http://www.sbgi.net/images/hdtv_negotiation.jpg
Sinclair Cable Position (http://www.sbgi.net/misc/cable_resale_local_tv.pdf)

If you don't like our position, we are sorry.

If you don't like that we have to take this position, call your cable company.

If you want to watch HDTV from Sinclair Stations, for the here and now, you will need an antenna, a (H)DTV receiver/tuner, a HDTV display, and don't forget the surround sound!

I knew things would have to hit a brick wall before we found out what kind of cash we're talking about.

$0.50 per sub per month is more than fair. Stick to your guns.

Mr. Aitken,

Since I don't pay for television anymore, I want to take this opportunity to thank Sinclair going HD AND boosting the power levels on the Fox and WB affiliates in Nashville. That extra power makes a world of difference for the Free HDTV antenna types like myself.

Good luck on your cable struggle and, hopefully, a speedy resolution.

-Reagan

Talk about thumbing your nose at the consumers.

Fortunately, I do not have to watch my local Sinclair stations, namely ABC and FOX (WSYX and WTTE). Unfortunately for their advertisers, I will never see their products.

Mark,

How do your advertisers feel about your digital channels not being on most cable systems?

For me your stations in Nashville come in fine OTA, but others don't have that luxury. That means they don't watch your stations, which also means they don't watch your advertisers advertisements. That can't be good for business.

I am just glad Sinclair will leave our market for good.

Lucky Sacto viewers!

Are you asking for $0.50 for every cable subscriber, even those with basic cable only, or just those on an HD/digital tier? What about the cable companies who want to offer OTA digital channels via unencrypted QAM, allowing anyone with a QAM tuner to receive them without a cable box?

Originally posted by CPanther95
I knew things would have to hit a brick wall before we found out what kind of cash we're talking about.

$0.50 per sub per month is more than fair. Stick to your guns.

But that's not the end of the inquiry, I think. If a cable company pays fifty cents per month per subscriber to Sinclair for Fox, it's going to have to pay another fifty cents a month per subscriber to every other HD provider in its market -- instead of nothing, which it pays now. What cable company in its right mind is going to do that?

I think Sinclair is being a dog in the manger and should be ashamed of itself. It takes a lot for me to take Cox Cable's side of ANY dispute but doing so this time isn't hard. I have an OTA antenna. Nevertheless, the only Fox HD programming I watch -- ever -- is the NFL on Fox. Think about it.

Originally posted by CPanther95
$0.50 per sub per month is more than fair. Stick to your guns.

I don't think that's "more than fair". If you were to multiply that by the various stations out there, it begins to add up to serious cash! Sinclair has nothing to offer the local cable companies except their OTA transmissions. So, the only thing they can request for carriage is cash. Even Cox is about to get at least one of their local channels on cable (KTVU in the bay area), so why is it so hard for Sinclair to get this worked out.

For a group who went kicking and screaming into HDTV in the first place, and now expects the world in return for doing it.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
I am just glad Sinclair will leave our market for good.

Amen! Although I can record KOVR-DT to DVHS, I'm waiting for the day that I can record all programming just to my PVR. Viacom ownership of KOVR can't come soon enough.

Originally posted by CPanther95
I knew things would have to hit a brick wall before we found out what kind of cash we're talking about.

$0.50 per sub per month is more than fair. Stick to your guns.

I suspect he was saying so with sarcasm.

Adelphia is not charging me extra to receive HD Networks. They are all available via ClearQAM on Adelphia. Adelphia is charging me a cable box rental, but not for the networks. I do have to pay extra for the HD tier that has non networks like HBOHD, StarzHD, ShoHD, and MaxHD. My TV has a built in ATSC tuner and I can get CBSHD, ABCHD, NBCHD, and PBSHD without even getting a cable box.

I mentioned this in another thread. I have 2 SD Fox stations on my cable system. As it stands there is no reason for me to watch the Sinclair owned station. But if Sinclair would allow my cable company to carry their HD signal then I have all of the reason in the world to it over the other fox station. Isn't the increased viewership and advertising worth it to them.

Damn they are stubborn.

Originally posted by Adam Tyner
Right, but are any of those freely-available stations Sinclair-owned? If not, then I'm not really sure what the relevance is.

Unfortunately, I'm in a market where Sinclair owns one station and operates another, so I don't see me disconnecting my antenna anytime soon.

The other networks are not sinclair owned. The relevance is that Sinclair is using the excuse that Adelphia is making money off of their signal and not passing the money on to them. But that is not true because Adelphia passes the networks HD signals for free via ClearQAM.

Don't you need at least a basic cable subscription to get the clear QAM channels? Without knowing a clear breakdown of what each basic channel costs, I guess you could argue a portion of that fee pays for the HD signals.

As a consumer what is the best way to fight this? My congressman? The FCC?

I wasn't being sarcastic at all - I think the fees we are forced to pay for basic cable/sat have gotten way out of hand. As long as those fees are handed out to Oprah so she can have the Oxygen channel make more money for her, etc. I'm all for a fair portion going to the networks who still provide the most HD original programming that I watch on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, economically Sinclair loses nothing by "sticking to its guns". Since digital viewing is not rated, they don't lose ratings by not having the HD signal on cable. And while I would love having Fox on HD, it does cost money to go digital and Sinclair does have the right to insist on payment.

Sinclair has had other problems which I don't want to go into on this forum. But when I read about their problems, not once did anybody mention how they are at war with cable companies over their digital signal.

It just isn't on anybody's radar except those of us with no antenna and a desire for HD through cable.

I am wondering when satellites will get the rights to show local HD in local markets to all subscribers. If they pay Sinclair and get them I think that may spur cable companies into negotiating further. But there are laws and policies that I don't know that cover these issues.

Suffice it to say, I am resigned to not having Sinclair-owned stations on my cable in HD for a long time. Hey, look what has happened to the NHL. Now that's a negotiation disaster and is shutting down the whole sport. This is merely an aggravation.

Rich N.

My local nbc in roanoke, va has been in hd for over a year. They can not come up with an agreement with my local cable company (cox). But in the mean time, My local cable company has added cbs hd, abc hd and fox hd. I do not understand why a station would let rival networks get a leg up. This fall my wife and I only watched new programs that were in HD. Thats how well got hooked on Lost & Housewives. We did not even give the NBC shows a chance since we could not get there HD version. So why would a network allow this to happen. As a consumer, I don't care who is right or wrong. But Nbc should be upset with these stations that are playing hard ball & causing there networks to lose viewers.

Originally posted by raidbuck
Unfortunately, economically Sinclair loses nothing by "sticking to its guns". Since digital viewing is not rated, they don't lose ratings by not having the HD signal on cable.
Rich N.
Do you think advertisers are oblivious to this? Don't you think they take it into account?

I think yes, advertisers are oblivious to it. It would only affect local advertisers, and only for those people who would watch the HD and not the SD version of a Fox show. (I'm a part of the problem. I did watch the SD version of the NFC playoffs since the HD was not available). Now if advertisers produced HD commercials, I think they would be a bit more concerned about non-carriage of HD on cable.

But my opinions are of an HD fanatic who has no knowledge of the cable or carriage business side of things.

You're not fooling anybody. Sinclair has always done their best to screw we the viewing public. Delay, delay, delay, delay some more.

How come your stations aren't providing appropriate power? Why aren't they all broadcasting HD? Why did it take years for the few that are digital and HD to come on line?

We know why.

Originally posted by raidbuck
Unfortunately, economically Sinclair loses nothing by "sticking to its guns". Since digital viewing is not rated, they don't lose ratings by not having the HD signal on cable. And while I would love having Fox on HD, it does cost money to go digital and Sinclair does have the right to insist on payment.


Yeah, I agree. You notice they aren't holding any of their SD signals hostage for payment. They invested a lot of money acquiring/building those stations, too, but there's no problem-o with cable carrying them.

Having said that, I think they're getting a bit desperate. SBGI's done some really silly things, but putting out a press release explaining that you're actually demanding .50/subscriber/month for a local channel with a viewership that probably rivals the local PAX affiliate is pretty insane.

> But that's not the end of the inquiry, I think. If a cable company pays fifty cents per month per subscriber to Sinclair for Fox, it's going to have to pay another fifty cents a month per subscriber to every other HD provider in its market -- instead of nothing, which it pays now. What cable company in its right mind is going to do that?

Let's do some math. If each of the "big four" networks got fifty cents per subscriber, that would add up to $2 total. Say that the "little two" (WB and UPN) are worth another quarter each, and that comes up to $2.50 per subscriber per month.

Cables systems currently pay over $2 per subscriber per month for the analog version of ESPN. That's *one* channel, and a channel that has much lower average ratings than any one of the "big four" affiliates in most markets.

Considering the cost structure that the cable industry has established, I'd say that paying $2.50 per subscriber per months for *six* channels of high definition content seems reasonable.

Originally posted by Thomas Desmond
Cables systems currently pay over $2 per subscriber per month for the analog version of ESPN. That's *one* channel, and a channel that has much lower average ratings than any one of the "big four" affiliates in most markets.

It's well over $3.00 with generous increases over the next 5 or 6 years with most systems - when you factor in the other mandatory ESPN channels required. Plus they must carry it in the basic analog cable package - not a higher priced tier.

You'd see a lot of pissed off cable subs if Sinclair or one of the other holdouts decided to release that little bit of info to the general public in comparison to what they are asking. Worst case is all the HD subs (maybe 6%) continue to blame Sinclair, but about 2/3 of all the cable subs would be pissed to find out a channel they never watch costs almost as much as HBO.

putting out a press release explaining that you're actually demanding .50/subscriber/month for a local channel with a viewership that probably rivals the local PAX affiliate is pretty insane.

