week. If the TV station misses the point level, its made up to get me to the proper point level.

You are the only one that doesn't understand that GUARANTEE.

So it doesn't matter if the TV Station is on cable or not - the advertiser has guaranteed point levels unless they are buying the last minute crap market at bottom dollar that usually gets pre-empted anyway.

You still can't get it through your head - you buy programs at guaranteed point levels - not just programs. Glad to see you are truly clueless still.

Points be damned. The advertisers and stations depend on eyes!

Fortunately for the broadcasters, the cable companies are even more dependent on subscribers - and they're tough to keep hold of if you can't even provide the Big 4 networks.

No, they can't. That Sinclair station has the rights to that network's programming within that market.

Eventually, all major network affiliates will be receiving retransmission fees, so it would only be a stop-gap solution anyway (if it were legal).

Exactly! Is this in the public interest?

Fortunately for the broadcasters, the cable companies are even more dependent on subscribers - and they're tough to keep hold of if you can't even provide the Big 4 networks.

Again, I agree with you, but would ask a question. Is this in the public interest?

Public interest isn't the standard that businesses generally consider above profits.

Is it in the public interest for the cableco to require customers to sub 50 expanded basic channels for $50 bucks a month? Or to pay those networks for programming, but not the 4 that represent half the viewing of their customers?

These are businesses - if the cableco doesn't want to pay, they don't have to. If the public outcry is loud enough, they can either change their mind, or make the decision that the resulting losses are acceptable.

lol....you clearly are so clueless its amazing. My Clients spend well into 8 figures a year on local television advertising, so I am pretty sure I know how it works, roflmao.

If I buy 400 points a week, I get 400 points a week. If the TV station misses the point level, its made up to get me to the proper point level.

You are the only one that doesn't understand that GUARANTEE.

So it doesn't matter if the TV Station is on cable or not - the advertiser has guaranteed point levels unless they are buying the last minute crap market at bottom dollar that usually gets pre-empted anyway.

You still can't get it through your head - you buy programs at guaranteed point levels - not just programs. Glad to see you are truly clueless still.

You know, I can hardly believe my "eyes." You seem to be saying that if a station is not being seen by enough (of the appropriate) viewers, advertisers will simply go to other stations with their dollars. Is this what you are saying, Mr. FanAtic?

Comcast, Sinclair Extend Retrans Talks
http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6420560.html?display=Breaking+News

Or, if you prefer:


Sinclair Bows to Comcast

Sinclair Broadcasting doesn't carry out its threat to pull its feeds from Comcast markets at 2am this morning—and other Thursday news
By Shirley Brady
360AM — Morning news briefing for Thursday, Mar. 1 (Updated 8pm ET)

Sinclair will allow Comcast to carry its broadcast signals through 12:01am on Mar. 10 while both sides continue to negotiate a new retransmission consent contract. A press release this morning confirmed that talks are continuing and carriage will continue, with no disruption of service to Comcast customers in 23 Sinclair markets. With their current agreement expiring yesterday, Sinclair had threatened to pull its signals at 2 a.m. this morning from Comcast's markets. The news of the carriage extension broke last night. [Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch]

http://www.cable360.net/competition/broadcast/22311.html

HDTVFanAtic, for the AVS reader who isn't an industry insider, would you please explain what a "point" is and how it relates to ratings or whatever yard stick an ad buyer uses for determining local purchases.

Or, if you prefer:


Sinclair Bows to Comcast

Sinclair Broadcasting doesn't carry out its threat to pull its feeds from Comcast markets at 2am this morning—and other Thursday news
By Shirley Brady
360AM — Morning news briefing for Thursday, Mar. 1 (Updated 8pm ET)

Sinclair will allow Comcast to carry its broadcast signals through 12:01am on Mar. 10 while both sides continue to negotiate a new retransmission consent contract. A press release this morning confirmed that talks are continuing and carriage will continue, with no disruption of service to Comcast customers in 23 Sinclair markets. With their current agreement expiring yesterday, Sinclair had threatened to pull its signals at 2 a.m. this morning from Comcast's markets. The news of the carriage extension broke last night. [Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch]

http://www.cable360.net/competition/broadcast/22311.html

This is the same tatic they used with Mediacom so when it came time to actually do it, the cableco had all of the explaining to do. Nothing new here. FOX's latest deal with Time-Warner went on a month to month for 3 years before a new deal was signed.

lol....you clearly are so clueless its amazing. My Clients spend well into 8 figures a year on local television advertising, so I am pretty sure I know how it works, roflmao.