At least this time the press release actually involves them. They've been putting out garbage press releases on HDTV/DTV for years. Remember the one about the LG next gen receivers being fantastic at the same time the great majority of Sinclair stations hadn't even broadcast a digital signal? I do.

Like aenea said, why does Sinclair let cable companies rebroadcast their analog signal for free?

The entire television industry has gotten out of hand. Stations, cable providers, DBS providers, etc. Most of us are looking at huge monthy bills and the rates are getting worse. I guess thats the price we pay for getting addicted to this crap in the first place.

Originally posted by CPanther95
about 2/3 of all the cable subs would be pissed to find out a channel they never watch costs almost as much as HBO.
At about $2 for just ESPN, HBO is about 5 times that. How is that almost as much?

Originally posted by coomarlin
Like aenea said, why does Sinclair let cable companies rebroadcast their analog signal for free?

It's the law.

Originally posted by Gary J
At about $2 for just ESPN, HBO is about 5 times that. How is that almost as much?

Cable pays closer to $3 for ESPN* (and well over $3 for all the ESPNs) per sub - they pay about $5 - $6 per sub for HBO {less than $4 for the Starz/Encore lineup}. Plus, I bet if a cable company was willing to make HBO part of it's basic cable package, HBO would gladly reduce that fee to ESPN levels. ESPN currently has over 80 Million "subscribers" compared to HBO's 27 Million



Cox was paying $2.61 for ESPN before the last contract was signed that offered a 7% increase over the next 9 years. Reportedly the rate increases were higher in the earlier years. We are entering the second year of that contract

Originally posted by snowcat
It's the law.

So the law states that they must let cable companies rebroadcast their Analog signal for free, but it doesn't have any provisions for the digital signal?

Originally posted by coomarlin
So the law states that they must let cable companies rebroadcast their Analog signal for free, but it doesn't have any provisions for the digital signal?

The government is still working out the details on the digital signals. The only thing that I know (from this board) is the FCC isn't going to force cable companies to supply all the subchannels that a brodcaster may provide.

Originally posted by aenea
. . .
Having said that, I think they're getting a bit desperate. SBGI's done some really silly things, but putting out a press release explaining that you're actually demanding .50/subscriber/month for a local channel with a viewership that probably rivals the local PAX affiliate is pretty insane.

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

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

Any law would only apply to the SD version of their digital signal. Nothing to this point has distinguished HD from SD when it comes to enforceable requirements.

Originally posted by snowcat
It's the law.

Only if they want on the system under the must carry rules. If they go the retransmission consent route, they could get whatever they can negotiate.

I bet Sinclair would scream pretty loudly if the local cable providers started showing the national HD feeds. There currently are laws stating that a local cable provider must show the analog versions. The same thing is with the satellite companies. If the cable company is not "required" to provide the HD broadcast then they should be allowed to show some other affiliates broadcast. Like one not owned by Sinclair.

They'd also scream if they were required to fully animate their local newscast using only characters from "Drawn Together".

It's not gonna happen.

Shut off the analog transmitters, and they (NAB, Sinclair et al) will be begging cable and DBS companies to carry their digital signals. ... I can't wait to see it ... ;)

They don't need to beg the DBS companies. They are more than willing to pay for the right to carry the HD version. When D* and E* offer HD locals via satellite (which will happen well before any analog shutdown) and the local cable company has only 3 of the 4 major networks, it will be the cable companies getting on their knees.

Time will tell how it will play out. I have reservations about the notion that local stations will uplink their HD signals so that D* and E* will retransmit them.

Satellite is a very different ballgame than cable. In communities big enough to support cable service that includes high speed Internet, telephone, and HD services, I don't see either D* or E* as much of a threat. Indeed, that is why I subscribe to Cox OKC instead of D*, despite Cox not being authorized to show NFL Sunday Ticket.

Originally posted by gwsat
Time will tell how it will play out. I have reservations about the notion that local stations will uplink their HD signals so that D* and E* will retransmit them.

Satellite is a very different ballgame than cable. In communities big enough to support cable service that includes high speed Internet, telephone, and HD services, I don't see either D* or E* as much of a threat. Indeed, that is why I subscribe to Cox OKC instead of D*, despite Cox not being authorized to show NFL Sunday Ticket.

It's not about the size of your community. It's about the having your locals come through one method instead of having to use to a antenna and tuning to another input. Look at what happened with DTV and Dish added SD locals. Different ballgame when that happened. It'll be a diff ballgame when DTV gets rolling with it's HD LIL and it will not matter if you're in OKC or the O.C.

Antonio -- Indeed, changes in technology will no doubt change the competitive landscape -- and probably do so in ways we can't now anticipate. I guess we will just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Here's a thread we have discussing the issue, it's Rochester NY oriented but I'm sure people in other markets can relate:

http://www.rochesterhdtv.com/viewtopic.php?t=18

I read the letter in the Rochester thread, and Sinclair uses an analogy to Fruit Loops and a grocery store to argue against free retransmission of their signal:

The cable companies claim that they do not pay for local broadcast television stations because the mere act of carrying the stations, and thus making the signal more accessible to cable subscribers, is consideration enough...
...The cable companies’ position is no different than a grocery store refusing to pay Kellogg’s for boxes of Fruit Loops, on the theory that just being on the shelf where consumers can buy the cereal should be payment enough.


But this is incorrect. The local broadcast station makes their money from selling advertisers time for their commercials. Getting the signal to more viewers produces potentially higher rating numbers and therefore a higher commercial rate. It is absurd to compare that to a store that resells something without paying the provider for it.

Do they think they are fooling people to consider their position because "of course Kelloggs should be paid to provide Fruit Loops to the store, this is no different"?

I agree the fruitloops analogy was absolutely absurd.

Not really cable-related, here is just another funny example of Sinclair's lack of intelligence: Our local Fox station has been running crawls on the analog channel telling viewers to tune to channel 43 to watch high-def American Idol, the Superbowl, etc. Channel 43 is the digital OTA channel. Now what do you think happens when the average cable viewer switches over to channel 43? Yeah, he gets to watch some competing program on TNT or Lifetime or something. :) Or what about those using rabbit ears on an analog set? Oops, 43 is just static. Satellite viewers? Nope, no luck there.

In fact, the only people who can actually benefit from this information are already watching channel 43, and if they are watching the correct 43-1 HD channel, they'll never see that message. It would only appear on the 43-2 SD subchannel.

It's not a bad thing to promote HD in general and raise awareness, but giving a virtually meaningless channel number to the general public? What's the point?

Yeah, that's not a real bright idea. You'd think thet'd just put up a crawl that directs them to a website to find out how to get free HDTV.

agtiny - just out of curiousity, what is channel 43 on your cable system?

Originally posted by CPanther95


agtiny - just out of curiousity, what is channel 43 on your cable system?

Hopefully it's not the Spice Channel :D

Comcast in the Pittsburgh area has Spike on channel 43.

And my 3 cents worth about "free" HD is already stated. It is only free if I did not have to buy an antenna (that probably will not work well in my location), and a tuner that will only get a couple of stations at max.

Originally posted by CPanther95
agtiny - just out of curiousity, what is channel 43 on your cable system?

43 on Armstrong happens to be Fox Sports Pittsburgh, so I guess it's not a total loss for them. :)

Maybe not for FOX as a brand, but I doubt Sinclair has any financial interest in FOX Sports Pittsburgh.

Most agreements for analog signals will expire on 12/31/2005 all over the U.S. (Many digital signal agreements, tied to analog signal retransmission, will also expire.)

Sinclair will be looking for $$$ for both its analog and its digital signals come December 2005. All the major cable companies will refuse. Sinclair owned stations' analog signals will be pulled off of most cable systems. It will be World War III.

Sinclair's advertising revenue will drop like a rock. Cable will lose some customers to DBS. Which side is in the best financial shape to withstand a war of attrition? I think we all know the answer.

The FCC and Congress could avoid all of this by simply allowing cable (and satellite) to bring in out-of-market network stations when an in-market station elects retransmission consent and fails to make a deal resulting in its analog signal being pulled from the cable system. There is no way Sinclair will be able to extract cash payments when cable providers can turn to out of market station owners who are glad simply to expand their Nielsen ratings/advertising revenue.

The FCC is now studying this issue and is taking public comments until March 1st. Make your voice heard-- end the local station network monopolies, for both cable and satellite.

P.S. Whatever Sinclair gets paid will result in higher cable rates by an equal amount. For many who get analog only-- the elderly, etc., this could mean a 25% or more increase in their bills. And you can't "rob Peter to pay Paul", e.g., take programming costs from ESPN and allocate them to Sinclair-- ESPN commands what the market bears, and it's not going to decrease its revenue so Sinclair can artificially increase its revenue. That's simply not the way business, and capitalism, works.

Some analog agreements expired 12/31/2004 or expire this month. Right now there is a raging war between MSO's Cable One and Cox Cable versus Nexstar Broadcasting concerning Nexstar owned stations located mostly in Texas. Nexstar's analog signals have been pulled or shortly will be pulled from these cable systems. Nexstar is looking for 30 cents per sub.

Cox has filed a 43 page complaint with the FCC concerning Nexstar.

It will be very interesting to see what happens with Nexstar, Cox and Cable One during 2005, as it could be a portent of what is to come at the end of the year and in early 2006 for Sinclair, Emmis and other station owners and the cable providers in their respective areas.

Originally posted by SonomaSearcher
The FCC and Congress could avoid all of this by simply allowing cable (and satellite) to bring in out-of-market network stations when an in-market station elects retransmission consent and fails to make a deal resulting in its analog signal being pulled from the cable system. There is no way Sinclair will be able to extract cash payments when cable providers can turn to out of market station owners who are glad simply to expand their Nielsen ratings/advertising revenue.

First, that will never happen. Second, that could result in cable companies across the country simply avoiding coming to terms with their local affiliate in order to import whatever network they can get for the cheapest price. The whole network/affiliate arrangement would be gutted. That may make some of you happy, but it would be a dangerous precedent for a Gov't agency to be able to dictate the marketing of a company's product - to that degree.

The government has an interest in the airwaves that were licensed. As long as the local broadcaster is meeting it's requirements and sending out local programming free OTA - that is all they are (and should be) concerned with. Once the local affilate packages up their product and delivers it for resale - whether it be a feed to cable, sat company, or even videotapes and DVDs - they should be able to negotiate a fair price based on demand. Your individual choice to forgo an antenna because it's inconvenient doesn't automatically give you the right to import those signals free of charge in whatever format you choose.

Go tell the government that you want your Social Security check sent to you in cash or Best Buy certificates at no extra charge because having a bank account is inconvenient.



Originally posted by SonomaSearcher
And you can't "rob Peter to pay Paul", e.g., take programming costs from ESPN and allocate them to Sinclair-- ESPN commands what the market bears, and it's not going to decrease its revenue so Sinclair can artificially increase its revenue. That's simply not the way business, and capitalism, works.

I don't think anyone has suggested that ESPN pay for local programming.

How is forbidding a local business from negotiating terms for its product - based on market forces (and what the market will bear) the way business and capitalism works?

Someone said earlier that analog locals are retransmitted without compensating the stations. So the FCC does have a hand in the cable world with must-carry rules. Sounds like those rules just need to be amended to handle digital channels. A bit of Googling seems to indicate that they're aware of the issue but nothing's been done yet.

Yeah, I wasn't linking for the propuses of sharing the brilliant fruit loops analogy. I mostly was sharing the Sinclair statement I quoted at the beginning of the thread.

Originally posted by CPanther95
[B Your individual choice to forgo an antenna because it's inconvenient doesn't automatically give you the right to import those signals free of charge in whatever format you choose.
[/B]

Must we go here again? We've discussed this in another thread and I thought we both agreed that if the customer is in an area that is INCAPABLE of getting an OTA signal, something that companies like Sinclair seem to be completely ignorant about or refuse to acknowledge, the signal should be provided at no additional cost. The station is the one that is going to lose out, and I think the advertisers are the ones that will ultimately decide this issue.

The plain and simple fact is that OTA viewers are a very small minority, whether they can get the signal and are too lazy to try or because they simply cannot get the signal period. This idea of re-couping costs by charging viewers for the installing of new digital equipment that was mandated by the FCC to retain their license to broadcast is just BS. Nobody is forcing them to broadcast a HD signal. Eventually when advertisers notice that people are watching the HD version of a broadcast on another station and the HD version of say a Sinclair station is not on the cable system, guess what, advertising revenue will go in the toilet. If the station decides to transmit a SD and a HD signal and wants to charge for the HD signal, charge the advertisers not your viewers, like stations have been doing it for the last 50yrs, or don't broadcast a HD signal. When the station realizes they've lost viewers to stations that are broadcasting a HD signal, the station will come around to reality, it's really just simple economics and market reality.

Getting back to the OTA thing, please qualify your remarks about OTA reception to include only those who can actually get an OTA. I've spent over a $1000 on OTA equipment and to no avail, is a station like Sinclair going to reimburse me for that expense, hell no, instead they want to charge me money to get the signal that is freely broadcast OTA. Concerning this issue, I have no sympathy for the broadcasters, you want to play the game, learn how to play it, just don't ask me to subsidize something so that others can get it for free.

Rant over..:)

You're right, since you spent $1000 on an antenna to no avail - you should get them for free. :D

Cool, just wanted to clear that up...:D

You may continue with your regularly scheduled programming now..:p

Originally posted by coomarlin
I agree the fruitloops analogy was absolutely absurd.

Not completely, as "fruit loops" sounds like a great descriptor for SINclair management.

Current FCC network non-duplication rules prevent an out-of-market network affilaite from competing with an in-market affiliate, even if the network allows such competition.

So even if the network wanted to allow competition, the FCC does not allow it. Eliminating the FCC rules will do one thing: allow the network to decide if it is going to allow competition, instead of the FCC.

I can understand how this would be frusterating to people who cannot receive OTA signals. However, a couple thoughts for those who can receive OTA signals but want Sinclair to give away their product for free. Why should local broadcasters be put out of business (because that's what these direct cable-network arrangements would do) to satiate the appetites of those who refuse to use an antenna?

Look, it makes little sense to me why anyone would stick up for the cable companies here. Basically, the cable companies want to receive programming for free and then charge for that programming, and there's no doubt that's what they do because, Basic Cable is only broadcast channels and that's not free. (And yes, it's true that they've laid down infrastructure and the whole nine yards and yes they should be able to recoup that cost to some extent, but the cable company did not lay down that infrastructure altruisticly, they did it so that you would purchase Basic, Standard, Super Duper Cable, and/or High Speed Internet from them.)

One of the sad things in consumer education today is how dang pervasive consumer unawareness is. I try to invite people over to show them look, I paid $20 for an antenna stuck the thing in my attic and got HDTV. I've had people come over and they just assume I've switched back to cable. The cable company just loves reaping $ from the people who call up Cable X and say ... I just got an HDTV I'd like to get HD Cable, and so what happens next thing you know...Well you need Digital Cable to get Digital Television they tell you and all this jazz and jack the average uninformed consumers bill up to $70 just to watch (because that's 90% of what the consumer really wants) CSI in HD or 24 or the Super Bowl.

To those who can't get OTA signals, it sucks yes, but why should the 90% of those who can get OTA signals effectively subsidize your choice to live in a OTA sinkhole, (fortunately with AntennaWeb one can look before they buy at their OTA situation to be, I understand this is a little harsh for those who bought before AntennaWeb and the like, but it's a part of life), it's the same principle as insurance if you want to live in a place subject to flooding, you shouldn't complain that you have to buy flood insurance, if you want to live where OTA doesn't come in (usually in a valley or some other hilly region) why should we the OTA customers subsidize your choice to live in a scenic area?

With ATSC I think cable could be under siege, most people just want the Networks if people find out that they can get HD for free over the air they just might head that route. Sinclair is justfied in seeking payment for their product. As any business would be. Cable companies on the other hand are completely unjustified in seeking to get something for nothing.

Which gets Sinclair more revenue?

1 50 cents per month per HD sub or
2 increased ratings due to HD subs without 50 cents

And if Sinclair has the utmost success in their "Free OTA" ad campaign, how will they make any money from those viewers? They don't want anyone to go OTA in reality.

Sinclair is basically threatening to take all of its signals, both analog and digital-- well, actually digital isn't even there yet, which is the reason for this thread-- away from cable providers, thinking that the cable providers will cave in when customers start defecting to DBS.

However, Sinclair's Nielsen ratings will take a dive and so will its advertising revenue for as long as it signals are not available on cable. So the question is, how long can Sinclair hold out with major declines in advertising revenue? And is it really worth it when the potential gain (.50 per subscriber) is far outweighed by the potential loss (far more than .50 per subscriber in advertising losses)?

And how long can Sinclair go without any cable viewers before Sinclair's board of directors, fearing Enron type liability for failing to act, fire the CEO and other executives and replace them with a staff that "get along" with the cable industry?

Maybe Sinclair is hoping the public uproar will cause Congress to get involved and enact yet another set of bureaucratic laws followed by another, related set of bureaucratic FCC regulations. I hope not, because I thought Sinclair's philosophy was "the less FCC bureacracy, the better."

OK, I'm done playing Devil's Advocate (not that anyone is the Devil) - I didn't want this to just turn into another Sinclair bitch-fest thread where everyone just comes on slams Sinclair and nothing of substance is actually discussed. Obviously, there are plenty of AVS members who are highly motivated to get their HD networks from whatever service provider they have and are commited to. There are much fewer broadcast affiliate members who are going to come into this thread and stir the pot.

I've tried to list every argument that I can think of that Sinclair can make, so moving forward, no matter how upset you are, let's try to keep this to a debate of the possible issues. If you feel one side is completely wrong, that's fine - discuss why. If it simply degrades to "they're idiots", the thread will go nowhere.

I get my locals OTA and the majority of cable companies are passing through HD locals at a reasonable rate compared to the prices I cited which are for my local cable company that only services a single county. So in reality, I have no personal investment in this issue. but I do believe the debate itself is important for two reasons:

1) This issue will become much more prevalent over the next couple of years as more stations try to redefine the market.

2) Some similar arrangement may be the only way that the very small market affiliates will ever upgrade to HD.

I've thrown on the gasoline - now have fun. ;)

Originally posted by Gary J

2 increased ratings due to HD subs without 50 cents

I know some of us have our priorities out of whack, but I hope there are no HD subs that don't have $0.50 to their name. :)

Competition is good. Why not allow out-of-market network affiliates compete with in-market network affiliates IF the in-market network affiliates are unable to reach a retransmission deal with a cable company and IF the network in question allows such competition in its affiliation agreements?

The prospect of competition could be limited in certain respects, such as: (1) only neighboring markets would be allowed to compete, for example, D.C. and Baltimore; and (2) the network's signal would have to be MIA from a given cable system for a given period of time before "permission to compete" would kick in, let's say 120 days for sake of argument.

So, as an example, let's say on January 1, 2006, the analog signal of the Sinclair owned Fox affiliate in Baltimore disappears from Comcast's systems because Sinclair wants cash payment and Comcast refuses cash payment-- but offers the traditional "advertising buy/exchange" arrangement. By April 30, 2006 (120 days), Sinclair and Comcast still have not reached an agreement. Comcast subs in Baltimore are unable to watch Fox, analog or digital. Beginning on May 1, 2006, the D.C. Fox affiliate is allowed to negotiate with Comcast to put its signals (analog and/or digital) on Comcast's Baltimore systems ... IF the Fox Network gives the go-ahead to do so.