If I buy 400 points a week, I get 400 points a week. If the TV station misses the point level, its made up to get me to the proper point level.... which means fewer commercial positions available for new money.

... which means fewer commercial positions available for new money.

Only if you assume that 100% of the commercials are sold - which is seldom the case (except during last Falls elections, lol). Networks and TV Stations always hold back inventory for make goods and bonus weight.

You know, I can hardly believe my "eyes." You seem to be saying that if a station is not being seen by enough (of the appropriate) viewers, advertisers will simply go to other stations with their dollars. Is this what you are saying, Mr. FanAtic?

No, I am saying what I have said for months. You are an ignorant moron in understanding the advertising business, despite being told how it works, and continue to live in Stan's World in which you are totally clueless.

You think that an advertiser just purchases a program and thats it - when in fact an advertiser buys a schedule based on point guarantees of the entire flight. If the program does not deliver those point, additional make good weight is given to bring the entire schedule up to purchased weight.

You think it's like driving up to a gas station with your car and say I'll give you $30 to fill up your tank. Just like Gasoline, its not sold that way. It's based on delivery.

Advertisers purchase a schedule with the station that deliver the proper ratings weight over the course of the schedule. Some programming under achieves the projected ratings in posting.....some over delivers.

Otherwise, how in the hell would expect anyone to buy a new series not knowing what it would deliver.

If you end up with more ratings weight than you contracted for, lucky you. If you end up with less, you receive bonus weight to make up the difference and everyone - even the networks - hold back commercial avails for that specific purpose.


http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=32167

NBC is offering a 15 to 16 rating guarantee for the Torino Olympics, say media buying executives. NBC Olympic prime-time programming is priced at around $675,000 a unit.

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=32167

Moreover, in doing so it exceeded by 13 percent the 16.9 rating it reportedly guaranteed advertisers.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/feb01/feb26/2_tues/news5tuesday.html

The Sydney Olympics averaged a 13.8 primetime rating, 24 share—far below the 16.3 NBC guaranteed to advertisers. NBC hopes the live action of a domestic Olympics will pull those ratings back up next year.

Sorry, but it doesn't work in real life the way it works in Stan's World.

No, I am saying what I have said for months. You are an ignorant moron in understanding the advertising business, despite being told how it works, and continue to live in Stan's World in which you are totally clueless.

You think that an advertiser just purchases a program and thats it - when in fact an advertiser buys a schedule based on point guarantees of the entire flight. If the program does not deliver those point, additional make good weight is given to bring the entire schedule up to purchased weight.

You think it's like driving up to a gas station with your car and say I'll give you $30 to fill up your tank. Just like Gasoline, its not sold that way. It's based on delivery.

Advertisers purchase a schedule with the station that deliver the proper ratings weight over the course of the schedule. Some programming under achieves the projected ratings in posting.....some over delivers.

Otherwise, how in the hell would expect anyone to buy a new series not knowing what it would deliver.

If you end up with more ratings weight than you contracted for, lucky you. If you end up with less, you receive bonus weight to make up the difference and everyone - even the networks - hold back commercial avails for that specific purpose.


http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=32167

NBC is offering a 15 to 16 rating guarantee for the Torino Olympics, say media buying executives. NBC Olympic prime-time programming is priced at around $675,000 a unit.

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=32167

Moreover, in doing so it exceeded by 13 percent the 16.9 rating it reportedly guaranteed advertisers.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/feb01/feb26/2_tues/news5tuesday.html

The Sydney Olympics averaged a 13.8 primetime rating, 24 share—far below the 16.3 NBC guaranteed to advertisers. NBC hopes the live action of a domestic Olympics will pull those ratings back up next year.

Sorry, but it doesn't work in real life the way it works in Stan's World.

"Point Guarantees" --- "entire flight" --- "program does not deliver those point"
--- "additional make good weight" --- "bring the entire schedule up to purchased weight" --- "proper ratings weight" --- "course of the schedule" --- "underachieves the projected ratings in postings" --- "more weightings rate than you contracted for" --- "receive bonus weight to make up the difference" --- "hold back commercial avails"

People that speak and write like that outside the conduct of business usually have a devious purpose unless they are completely devoid of communications skills. In this case, I suspect a devious purpose. (Although your communications skills would have to be considered sub-par when addressing another person's position.)

My point is simple. If a television station is carried on cable, it would have more viewers than otherwise, therefore, its potential for selling advertising would be enhanced.

"Point Guarantees" --- "entire flight" --- "program does not deliver those point"
--- "additional make good weight" --- "bring the entire schedule up to purchased weight" --- "proper ratings weight" --- "course of the schedule" --- "underachieves the projected ratings in postings" --- "more weightings rate than you contracted for" --- "receive bonus weight to make up the difference" --- "hold back commercial avails"

People that speak and write like that outside the conduct of business usually have a devious purpose unless they are completely devoid of communications skills. .............

My point is simple. If a television station is carried on cable, it would have more viewers than otherwise, therefore, its potential for selling advertising would be enhanced.

Those terms/phrases are common in the industry and key to addressing why your "simple point" isn't as simple as you seem to think. Just do a google search if you are really interested in learning how advertising is purchased from local broadcasters. Plenty of information out there.

One thing is certain - if losing 65% of your viewers translated into losing 65% of your revenue instantly - the cable companies would be more likely to call their bluff. As we have seen, and will continue to see - the broadcasters aren't as concerned with losing their cable viewers as the cablecos are concerned with losing subscribers. For that, there is a "simple" reason - the broadcasters aren't bluffing.

"Point Guarantees" --- "entire flight" --- "program does not deliver those point"
--- "additional make good weight" --- "bring the entire schedule up to purchased weight" --- "proper ratings weight" --- "course of the schedule" --- "underachieves the projected ratings in postings" --- "more weightings rate than you contracted for" --- "receive bonus weight to make up the difference" --- "hold back commercial avails"

People that speak and write like that outside the conduct of business usually have a devious purpose unless they are completely devoid of communications skills. In this case, I suspect a devious purpose. (Although your communications skills would have to be considered sub-par when addressing another person's position.)

My point is simple. If a television station is carried on cable, it would have more viewers than otherwise, therefore, its potential for selling advertising would be enhanced.

If we were living 800 years ago, you would still be arguing that the earth and was at the center of the universe claiming the evidence that was to the contrary was technospeak.

The only thing consistent in 8 Million years is that Stan54's genes never evolved from the ape to a thinking man.

Let's not make this personal - keep comments confined to the issue, not attacking the poster (or continually baiting).

One thing is certain - if losing 65% of your viewers translated into losing 65% of your revenue instantly - the cable companies would be more likely to call their bluff.

Even if a market is 65% cable, the DMA's are large enough that there are several different cable companies in different counties. Thus one cable system does not carry the 65% hammer as there are different companies (Las Vegas is one of the very few exceptions).

Houston is the largest cable system in America with 764,930 subscribers.

Compare that with 1.98 Million households in Houston - or 38% - and that is the largest single system in America.

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

And that number drops quickly.