Of course, the NAB would scream bloody murder if there was even a whiff of a scent that the FCC might allow this but, as I say, for consumers, competition is good and almost all monopolies are bad.

Something to think about ... and I am also ready to give it a rest while I will be closely following the Cox/Cable One vs. Nexstar saga and looking forward to October 1, 2005 rolling around, when the initial salvos will be fired by Sinclair and Emmis (and other station group owners of like mind).

Originally posted by j_buckingham80

To those who can't get OTA signals, it sucks yes, but why should the 90% of those who can get OTA signals effectively subsidize your choice to live in a OTA sinkhole,

What 90% are you talking about? Best estimates put OTA viewers at about 15-19%, clearly the minority. Sinclair markets may vary one way or the other but they are probably pretty close to the national average. As I noted earlier and SonomaSearcher reiterated, it's really simple, once advertising becomes a factor and HD viewership increases, there ain't a chance in h*ll that Sinclair or it's board is going to forsake the 65-85% of potential viewers for those advertisers to reach over a silly-ass .50 cent per viewer fee.

Sinclair's stand may be admirable, blah, blah, blah, but when it comes time to check the P&L, they'll come around, no doubt about it...

The fact is, for me I really don't care what Sinclair does as there isn't any Sinclair stations in California(we don't allow them :p ) but what they are trying to do has implications far beyond their own markets and merits watching and acting against.

If we truly could pay for cable channels "a la carte" I would have no problem choosing my local Fox digital channel and having a portion of the money go to the station owner (Sinclair), just like I would choose ESPN and and Turner Classic Movies and then they get paid. I would opt out of all the stupid (to me) channels that I have no interest in and save $$ overall. (Of course, I wonder how new channels could ever catch on in such an arrangement, but I digress.)

But "a la carte" is not the reality of the situation for us cable subscribers right now. The reality is that we have to buy cable as a package deal, in various tiers. We are sensitive to ever-increasing cable bills. We don't want anything to make it go up even more.

So when we see that all (or most of) the other network digital channels in our locale are available on the cable with no fuss, but one of them (Sinclair) is holding out from such an arrangement, bucking the status quo, and bottom line it would cost us more .... guess who the bad guy is to us? As much as we may dislike the cable company, they aren't the villain to us in this. Our attitude is, "if it's good enough for the other station owners, why isn't it good enough for Sinclair?" They've already spent the money to upgrade to digital, as required by law. Wouldn't the increase in viewers on cable be a benefit to them? Look, they may not like the structure, but they are alienating their customers by trying to change it. And it's a losing battle as far as I can see.

I also think it's funny how Sinclair keeps touting "HDTV free over-the-air" -- when you know that the last thing in the world they would really want is for everyone to go OTA, since they wouldn't get paid anything more. It's just a ploy to try to divert the blame back to cable companies.

BTW, isn't the title of this thread a bit of an oxymoron?

Another factor in this that shouldn't be underestimated is the advent of the DVR. I started renting the Moto 6412 box from Comcast last month, for $10 per month. So far, I love it. Being able to time-shift HD and SD content at a reasonable fee is great. It's a feature that I don't want to lose.

So now Sinclair informs me that they have "free HDTV over-the-air." But what about my HD DVR? Last I checked the Satellite/OTA models aren't cheap. (Or does Dish now let you lease them? I'm not sure.) Point is, it ain't free.

Well, for a little while longer we have Sinclair owning Channel 13, the CBS affiliate. And of course, the Comcast subscribers in Sacramento cannot view the HD signal without OTA equipment. Viacom is in the process of buying the station, which will make it an O&O. Most expect a quick provision of the digital signal to cable when that happens.

25 miles north, in Woodland, Charter Cable has no plans to provide HD signals. Luckily, Directv and OTA reception are available.

> Competition is good. Why not allow out-of-market network affiliates compete with in-market network affiliates IF the in-market network affiliates are unable to reach a retransmission deal with a cable company and IF the network in question allows such competition in its affiliation agreements?

The networks don't generally allow such competition -- that is why the affiliation agreements are EXCLUSIVE agreements. They grant EXCLUSIVE rights to the network's programming to the affiliate for a given market. On top of that, the syndicated programming that runs on stations is also sold on a market-by-market basis.

It seems to me that the folks who are making arguments that cable systems should be allowed to bypass the local affiliates really want the government to come in and basically invalidate the exclusivity provisions in existing network and programming contracts.

Meanwhile, from further back:

> ESPN commands what the market bears

Does anyone seriously believe that this is the truth? The pricing for basic cable networks occurs in an environment that has little resemblance to a truly open markets -- media oligarchies negotiating over packages of programming in a manner that makes it very difficult to determine what the true market value of a particular network is. For example, it may well be the case that a cable company that refuses to pay the price for ESPN might find itself having trouble getting retransmission rights for ABC's owned and operated stations, or for some other Disney-owned channels.

> Someone said earlier that analog locals are retransmitted without compensating the stations. So the FCC does have a hand in the cable world with must-carry rules.

But whoever said that was wrong. Local broadcasters can elect either must-carry or retransmission consent. If they elect the latter, they can negotiate whatever terms they can get the local cable companies to agree to.

Originally posted by Thomas Desmond

But whoever said that was wrong. Local broadcasters can elect either must-carry or retransmission consent. If they elect the latter, they can negotiate whatever terms they can get the local cable companies to agree to.

True, but IIRC, if they elect the latter, retrans-consent, then "must carry" doesn't apply. And in the near future stations will have to decide whether they want one or the other for their primary signal and most would probably choose "must carry" for the one that is going to provide the greatest return as far as advertising. This, I believe, is why some stations of any stature are trying to lock in re-trans agreements for the HD signal as they know that will be the one people will be watching. If they don't, they know that the HD signal will become the "must carry" due to the ad revenue it will produce because it's the one people will be watching. Tough to compete with a SD signal when other stations are doing HD, and getting the viewers..

The networks don't generally allow such competition -- that is why the affiliation agreements are EXCLUSIVE agreements. They grant EXCLUSIVE rights to the network's programming to the affiliate for a given market. On top of that, the syndicated programming that runs on stations is also sold on a market-by-market basis.

It seems to me that the folks who are making arguments that cable systems should be allowed to bypass the local affiliates really want the government to come in and basically invalidate the exclusivity provisions in existing network and programming contracts.

I agree and I'm also in favor of stations being able to negotiate retransmission consent for any and all parts of their content, since they contractually have exclusive rights to that content.

But what I don't understand is how the stations will continue to contract with the networks and keep exclusive rights to the digital content when they are not successfully negotiating to keep that content carried on the cable companies.

The networks may not care much yet whether their digital content (HDTV?) is carried on cable because there are not yet many viewers watching it that way. But cable HD seems to be coming on strong and networks are increasingly spending extra bucks for prime time HD. So digital cable carriage is becoming increasingly important to the networks.

Given all that, what is the chance that during the next contract negotiations the nets may not insist on some non-exclusivity clause for digital carriage when the stations don't successfully get carried for some reason. That is, what stops the network from asking for the right to sell directly to cable in some area that isn't already being covered that way?

Unless there is some obscure law preventing it I suspect that some of those conversations may already be occurring.

- Tom

Originally posted by keenan
Must we go here again? We've discussed this in another thread and I thought we both agreed that if the customer is in an area that is INCAPABLE of getting an OTA signal, something that companies like Sinclair seem to be completely ignorant about or refuse to acknowledge, the signal should be provided at no additional cost. The station is the one that is going to lose out, and I think the advertisers are the ones that will ultimately decide this issue.

The plain and simple fact is that OTA viewers are a very small minority, whether they can get the signal and are too lazy to try or because they simply cannot get the signal period. This idea of re-couping costs by charging viewers for the installing of new digital equipment that was mandated by the FCC to retain their license to broadcast is just BS. Nobody is forcing them to broadcast a HD signal. Eventually when advertisers notice that people are watching the HD version of a broadcast on another station and the HD version of say a Sinclair station is not on the cable system, guess what, advertising revenue will go in the toilet. If the station decides to transmit a SD and a HD signal and wants to charge for the HD signal, charge the advertisers not your viewers, like stations have been doing it for the last 50yrs, or don't broadcast a HD signal. When the station realizes they've lost viewers to stations that are broadcasting a HD signal, the station will come around to reality, it's really just simple economics and market reality.

Getting back to the OTA thing, please qualify your remarks about OTA reception to include only those who can actually get an OTA. I've spent over a $1000 on OTA equipment and to no avail, is a station like Sinclair going to reimburse me for that expense, hell no, instead they want to charge me money to get the signal that is freely broadcast OTA. Concerning this issue, I have no sympathy for the broadcasters, you want to play the game, learn how to play it, just don't ask me to subsidize something so that others can get it for free.

Rant over..:)

Well Put

here's some news Sinclair made a mistake with the Armstrong cable contract and now have to let Armstrong carry the Fox hd signal.
:p

Cox just agreed with Comcast and Charter. They were joined with Sinclair in withholding their HD signal. As more of these agreements occur, Sinclair will be out in right field on their own.

So now several cities that had Cox (I know KTVU Fox in SF-Oak) are now going to be on Comcast in time for the Super Bowl.

Rich N.