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

Top 25 Cable Systems - As of December 2006
Rank System Location Operator Basic Cable Customers
1 Houston, TX Time Warner Cable 764,903
2 Tempe, AZ Cox Cable Communications 508,919
3 Hicksville, NY Cablevision Systems Corp. 458,163
4 San Diego, CA Cox Cable Communications 420,408
5 Las Vegas, NV Cox Cable Communications 410,256
6 Winter Park, FL Bright House Networks 379,186
7 Denver, CO Comcast Cable Communications 375,080
8 Seattle, WA Comcast Cable Communications 328,890
9 San Antonio, TX Time Warner Cable 317,557
10 Nashville, TN Comcast Cable Communications 316,329
11 New York, NY Time Warner Cable 315,734
12 Warwick, RI Cox Cable Communications 302,860
13 Brooklyn, NY Cablevision Systems Corp. 299,226

Except for Las Vegas. Cox really does carry a 65% viewership hammer there. Coincidently, Sinclair owns the CW (KVCW 33) and MNTV (KVMY 21) affiliates there.

Except for Las Vegas. Cox really does carry a 65% viewership hammer there. Coincidently, Sinclair owns the CW (KVCW 33) and MNTV (KVMY 21) affiliates there.

I believe I noted that.

I believe I noted that.

Did you add that in the edit? I didn't notice it the first time I saw the post.

Even if a market is 65% cable, the DMA's are large enough that there are several different cable companies in different counties. Thus one cable system does not carry the 65% hammer as there are different companies (Las Vegas is one of the very few exceptions).

Houston is the largest cable system in America with 764,930 subscribers.

Compare that with 1.98 Million households in Houston - or 38% - and that is the largest single system in America.

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

And that number drops quickly.

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

Top 25 Cable Systems - As of December 2006
Rank System Location Operator Basic Cable Customers
1 Houston, TX Time Warner Cable 764,903
2 Tempe, AZ Cox Cable Communications 508,919
3 Hicksville, NY Cablevision Systems Corp. 458,163
4 San Diego, CA Cox Cable Communications 420,408
5 Las Vegas, NV Cox Cable Communications 410,256
6 Winter Park, FL Bright House Networks 379,186
7 Denver, CO Comcast Cable Communications 375,080
8 Seattle, WA Comcast Cable Communications 328,890
9 San Antonio, TX Time Warner Cable 317,557
10 Nashville, TN Comcast Cable Communications 316,329
11 New York, NY Time Warner Cable 315,734
12 Warwick, RI Cox Cable Communications 302,860
13 Brooklyn, NY Cablevision Systems Corp. 299,226
I think this is somewhat misleading when comparing to DMAs. The SF bay area, with 35+ cities, all in the same DMA, has more Comcast cable customers than Houston, there's 65,000 just in Santa Rosa alone. I'm guessing the SF bay area cities show up individually further down on that list, but I bet the total would surpass Houston. Of course, Houston may have other cities in it's DMA to add to their total as well.

I think this is somewhat misleading when comparing to DMAs. The SF bay area, with 35+ cities, all in the same DMA, has more Comcast cable customers than Houston, there's 65,000 just in Santa Rosa alone. I'm guessing the SF bay area cities show up individually further down on that list, but I bet the total would surpass Houston. Of course, Houston may have other cities in it's DMA to add to their total as well.

Yes, but they all have different franchise agreements and plant.

I think Cox has it set up in Las Vegas so Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, and unincorporated Clark County have their franchise agreements arranged so Cox can run one plant for the entire Las Vegas valley.

Yes, but they all have different franchise agreements and plant.

I think Cox has it set up in Las Vegas so Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, and unincorporated Clark County have their franchise agreements arranged so Cox can run one plant for the entire Las Vegas valley.
True, but when talking about, say KPIX(CBS) going off Comcast cable in the bay area, it would be a huge hit to viewership. I think there is around 1.9 million Comcast subs in the SF bay area. Roughly 13% receive TV OTA here, and I'm not sure what the percentage is for sat.

California just passed the new statewide franchise law which will allow Comcast to negotiate the area as a whole instead of with individual cities as the current agreements expire.

California just passed the new statewide franchise law which will allow Comcast to negotiate the area as a whole instead of with individual cities as the current agreements expire.

Note sure what benefit that has, because as seen in this thread multiple times, the cable company always negotiates nationwide with a broadcast group - so a nationwide negotiation will include all of that MSO's customers and Broadcast Company Properties in the state.

Note sure what benefit that has, because as seen in this thread multiple times, the cable company always negotiates nationwide with a broadcast group - so a nationwide negotiation will include all of that MSO's customers and Broadcast Company Properties in the state.
It didn't have anything to do with the discussion here, I just threw it in there as eventually MSO's sub totals could become listed as statewide instead of per city or system, or at least DMA-wide.

For example, when Comcast gets the current 550MHz systems in the bay area up to 1GHz in the next 14-16 mos, the whole area is supposed to be all the same as far as channel offerings, services, etc. so it could be said that SF DMA Comcast system has X-amount of subscribers as opposed to individual cities, or systems, especially as individual franchise agreements expire and that city is added to state-wide franchise group.

IOW, cable sub totals could be listed by DMA and not by individual cities.

Test for HDTVFanAtic and Mr. Panther:

Select the correct statement from the following:

A. It is in the financial interest of a television station to be included on the cable
system.

B. It is counter to the financial interest of a television station to be included on the
cable system.

C. It makes no difference to the financial interest of a television station to be included
on the cable system.

D. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it would blow my game.

Test for HDTVFanAtic and Mr. Panther:

Select the correct statement from the following:

A. It is in the financial interest of a television station to be included on the cable
system.

B. It is counter to the financial interest of a television station to be included on the
cable system.

C. It makes no difference to the financial interest of a television station to be included
on the cable system.

D. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it would blow my game.




Long term it benefits a ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC TV station to be on cable. It makes literally no difference in the first few months.

Long term AND short term it benefits cable to have a ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC station on its system. It has immediate impact on cable company when the OTA station is lost - furthermore as satellite has 12-24 month committments, these are longterm losses as well.

It is in the financial interest of a television station to maximize their revenue in the long term. A short term hit from being off a cable system is well worth the long term benefits.

Bingo, homcom, we have a winner!

Exactly, homcom. Not sure why that is so hard for Stan to understand. He goes from "public interest" arguments to financial arguments. But it is very simple - they want to sell their product for what they believe is fair value. If cable/DBS/Telco don't want to pay that price, they'll refuse and the broadcasters will have to re-evaluate what is "fair".

We know that DBS, Telcos, and cablecos that have settled up to this point (even Mediacom) believe it is a fair price. Despite this, some still believe that they should just give away the product for free because they can sell more advertising. If that made any sense at all, companies would give away newspapers, magazines, etc. for free - just for the extra eyeballs.

Bottom line is the answer is "A". But you are asking one question to try and get an answer to a different question. Nobody is debating whether it is good to be on cable or not - the question is what is it worth. It's not in their financial interest to give away a $0.50 product for an additional $0.03 down the road.

We know that DBS, Telcos, and cablecos that have settled up to this point (even Mediacom) believe it is a fair price.

Welllllllllllllllllllllllll................................. ................ I am not so sure Mediacom believes it is fair. They still think 1 cent for carriage is 1 cent too much.

The minute they agreed to pay - is the minute they acknowledged (even begrudgingly) that it was a fair price.

The minute they agreed to pay - is the minute they acknowledged (even begrudgingly) that it was a fair price.

Perhaps they just wanted to stop the severe bleeding.

Probably. That's a decision they face with all the channels they carry. Refuse to pay, lose the channel, face the consequences. They pay plenty for dozens of different channels and they decided to draw the line at ones that are the most desirable to their customers. Not too bright.

Maybe next time they want to flex their muscles, they'll do it with Oxygen, or some channel that isn't in such high demand. Probably save them some major headaches.

Long term it benefits a ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC TV station to be on cable. It makes literally no difference in the first few months.

Long term AND short term it benefits cable to have a ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC station on its system. It has immediate impact on cable company when the OTA station is lost - furthermore as satellite has 12-24 month committments, these are longterm losses as well.

Congratulations! You did well. We have no disagreement. Why did it take so much effort to get to this point?

Because it's a point you never made, and if you did, nobody ever argued with. The disagreement comes in your claim that the broadcast stations are better off giving away their programming for free in order to take advantage of that long term benefit of being distributed on cable.