A couple more points, as pointed out, competition is good. I agree, generally competition benefits us all. But it is those who are demanding that broadcasters be forbidden from charging for their signal who are opposing competition. We recognize the importance of copyright protection for networks and broadcasters because other than the 6Mhz channel they are granted to by the FCC, that's the only big property that they have.
This protection than allows the Network and affiliate to arrange how the Network signal will be send out. If an affiliate is too demanding, the Network will abandon the affiliate see e.g. KRON in S.F. So, because the networks only provide about 30% of total affiliate programming, and networks want their programming to be on the affiliate the network grants exclusive rights in exchange for being associated with that local channel within that market area.
That's what competition is, if Broadcaster X wants more concessions from the Network than the Network is willing to give, eventually, the Network will leave that affiliate. Now, that Broadcaster owns exclusive rights to that signal within that market area. That's what the affiliate has paid for, that's what they own. Competition is not, let another affiliate (or the network more generally) breach the contract they have with the local affiliate by government fiat.

On another subject, a number of people on here suggest that the last thing broadcasters really want is for people to go OTA, but I ask why it is that they think this is so? Broadcasters would absolutely stand to benefit if people dropped Cable to go to OTA or Satellite. Why? In an OTA market, Broadcaster X of Network A represents effectively 25% of the programming on an individual's television. This means that when OTA consumers turn on the TV, they are more likely to watch Broadcaster X than if Broadcaster X only represents 3% of the programming on that individuals TV.
Effectively, an OTA customer is substantially more likely to watch the 19th rerun of Seinfeld than a cable customer who may jump over to Sportscenter, South Park, or some other cable show. When Broadcaster X provides their signal to a cable company they give up 22% of the programming on television and have gotten in return carriage on the cable system. If Broadcaster X believes that 22% loss is worth $.50 per sub and carriage, than they have a right to negotiate for it.
So, by pushing people to leave cable and move to OTA, Sinclair and other broadcasters are looking to increase their Programming share. The share that their channel possesses over the total programming available to that television. For satellite, the broadcaster is able to get the $.50 per sub or whatever it is they settle on.

As to the 90% that I mentioned earlier it is very important to note, that I used the word can not do. The 82% or so who choose to get Cable or Sat do so because either they got tired of snow or want more programming options. My bet is on the fact that most people went for Cable, initially, because they got tired of snow, ghosts, adjusting antennae, etc. If Broadcasters are trying to steer people back to OTA because the ghost and snow issues have been eliminated and the ease of getting a clean signal is much easier that certainly seems to be a wise business model. Broadcasters had to give their signal away for free in the NTSC world because regardless of what people watch, most do not like static, snow, or ghosts, so the broadcaster would have lost that 22% and the 3% because the poor signal meant people wouldn't watch, cable provided carriage of a clean signal to distant places within their market area. Now that the clean signal is less of an issue it makes sense that broadcasters would like to jump in on the gravy train.

Lastly, for this post anyways, is the point about how this will make cable companies charge more and cable is already too expensive. I completely agree that cable is already too expensive, but this should show that it is the cable company that is gouging, not the broadcasters, the cable company is effectively demanding to get high quality (Network programming) programming for free. Cable companies are in the business of reselling programming, they do this for even low quality programming. What effectively is happening is that the cable company is requiring you to buy 40 channels you don't want to get the 15 channels you do. Worse yet, the cable company is trying to take programming from the channel you most want for no cost and take that revenue from you and give it to the channels you don't want.

Sinclair may yet lose this battle, but as a broadcaster it's certainly their right to try. Satellite is putting the hurt on cable, and OTA may begin to soon as well, where I live probably more than half the homes have dishes, and if Satellite is willing to pay for the locals, why shouldn't Cable be willing as well? Just because Cable's always gotten a free pass? Well that's because of the nature of NTSC transmission. If Sinclair wins, maybe Cable companies will have to revisit their nature of tiering crummy channels in with good ones because as extended basic climbs up to $70/mth, people will say the the 10 cable shows they watch just aren't worth it, then maybe cable will allow individuals to weed out the wheat from the chaff (a la carte pricing).

"Payments to Slinclair Should Not Increase Your Cable Bill"

Umm yeah... Did Mark Hyman write that? I don't say this very often, but I hope the cable companies win this one.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
Now that the clean signal is less of an issue it makes sense that broadcasters would like to jump in on the gravy train.


This is a very presumptuous statement. First, it's not an issue of the signal being "clean", the issue is getting the signal at all. If the use of the word "clean" got tied up in semantics I'll assume you meant "receiving a usable signal". Yes, OTA tuners have become much better at signal locking and multipath rejection, but to dismiss the difficulty of receiving those signals as a thing of the past is just not true. It may be so in your market, and that's great for you, but in a market like SF for example, OTA reception, at best, is a hit or miss proposition, and if you don't have a rotator, forget about getting all the signals with a stationary antenna. And this is for broadcasts from a single tower(Sutro). OTA reception needs to become far more reliable and easy to get than it is now for it to ever regain or take back viewers lost to cable or sat. With current and near-term ATSC technology, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I grew up in Walnut Creek and know of the trial and travails of getting OTA reception in the Bay Area. Walnut Creek itself is nearly impossible for any DTV. As a result, it's probably unlikely that Bay Area broadcasters would insist on a fee for carriage. That's not to say it wouldn't happen if Sinclair gets its way, it may, but then Consumers in dark areas may push for additional towers.

However, if you go to the Sacramento valley a very large percentage of target consumer can get excellent DTV reception. I for example, get every broadcast DTV channel available from Sacto. I think this means that Sacramento broadcaster would have a great incentive to require Cable companies to pay for their signal.

My point about a clean signal is more just to suggest with ATSC, if you're getting a picture you get it free of snow and ghosts. With NTSC, you get 25 miles out and you get a good picture, but an imperfect one, or it changes with the weather. All issues that most consumers wish to avoid. I do think the "clean" signal issue is still an issue just a substantially reduced one moving forward.

Also, I think Walnut Creek and Concord both provide Astound and Cable TV, providing the consumer with additional choice.

Originally posted by CAM356
here's some news Sinclair made a mistake with the Armstrong cable contract and now have to let Armstrong carry the Fox hd signal.
:p

According to Armstrong, this statement is false.

> On another subject, a number of people on here suggest that the last thing broadcasters really want is for people to go OTA, but I ask why it is that they think this is so? Broadcasters would absolutely stand to benefit if people dropped Cable to go to OTA or Satellite.

This is an "it depends" type of situation. Part of the "it depends" is that it depends on who owns the station. Remember that if people dump cable/satellite and go OTA-only, the companies that own both broadcast stations and cable networks are not necessarily happy about that -- the advertising revenue that they'd gain from higher ratings at their broadcast stations would likely be offset by the losses from the cable networks. Generally, this is the big companies -- Viacom, NBC Universal, Disney, and News Corp.

On the other side is the broadcast only companies -- folks like Sinclair, Clear Channel, Gray Broadcasting, Emmis, etc. These companies don't have any financial interest in the cable business, and are thus happy to see the cable networks lose viewers.

Finally, cable and satellite are not equal in the eyes of many broadcasters -- because cable can sell local advertising in competition with the broadcasters, whereas satellite can't. So even if satellite takes away some of the broadcast stations' audiences, it still can't sell to local advertisers in direct competition. Thus, when viewers switch from cable to satellite, broadcasters may feel like they are gaining.

Originally posted by agtiny
According to Armstrong, this statement is false.

I know one of the engineers at Armstrong he said they should have the signal broad casted before the super bowl.

From The Sun-Sentinel-Florida

Fans with HDTV fume at Super Bowl picture

Static: Some owners of costly new sets learn that a cable dispute means they can't see football with hoped-for super-clarity.

By Andrea K. Walker
Sun Staff
Posted January 28 2005

"Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., the Hunt Valley company that is one of the largest independent owners of television stations in the country, owns Fox 45 in Baltimore. It wants Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable TV provider, to pay to retransmit the station for high-definition viewing. The Philadelphia-based cable operator doesn't want to pay the fee, 50 cents per subscriber per month, that Sinclair proposes.

In Baltimore City and county, Comcast estimates that fewer than 10 percent of its subscribers own HDTV sets.

HDTV owners who receive their signal via satellite television are not affected by the fight.

Sinclair said none of the cable companies in the 20 markets around the country where it owns a Fox station has agreed to pay the fee. While companies on both sides say they continue to negotiate, the issue could take months or longer to settle."


Complete article here,

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/bal-te.bz.hdtv28jan28,0,3167814.story?coll=sfla-business-headlines
Fans with HDTV fume at Super Bowl picture: South Florida Sun-Sentinel

That's not entirely accurate, any satellite viewers are completely locked out because Sinclair would never grant a waiver to receive the national Fox HD feed.

Originally posted by keenan
From The Sun-Sentinel-Florida
....

By Andrea K. Walker
...

HDTV owners who receive their signal via satellite television are not affected by the fight.
.... Quite a misleading statement and bad journalism.

The statement implies that satellite subscribers in Baltimore can receive Fox HD via satellite. But, as we know, Dish doesn't offer Fox HD at all and Baltimore DMA residents are NOT eligible for the DirecTV feed.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/swannirants012705.html

good opinions on cable fighting the affiliates and on EDTV

The fact that no cable company has agreed to Sinclair's demands I think is indicative of their unwillingness to actively negotiate. Cox just signed an agreement with Comcast and Charter.

Charging .50 per customer doesn't sound bad, but I don't remember them saying "For HDTV customers only". In effect, Sinclair wants the HDTV feed to subsidize the rest of the company. By charging SD analog subscribers the same as HD really is upsetting.

But it is Sinclair....

Rich N.

Yeah, I honestly didn't read the whole thing, just a quick run-through. The point though is that the issues with Sinclair vs the cablecos needs to get into the media as it can have an effect, the negative PR for both sides can often help make a resolution come about. We've witnessed that very thing happening here in the SF Bay Area.