............................................ A short term hit from being off a cable system is well worth the long term benefits.

Huh?

Huh?
What don't you understand about the short term loss of revenue being worth the long term benefits that came with getting paid for your programming?

Exactly, homcom. Not sure why that is so hard for Stan to understand. He goes from "public interest" arguments to financial arguments. But it is very simple - they want to sell their product for what they believe is fair value. If cable/DBS/Telco don't want to pay that price, they'll refuse and the broadcasters will have to re-evaluate what is "fair".

We know that DBS, Telcos, and cablecos that have settled up to this point (even Mediacom) believe it is a fair price. Despite this, some still believe that they should just give away the product for free because they can sell more advertising. If that made any sense at all, companies would give away newspapers, magazines, etc. for free - just for the extra eyeballs.

Bottom line is the answer is "A". But you are asking one question to try and get an answer to a different question. Nobody is debating whether it is good to be on cable or not - the question is what is it worth. It's not in their financial interest to give away a $0.50 product for an additional $0.03 down the road.

I do raise both public interest (government rules related) and financial issues because both deserve examination.

Now, you should disabuse yourself of the idea that any business wants to sell its product or service for "fair market value." Do you sell your services for fair market value or do you sell them for as much as you can possibly get? Nothing to be ashamed of, everybody does it. Forget "fair." It's a non-starter in business.

Thanks for answering the question. I admit I didn't think you would. Don't worry that you conceded a point. So what? Reaching an informed conclusion requires a journey along individual benchmarks of information. The journey continues.

What don't you understand about the short term loss of revenue being worth the long term benefits that came with getting paid for your programming?

You said the loss was short term, but you didn't say being off the cable system was short term.

Seriously, your point is well taken.

Thanks for answering the question. I admit I didn't think you would. Don't worry that you conceded a point.

Don't take this as an insult, but are you an adult? I'm not sure how to respond to such a juvenile attempt at trying to save face. If you are just young and having fun on the internet, it would make sense - but if you are an adult, you really need to understand the the other adults on this forum see through such ridiculous arguing, just for the sake of arguing.

You claim that broadcasters are better off giving away their programming for free in order to get more eyeballs. When faced all the logical reasons why that is an uninformed, incorrect assumption considering the facts - you ask a question to which everyone agrees because the answer is obvious "Are more eyeballs better?"

Of course they are - but if that is what you need to do to feel better, feel like you "won", and it means that you'll drop all the other ridiculous arguments you've been making - I'm willing to concede that you were right all along. :rolleyes:

Because it's a point you never made, and if you did, nobody ever argued with. The disagreement comes in your claim that the broadcast stations are better off giving away their programming for free in order to take advantage of that long term benefit of being distributed on cable.

I have been trying forever it seems to make the point that cable is valuable to the broadcaster. The broadcaster does not want to lose cable. A simple acknowledgement along the way would have sufficed.

I have never argued that "broadcast stations are better off giving away their programming for free in order to take advantage of that long term benefit of being distributed on cable." In fact, I believe that broadcast stations are better off being on cable AND charging cable (customers) for carriage.

Beyond that, I DO NOT WANT broadcast stations to be better off by collecting cable company (customer) payments and I would like to find a way around it. It is astounding to me that so many posters on this thread appear to own broadcast stations and, as such, would have good and sufficient reason to want such payments to occur.

I have been trying forever it seems to make the point that cable is valuable to the broadcaster.

Of course it is, the question is "how valuable". It's substantially less valuable if they don't want to pay anything for it.

If that's the only point you wanted to make, we could have saved many pages of arguing back and forth. It's as obvious as saying that cable generally has more than a half dozen channels.

Beyond that, I DO NOT WANT broadcast stations to be better off by collecting cable company (customer) payments and I would like to find a way around it. It is astounding to me that so many posters on this thread appear to own broadcast stations and, as such, would have good and sufficient reason to want such payments to occur.

Sure, it would be nice to find a way around paying for all of our programming. After all, 200 free cable channels, free premium channels, and unlimited PPV (free of charge) would not only be great, it is in the "public interest".

I just read your most recent posting #1734, Mr. Panther. Perhaps, you perceive my position a little more clearly now, after reading #1735.

Forget winning or losing an evolving discussion on the internet. Let's try to simply understand each others ideas and bits of information along the way.

I find it fascinating to hear what people believe on various subjects. It is even more fascinating to explore WHY they believe it. That is pretty much what I am after here. Thank you for participating and that is a sincere thank you. (One has to be crystal clear on the internet or the other person gets the wrong idea for sure.)

By the way, I'll be 70 in July.

Congratulations! You did well. We have no disagreement. Why did it take so much effort to get to this point?

Incorrect. The point was made multiple times and you have continued to say that advertising impact on TV would be immediate - also arguing that the impact on cable would not be immediate as it was on TV - so once again you have done a 180 degree about face.

figures.

What don't you understand about the short term loss of revenue being worth the long term benefits that came with getting paid for your programming?

We have long said in this thread Stan54 does not understand strategic longterm thinking - so it should not surprise you he does not understand what investment means.

At 70 he is probably sitting there wondering why his social security check isn't paying enough for him to live on - for this exact reason.

Incorrect. The point was made multiple times and you have continued to say that advertising impact on TV would be immediate - also arguing that the impact on cable would not be immediate as it was on TV - so once again you have done a 180 degree about face.

figures.

You are welcome to shove back in my face where I said the "advertising impact on tv (stations) would be IMMEDIATE (emphasis added)." Perhaps, you read more into my comments than I actually put there. What I do believe, however, is reasonably close to what you say.

I believe that within a month's time that a prudent local advertiser would begin to question the wisdom of continuing to purchase advertising on station X. After checking the latest available information on the status of negotiations, he would be gone long before the second month ended. A truly prudent advertiser would be gone before the end of the first month if the latest available information showed no end in sight.

I further believe that stations hold the upper hand under current law and regulations. Some cable system might test the waters for a few days on some big network station, but local cable subscribers would not be able to handle being denied their daily dose of goodies and would exert extreme pressure on the cable company to back off and they would (and do).

If a large cable company with a big treasury and strong willpower decided to test the waters for as long as it required, I believe that it would bring the local broadcaster to his knees because he knows cable packaging and distribution of his signal is good for his business. Indeed, the local broadcaster would have the power to destroy the cable company if he possessed the big network signal, but it would be bad for business, so at some point, he would say, "Well, I gave it a shot." His only source of joy would be that he had damaged the cable company, but going forward he would wonder if that had worked in his favor as it would take some time for cable viewership to reach previous levels.

The scales are tipped in favor of the local broadcaster because of human nature and the fact that they did a better job when the rules were written by government.

You are welcome to shove back in my face where I said the "advertising impact on tv (stations) would be IMMEDIATE (emphasis added)."

Mr. FanAtic -

I posed 3 questions:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Answer, they have a backbone about as good as yours.

:rolleyes:

I believe that within a month's time that a prudent local advertiser would begin to question the wisdom of continuing to purchase advertising on station X. After checking the latest available information on the status of negotiations, he would be gone long before the second month ended. A truly prudent advertiser would be gone before the end of the first month if the latest available information showed no end in sight.

I further believe that stations hold the upper hand under current law and regulations. Some cable system might test the waters for a few days on some big network station, but local cable subscribers would not be able to handle being denied their daily dose of goodies and would exert extreme pressure on the cable company to back off and they would (and do).



And we have seen your belief system has no basis in reality from all your past posts - so believe what you want - just don't try to sell it as the way the business works to others - as you have no credibility in the way advertising works in television.

I believe that within a month's time that a prudent local advertiser would begin to question the wisdom of continuing to purchase advertising on station X. After checking the latest available information on the status of negotiations, he would be gone long before the second month ended. A truly prudent advertiser would be gone before the end of the first month if the latest available information showed no end in sight.
The other thing the advertiser would see is what they saw in Iowa with Mediacom. Consumers picking up antennas or switching providers to receive the programming they consider valuable. Actions like that prove to the advertiser that they are where the viewer is and wants to be.