You gotta love the misinformation that some of these guys are getting this naive reporter to include in her article, such as :

"If they think we're going to give them our channels for free and then they can charge $10 or $15 a month for digital cable, then they can drop dead," Duane Lammers, chief operating officer for Nexstar, said of the cable providers.
This statement is simply false, especially with respect to Comcast-- which along with Sinclair is the subject of the entire article. You do NOT need to have digital cable in order to access local HD channels on Comcast-- all you need is a limited basic subscription, which gives you analog locals and HD locals, plus a QAM 256 tuner. (You can rent Comcast's QAM 256 tuner, in the form of a Motorola 6200, at $5 per month or you can supply your own.)

Very poor journalism.

The more public knowledge about these issues, the better, but I don't think negative PR had any effect in the case of the Bay Area. There was very little negative coverage in the Bay Area media before November 2004, and by that point Comcast and Cox had already started to come together toward an agreement in principal.

In the case of the Bay Area, we got lucky because (1) Cox Enterprises owns both cable systems and television stations, albeit as separate corporate entities, so if Cox wanted some consistency between its cable operations and its TV operations, something had to give; (2) Cox Cable went private when Cox Enterprises bought out all the shares, which was completed in early December-- this furthered the need for consistency between the positions of the cable and TV operations; (3) I am sure Cox Cable was getting hammered in its negotiations for TV signals by the "If it's good enough for Cox TV stations, why not us?" argument; (4) the Cox Cable versus Nexstar dispute was looming on the horizon and then, this month, came to a head, and Cox Cable is going to need all the rhetorical and moral support it can get in that dispute; (5) Cox and Comcast are partners in many ventures, including their new venture as of January 2005 when they jointly bought Liberate Technologies.

Unfortunately, none of these factors apply in the case of Sinclair, Emmis, Nexstar and the few other holdouts.

Why would Sinclair broadcast their HD signals OTA at their expense free of charge and expect a fee from cable companies to do it at the cable companies expense? Are there no digital build out expenses for cable companies?

Originally posted by Gary J
Why would Sinclair broadcast their HD signals OTA at their expense free of charge and expect a fee from cable companies to do it at the cable companies expense? Are there no digital build out expenses for cable companies?

The FCC says they have to. You can bet that if they could encrypt their OTA broadcast and sell you a receiver, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Originally posted by SonomaSearcher
The more public knowledge about these issues,<snip>

Okay, I'll go back to bed, maybe my brain will wake up the same time my body does next time...:D :p

Sonoma, you're right about not needing Digital Cable to access HDTV. However, before I had become much more familiar with HD, I was given every impression that HD required Digital Cable. Many of the stores and companies I dealt with definately wanted you to believe you needed Digital Cable to get Digital Television. So, while you're right about limited basic and HD, this average consumer is not likely going to be told that. In fact, if you go to one major cable company's website and look for HD channels on your system with limited basic, the HD channels do not show up. Although it is interesting that the COO only said $10 or $15 which is the more common basic cable rate. So who knows what the Nexstar COO meant. Journalists can often misinterpret something just as easily as the COO could have been misleading. How much do you think the journalist understands about the difference between digital cable and digital television?

The media story isn't the easiest to follow, certainly as more facts come out it may be easier to say who is being unreasonable. As raidbuck points out, it certainly would seem unreasonable if the $.50 was for all customers not just QAM. So we'll see where it all falls out.

And Thomas, I think we're in agreement. I think that's also why it's only the broadcaster-only type companies are pursuing this.

Originally posted by Gary J
Why would Sinclair broadcast their HD signals OTA at their expense free of charge and expect a fee from cable companies to do it at the cable companies expense? Are there no digital build out expenses for cable companies?

They would argue that you and I building a huge Auto Mall may allow us to effectively sell cars, but in no way guanantees the right to sell any brand we would like. We'd still have to come to terms with the owner of each brand in order to carry their product.

What's wrong with Swann's rant?
[list=1]
A channel with one HD channel and a subchannel requires the same amount of "space" on the cable as a channel with one full bandwidth HD channel.
If local station operators are "putting their future profits ahead of the interests of their communities and viewers" then so are the cable operators who refuse to negotiate an acceptable agreement with the broadcasters.
If the local stations are playing "hardball" then so are the cable operators.
[/list=1]

Threads merged.

Originally posted by SonomaSearcher

The prospect of competition could be limited in certain respects, such as: (1) only neighboring markets would be allowed to compete, for example, D.C. and Baltimore; and (2) the network's signal would have to be MIA from a given cable system for a given period of time before "permission to compete" would kick in, let's say 120 days for sake of argument.



I'm from the area of that article. Baltimore City and County have no Fox HD on Comcast because of Sinclair, so I miss out. But our neighboring counties do have Fox HD feed from DC on Comcast even though they have the SD feed from Sinclair's Fox45.

Kudos to Comcast for that, anyway. I'm not sure if this situation is relevant to your points.

Rich N.

WOW!!

CAM356 you were right. Armstrong just added channel 109, WPGH-DT Fox-HD. I'm completely shocked! Of course my cable bill also just went up $2 this month, so who knows what happened.

Originally posted by agtiny
WOW!!

CAM356 you were right. Armstrong just added channel 109, WPGH-DT Fox-HD. I'm completely shocked! Of course my cable bill also just went up $2 this month, so who knows what happened.

Wow. I guess Amstrong caved in huh? Or was it Sinclair? Hopefully ti was Sinclair and I'll be getting it on Adelphia soon. Well I won't hold my breath.

As active & informed as this tread is, I cannot believe someone would not know if Sinclair caved in. So putting that aside, I guess there was an error in that contract of Sinclairs and Armstrong picked up on it.

As for the $2, my Comcast went up $2 also and I got nothing! :(

I asked for more info but I'm not likely to hear anything else. We also have a Sinclair WB station which is not on cable (yet). The $2 is likely just a typical annual increase.

If Armstrong caved in, I'd expect to see a press release issued immediately by Sinclair to try to pressure other cable operators. Oh wait, there's no competition in the cable market. ;) But I'd still expect to see one, even if just for the "see, we're not so crazy, everyone else is doing it..." factor.

Is this the first Sinclair Fox HD channel on cable?

I think it is. I'd like to say this is a good sign, but if it really was some kind of loophole, it may not mean anything. I think if we don't hear a peep out of Sinclair over this, we can assume it wasn't in their favor. MisterDTV, is there any official word?

Knology in the Charleston, SC area has FOX HD. Comcast and TWC in the same area do not.

Originally posted by shuttermaker
Knology in the Charleston, SC area has FOX HD. Comcast and TWC in the same area do not.
But is it Sinclair Fox HD?

Yes, WTAT Fox24 is Sinclair owned.

Article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05029/449752.stm) about the Armstrong-Sinclair deal. Includes a Comcast statement.

Is this a joke, or did he mean antenna ???

Kerry Check, the director of engineering for WPGH and WCWB, suggested to viewers who want to pick up the HD feed on Channel 43 that placement of the set is important.

"Some people say 'I can't get your station.' I tell them if they move the TV to another place in their house, they'll probably be able to pick it up."

I guess he means TV with rabbit ears.

WOO WOO. My Fox HD just showed up on Armstrong too last night. Superbowl here we come. Way to go Armstrong!!

Originally posted by CPanther95
Is this a joke, or did he mean antenna ??? I think Gary J is right -- if you assume most people aren't hardcore enough to mount an antenna, then moving the TV could improve the signal quality...not because the TV is being moved, but because the set-top antenna could wind up in a more optimal position.

"Yes ma'am, I understand you are having difficulty receiving our signal here in your living room, but that big west facing window upstairs in the master bathroom would be an ideal location for your 65" HDTV" ;)

My family room is 17' x 21', and I have exactly ONE place (next to the fireplace) that I can locate my TV. Hopefully, the 5th generation OTA tuners will make this a moot issue. Relocating a TV isn't really a practical solution for most.

Yes, I agree with your thoughts wholeheartedly. But remembering my home 35 years ago, there was no cable in my newly constructed neighborhood. So the rooftop antenna had a huge extension piece and dead man cables on 3 sides to keep it on the roof. The rotating mechanism only worked occasionally and the two networks we got were inferior, while the third was non-existent. And it looked ridiculous.

When cable came along, we enrolled enthusiastically, for it was the solution of the future with the convenience of good signals anywhere you wanted them in the house. I do not see a separate tuner with a roof-top antenna as a solution to my lack of FoxHD; I’ve been there and done that and it is not acceptable. To think that I am going to relocate my HD television around the house to receive a better signal is moronic. I would still need cable for other channels I want, and for analog televisions in other parts of the house. Even if I wanted to spend the extra money, why should I?

It is Comcast’s obligation, as my only cable company, to provide that signal, and Sinclair’s obligation to make it reasonably available. That is my story and I’m sticking to it.

Originally posted by wstanko
It is Comcast’s obligation, as my only cable company, to provide that signal, and Sinclair’s obligation to make it reasonably available. That is my story and I’m sticking to it.

That's the good ol' Western PA attitude I miss.

Nobody's obligated to provide you with anything. You have choices and you have made one.

Originally posted by spwace
Nobody's obligated to provide you with anything. You have choices and you have made one.

I beg to differ and I bet the PA State Utilities Regulatory Commission would agree. Utilities that are monopolies have obligations, and Comcast is my only cable choice, IE a monopoly.

Wait until HD is totally implemented and we will see who has withholding rights.

It seems to me if you pay the cable company for a signal they damn well better give you one.

Originally posted by wstanko
I beg to differ and I bet the PA State Utilities Regulatory Commission would agree. Utilities that are monopolies have obligations, and Comcast is my only cable choice, IE a monopoly.

Wait until HD is totally implemented and we will see who has withholding rights.

By law, every TV station can require a cable company to carry their signal (must carry) or they can opt for retransmission consent, whereby they can negotiate for some form of compensation from the cable company. If the station opts for compensation and the cable company refuses to pay, you are out of luck. This applies only to the analog signal, there is currently no must carry protection for digital signals.

Your cable company is not a monopoly, they compete with the satellite providers for your business.

Originally posted by Gary J
It seems to me if you pay the cable company for a signal they damn well better give you one.

They have to give you a signal, and they have to give you whatever was promised when you signed up, but they don't have to give you specific channels. That's a business decision.

Originally posted by CPanther95
"Yes ma'am, I understand you are having difficulty receiving our signal here in your living room, but that big west facing window upstairs in the master bathroom would be an ideal location for your 65" HDTV" ;)

My family room is 17' x 21', and I have exactly ONE place (next to the fireplace) that I can locate my TV. Hopefully, the 5th generation OTA tuners will make this a moot issue. Relocating a TV isn't really a practical solution for most.

She forgot to mention that you will need one of these as well,

http://www.qsl.net/kc2ufo/5.jpg

Originally posted by spwace
Your cable company is not a monopoly, they compete with the satellite providers for your business.

Not when you can't get satellite because you're not allowed to put a dish on your building, or because the signal is blocked by trees.

Originally posted by wstanko

As for the $2, my Comcast went up $2 also and I got nothing! :(

Yup, same for me with Comcast. But wait! We got another horseracing channel on the sports tier. Sorry Comcast, gee that's really worth the digital price increase. Sheesh...

Rich N.

Originally posted by Marcus Carr
Not when you can't get satellite because you're not allowed to put a dish on your building, or because the signal is blocked by trees.

That is a problem that is specific to a small percentage of the potential market. It doesn't make them a monopoly. In fact, it is a problem that is specifically addressed in the OTARD ruling, which is intended to make sure that the greatest number of people have a choice of providers.

"Small percentage" or not, monopoly or not, there are people for whom satellite is not an option, and in those cases the cable companies are not in competition with them. Many of these people cannot get certain HD stations via cable because of the stubbornness of Sinclair, which is the whole point of this thread.

Originally posted by Marcus Carr
"Small percentage" or not, monopoly or not, there are people for whom satellite is not an option, and in those cases the cable companies are not in competition with them. Many of these people cannot get certain HD stations via cable because of the stubbornness of Sinclair, which is the whole point of this thread.

It takes two to tango, if Sinclair is stubborn then the cable company is equally stubborn. The difference is that the cable company wants to profit from something that is owned by the station without compensating the station.

Originally posted by spwace
It takes two to tango, if Sinclair is stubborn then the cable company is equally stubborn. The difference is that the cable company wants to profit from something that is owned by the station without compensating the station.

Kissing sinclairs butt huh?

The cable company is not profitting from adding Sinclair's HD feed. Cable companies offer sinclairs HD feed for free via clearQAM. You don't even need to purchase a digital cable package to get it. They are just passing along the feed.

I have a true HDTV and just by hooking up the basic cable from my cable company I can get ABC-HD, CBS-HD, NBC-HD, and PBS-HD.

Originally posted by coomarlin
Kissing sinclairs butt huh?

The cable company is not profitting from adding Sinclair's HD feed. Cable companies offer sinclairs HD feed for free via clearQAM. You don't even need to purchase a digital cable package to get it. They are just passing along the feed.

I have a true HDTV and just by hooking up the basic cable from my cable company I can get ABC-HD, CBS-HD, NBC-HD, and PBS-HD.

Sinclair owns my local CBS affiliate and my selfish motive would be to disagree with them, but in all honesty, I have to agree with them. Go back and read the statement by Sinclair at the beginning of this thread, and if you think they are wrong, tell us why on a point by point basis.

Your cable company is profiting by having those stations on, because without them many of their subscribers would opt for dish. I would be one of them. I chose cable because I can get most of the locals and regional sports nets.

Im willing to pay extra...i dont care if the money goes to FOX, Sinclair, or the cable companies. I just want FOX HD on my local cable service.

Originally posted by coomarlin
The cable company is not profitting from adding Sinclair's HD feed. Cable companies offer sinclairs HD feed for free via clearQAM.Some of them, maybe. Not mine.

Knology, here in the Charleston area has found a way to make it happen. Its time for TWC and Comcast to bite the bullet and come thru for their customers.

Originally posted by spwace
Sinclair owns my local CBS affiliate and my selfish motive would be to disagree with them, but in all honesty, I have to agree with them. Go back and read the statement by Sinclair at the beginning of this thread, and if you think they are wrong, tell us why on a point by point basis.

Your cable company is profiting by having those stations on, because without them many of their subscribers would opt for dish. I would be one of them. I chose cable because I can get most of the locals and regional sports nets.

So if you can justify that cable companies are profitting by being able to give more stations to their customers then you must admit that Sinclair is also proffiting by getting their signal out to more people. Even if it is via cable instead of OTA. More people means more advertising exposure. You act like Sinclair gets absolutely nothing out of this and that they are getting blatently ripped off. They are getting their signal out to thousands of more people for free !!! How can that be bad for anyone? Including myself, the cable company, and Sinclair........

Originally posted by spwace
Your cable company is profiting by having those stations on, because without them many of their subscribers would opt for dish.
Where you would be paying for them also.

Sinclair's HD signals are not on satellite either so what a cable sub gain by switching to satellite?

And when and if satellite start to carry HD LIL, guess what? Sinclair will ask more from satellite to pay for their HD too, just like they are to cable today, guess what will satellite's reaction be? Not too different I guess because so far DBS companies (both E* and D*) have not had to pay a fee to carry the HD networks on their satellites, only SD channels, which in turn the satellite subs have to pay $5.99 to view.

Originally posted by coomarlin
So if you can justify that cable companies are profitting by being able to give more stations to their customers then you must admit that Sinclair is also proffiting by getting their signal out to more people. Even if it is via cable instead of OTA. More people means more advertising exposure. You act like Sinclair gets absolutely nothing out of this and that they are getting blatently ripped off. They are getting their signal out to thousands of more people for free !!! How can that be bad for anyone? Including myself, the cable company, and Sinclair........

It's not you or I that determines the value of those "thousands more viewers". We may feel that Gillette giving away razors for free would be smart because of the profitable replacement blade business, but that's a decision that is left up to Gillette's marketing department and market forces.

Apparently Sinclair has determined that those extra viewers won't generate as much revenue as you think.

Originally posted by coomarlin
So if you can justify that cable companies are profitting by being able to give more stations to their customers then you must admit that Sinclair is also proffiting by getting their signal out to more people. Even if it is via cable instead of OTA. More people means more advertising exposure. You act like Sinclair gets absolutely nothing out of this and that they are getting blatently ripped off. They are getting their signal out to thousands of more people for free !!! How can that be bad for anyone? Including myself, the cable company, and Sinclair........

Broadcasters laid out millions to put those digital signals on the air and have not gotten any of that investment back. No advertiser pays a premium for digital carriage and those viewers are not counted in the ratings so increasing the number of viewers (at least for the time being) doesn't help the station at all.

Originally posted by spwace
Broadcasters laid out millions to put those digital signals on the air and have not gotten any of that investment back. No advertiser pays a premium for digital carriage and those viewers are not counted in the ratings so increasing the number of viewers (at least for the time being) doesn't help the station at all.

Obviously other station owners felt it would be worth it to put their HD signals on cable, in spite of the millions they spent. Either they don't feel that the cable companies should help pay for their investment, or they were able to work out what they felt was a fair deal, or they are already preparing for the day when "increasing the number of viewers" does help them. The question is, what is Sinclair asking for that the others didn't? Whatever it is, they aren't likely to get it, because everybody else would want the same deal.

Originally posted by Marcus Carr
...The question is, what is Sinclair asking for that the others didn't? Whatever it is, they aren't likely to get it, because everybody else would want the same deal.


With FOX having broadcast rights to MLB , World Series, NFL, and the Superbowl, I believe they hold some pretty powerful cards. After all, live sporting events look their best in HD. I wonder if there are some CBS broadcasting groups that are wishing they had the forethought to attempt what Sinclair is doing?

When Jerry Richardson came up with the idea of selling PSLs (a fee just for the right to buy season tickets) - nobody thought that it was practical. Nobody except the Panthers, and the NFL fans in Charlotte, who were more than willing to pay the fee. Since then, you could probably count on one hand the number of new major sports stadiums that were erected without PSLs attached.

I don't know if this will work out for Sinclair, but just because nobody else is doing it, doesn't mean that it is doomed for failure. I'd also bet that as existing contracts expire, you'll find quite a few other broadcasters joining Sinclair, Raycom, etc. in demanding higher fees for HD - unless this is resolved in the cable company's favor before then.

Originally posted by Marcus Carr
Obviously other station owners felt it would be worth it to put their HD signals on cable, in spite of the millions they spent. Either they don't feel that the cable companies should help pay for their investment, or they were able to work out what they felt was a fair deal, or they are already preparing for the day when "increasing the number of viewers" does help them. The question is, what is Sinclair asking for that the others didn't? Whatever it is, they aren't likely to get it, because everybody else would want the same deal.

Other ownership groups have gotten payment in kind for carriage rights. Many of the big groups also own cable networks and carriage of those networks comes into play when retransmission consent for the local channels is negotiated. For example Viacom might insist on carriage of MTV2 in exchange for the local stations, Disney would bring the lesser incarnations of ESPN into play and NBC might play the Universal card.

To the best of my knowledge, Sinclair doesn't have any cable nets so they are asking for cash to level the field.

Sinclair is crazy if they don't give a damn about increasing the amount of viewers that watch their stations. I've got 2 SD Fox affiliates on my cable system and you can bet your butt I am not watching the Sinclair owned one. If they would give me their HD signal I'd switch, but without it I'll watch the other one just out of spite :) Apparently they can do without me or any other viewers.