The other thing the advertiser would see is what they saw in Iowa with Mediacom. Consumers picking up antennas or switching providers to receive the programming they consider valuable. Actions like that prove to the advertiser that they are where the viewer is and wants to be.

Mediacom already had a hit in subs in 4Q 2006 due to the Sinclair debacle. I can't wait to see Q1 2007 for them. It should be comical.

And we have seen your belief system has no basis in reality from all your past posts - so believe what you want - just don't try to sell it as the way the business works to others - as you have no credibility in the way advertising works in television.

Is there anything in my quotes that suggest that I said the impact on tv (stations) would be immediate? I consider immediate to be hours and days. To give you the benefit of any doubt, I'll make that a couple of weeks. When I actually said what I believed, I said prior to the end of two months, although I would have been gone by the end of the first month if no change was in sight. Wouldn't you?

Really, Mr. FanAtic, you are very fast, but you're not all that smart. You see what you want to see. You just can't imagine an advertiser pulling back his purchase of tv time from a station because that station is not on the cable. Too bad you can't be tested on that subject. Unfortunately, it would't harm YOU financially because as a broker of advertising, you would simply steer the business to another station. That's because YOU GOT POINTS! That's the part of this world that you DO understand.

You don't really have to steer anything away to another station. If the number of eyeballs drops significantly, they'd just get their spot aired 9 times instead of 6.

There's no reason to speculate, we can just wait and see. If only two months off cable will actually break the back of the local broadcaster, there's not a cableco in the country that wouldn't go 2 months without a major network in order to avoid $18.00 a sub in fees over the next 3 years. We'll see who buckles in the next negotiation, and how long it takes.

How long did Mediacom last?

Is there anything in my quotes that suggest that I said the impact on tv (stations) would be immediate? I consider immediate to be hours and days. To give you the benefit of any doubt, I'll make that a couple of weeks. When I actually said what I believed, I said prior to the end of two months, although I would have been gone by the end of the first month if no change was in sight. Wouldn't you?
A couple of weeks or even a month or two, is not going to kill a station, when they are looking at getting a fixed revenue source from a multi-year contract. The long term strategic benefits that come from a getting paid by cable (just like the sat cos and telcos do) far outweigh any short term hit in revenue.


Really, Mr. FanAtic, you are very fast, but you're not all that smart.
Another one of your statements not based in reality.

You don't really have to steer anything away to another station. If the number of eyeballs drops significantly, they'd just get their spot aired 9 times instead of 6.

A basic concept Stan54 never gets.

2 years ago my take was that Comcast was right and Sinclair was greedy.

2 7% hikes in my rates with minimal additions makes me side with Sinclair. Comcast, take 50 cents from my $120 a mo and give each of the Big 4 their money. After all, I watch their stations the most anyways.

Just goes to show you what kind of PR machine cable has been running for years. They have the public siding with them. But then you put the hard evidence of what has been happening in front of people, and rational people see it. For years cable has been charging its subs for channels they don't want for maximum profitability and then for the channels people watch the most they want for free, again to maximize their profits at the expense of their subs. Now I am not against maximizing profits, but when you get your hand caught in the cookie jar, it doesn't make much sense to deny that your hand was not in the cookie jar and that is what cable is doing right now and they are loosing the argument.

The whole Mediacom thing showed cables Achilles heel. If cable looses a local, they can't replace it (yeah they can replace the network programming but NOT localism of the station) but if a station looses cable, people do have the option of another MSO or antenna to receive it and if they leave the cable company, chances are they will not come back. That is a fact cable doesn't want people to know about, particularly in this day of digital OTA when you can get a better picture OTA than cable, the very argument cable used to use to get subs, (cables picture is better than an antenna).

These things run in cycles and it is now broadcastings turn and cable doesn't want to let go of the power. Very typical story. Just different players.