Originally posted by coomarlin
Sinclair is crazy if they don't give a damn about increasing the amount of viewers that watch their stations. I've got 2 SD Fox affiliates on my cable system and you can bet your butt I am not watching the Sinclair owned one. If they would give me their HD signal I'd switch, but without it I'll watch the other one just out of spite :) Apparently they can do without me or any other viewers.

I'm sure Sinclair does care about the size of their viewing public. However, for the greater good of the bottom line in the future, they will live with the publics hard feelings and unpopularity . I'm almost positive that Sinclair will get their way and be paid a fee per sub, and if they offered better programming on top of their contractual MLB and NFL schedule, They might get it sooner than later.

Originally posted by spwace
Broadcasters laid out millions to put those digital signals on the air and have not gotten any of that investment back. ... That's what's called a "sunk cost." They were required by law to upgrade to digital TV for their OTA signal. It should have no bearing on economic decisions going forward.

Look, Sinclair has a tough sell with many of us around here, because they have not been consumer-friendly at all. Sinclair entered the digital age kicking and screaming. They fought the transition long after it was well underway by more forward-thinking broadcasters. They threw up smokescreens about the 8VSB system, saying it was technically inferior, when their real motive was simply to not spend money to comply with the law. When they did go digital it was usually barebones minimum, with low power and a crappy 480i signal quality. At least for the Fox affiliates it was only when Fox mandated upgrades and helped the stations do it that they finally fell in line.

It's this past consumer-unfriendly behavior by Sinclair that merits them absolutely no sympathy among a large number of HD enthusiasts. They have no "good will" equity with me, to the point that I favor the cable companies (and that isn't easy for me to do) in this struggle.

As I said before, I have no problem with the concept of individual broadcasters getting paid a fair amount for the retransmission of their signals, but only if I get to choose all the stations I want to pay for (a la carte cable). Unfortunately, that is not the system we have now. Every time new channels are added we are asked to pay more, whether we want them or not. Thus, our cable bills are too high and I have no tolerance for additional fees for one station when its competitors aren't demanding the same.

Maybe a selfish view, but all politics are local.

I'm surprised nobody has already posted this article from today's Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031780546003&path=!sports&s=1045855934844

Note the opinion of the anonymous "source", which I have emphasized in bold below. I would not be as optimistic as the "source" if I lived in a Sinclair area, but anything is possible.

RADIO/TELEVISION: HD viewers: Super Bowl snubbing?

JERRY LINDQUIST
POINT OF VIEW

Jan 31, 2005


Super Bowl XXXIX is less than a week away, and there are some very angry people who have invested a lot of money in high-definition sets but won't be able to see the game in hi-def.

That is, unless local cable provider Comcast can settle its differences with the Sinclair Group, which owns local Fox affiliate WRLH-35.

The dispute between Comcast and Sinclair is about stations' right to charge for retransmission of their digital signals. Sinclair, one of the largest independent owners of television outlets in the country, reportedly is asking cable systems for 50 cents per subscriber per month. The fee, Sinclair told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, will offset costs of $1 million spent to provide high-definition technology at each of its 62 stations.

Until late last week, none of the cable companies in 20 markets nationwide with Sinclair-owned Fox affiliates had agreed to the fee. A breakthrough, of sorts, came in western Pennsylvania, where Armstrong Cable, serving about 125,000 homes, and Sinclair (WPGH Fox-35) reached an agreement. This did not, however, cover the major metro viewing area in Pittsburgh, which is serviced by Comcast.

While negotiations have been on the corporate level, local Comcast operators are waiting, you might say anxiously, for a resolution. In the meantime, they have to be careful what they say, mindful Big Brother at the Philadelphia headquarters is watching.

"Comcast deals with hundreds of stations across the country. There are dozens of ownership groups that we have high-definition agreements with," said Kirby Brooks, who runs the local Comcast operation. "In Richmond, we have ABC, NBC and now CBS. We have made proposals to Sinclair that is consistent with what we've offered to - and has been accepted by - stations here and throughout the country. We have to be consistent."

Comcast and Raycom, which owns local CBS affiliate WTVR-6, settled their differences over hi-def transmission about a month ago.

With the Super Bowl a must-see in most homes, Sinclair presumably has a welcomed, if temporary, bargaining chip with the cable companies who will take the brunt of - if not all - the criticism from irate hi-def set owners. Then again, local station owners risk losing revenue from advertising by not having their signals on cable.

"The biggest sporting party of the year . . . and unfortunately Fox has the rights. Why do they and Comcast want to anger their customers?" a local viewer wrote (in part). "Is there any government agency that has some influence?"

There is another way to get the game in high-definition, but it means buying an antenna (cheap) and tuner ($250-$300) in addition to spending several thousand dollars for the set - if it doesn't come equipped with an HD receiver. Most apparently don't.

And that setup doesn't necessarily guarantee HD clarity based on your location from the over-the-air feed. Even satellite dish owners, we're told, have to petition the provider to get the networks in HD.

So, who are we talking about here, how many Richmond-area Comcast subscribers have hi-def sets? Brooks estimates about 5 percent of his 230,000-plus. Nationally, the figure is said to be closer to 10 percent of this country's TV households.

Brooks can't say it, but another source says there's a good chance the impasse between Comcast and Sinclair will be resolved in time for the Super Bowl.

"We've got Channel 213 ready in the event there's an agreement," Brooks said.Emphasis added.

Article in the Buffalo News:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050203/1063632.asp

The more and more I dwell on this the more and more I hope that the cable companies don't give in and pay Sinclair. Even at my own expense. I'd love to have Fox HD but considering how Sinclair has been through this whole ordeal and considering their past lack of customer concern I really hope they don't get anything. I'll watch my other SD fox affiliate and enjoy all of Sinclairs competition in HD.

Article in the Daily Oklahoman:

http://newsok.com/article/1416006/?template=sports/main

How can I read it without registering?

Gary -- You can't read it without registering but registration is free.

Although I think that the author of the piece, Mel Bracht, is a good reporter, I was disappointed with this story.

Mel failed to point out what to me is the key issue in the debate between Sinclair and the cable systems: if the cable systems pay Sinclair for its HD transmissions, they will have to start paying all the other local stations for signals that they now receive free of charge.

Mel also repeated Sinclair's silly claim that Cox OKC would be "essentially reselling Sinclair's signal" by retransmitting it. That argument, conveniently ignores that Sinclair's signal is already free for the taking over the air and Cox's retransmission of it would be at least as beneficial to Sinclair as it would be to Cox.

Originally posted by gwsat
Gary -- You can't read it without registering but registration is free.

Although I think that the author of the piece, Mel Bracht, is a good reporter, I was disappointed with this story.

Mel failed to point out what to me is the key issue in the debate between Sinclair and the cable systems: if the cable systems pay Sinclair for its HD transmissions, they will have to start paying all the other local stations for signals that they now receive free of charge.

Mel also repeated Sinclair's silly claim that Cox OKC would be "essentially reselling Sinclair's signal" by retransmitting it. That argument, conveniently ignores that Sinclair's signal is already free for the taking over the air and Cox's retransmission of it would be at least as beneficial to Sinclair as it would be to Cox.

That argument was addressed earlier in this thread, it is Sinclair's responsibility to decide what does or does not benefit them financially. Not yours, not mine and not the governments. If they make the wrong choice they will suffer the consequences. It's a business.

Sinclair has made the wrong choice on several previous occasions. Their business and stock performance have suffered. But Sinclair management remains unrepentant and public service continues to be a low priority despite their hypocritical "Free HDTV" campaign.

The Buffalo story linked above mentioned the "favored nation" clauses dictating that any deal negotiated with one local network affiliate will be passed on to others. That means if Sinclair's grab for 50 cents per subscriber -- including the ones who don't even get their digital signal -- is successful, we'll all see our cable bills go up substantially.

Count me among the majority who feel uncomfortable rooting for the robber barons at Comcast. This is definitely a case of choosing the lesser of two evils.

This whole thing smells a bit like the chicken or the egg. I can envision a world where the cable/sat companies charge networks for delivering their signal to a larger audience. What would all these cable networks do for income if the cable/sat providers just pulled the plug on them?

As for the big boys, I doubt the major broadcast networks would allow their affiliates to do something that would cause the cable companies to pull the plug on their signal. That would mean the loss of millions of viewers in most large or even middle size markets.

It is all about greed. Folks like Sinclair are trying to charge for their feeds because they think they can get it. Now if the cable/sat folks got together and could decide they simply won't distribute their broadcast (period) they will be singing a different song.

This model already exists to some extent. Look at the internet. For the most part content is free, and paid for by advertisers, you pay for the bandwidth. This is the way early cable was in the sense that the real pay services were advertisement free, and cost for just network feeds were negligible.

Now we have all these crappy cable networks who think their commercial littered reruns are worth subscribers paying money for this content... And the cable companies agree (I guess because they are of the mindset "whoever has the most channels wins"), and my cable bill is $60/month! Even worse, say one of these cable networks actually has a channel worth watching, then they extort the cable companies into taking so much other crap in order to carry the one good channel.

If the cable/sat companies just wise up we could see a return to the concept that without delivery to viewers, there is no revenue generated by the content and all the crappy little cable networks instantly go under.

Hmmm... I kind of like the sound of that! I watch less than 10 channels. I have to pay for a - I don't really know - maybe a 100 channel package to get these nine channels. God, its even a pain having to scroll through all the crap I don't watch in the guide! All the 91 other crappy little networks need to to be free or have their plug pulled from my wire.

Just a pipe dream as when the government and the lawyers get involved, they'll screw it up worse than it is now.

Absolutely it's a business and Sinclair has every right to do what it's doing. But the same argument applies equally to the cable companies, so it bears no relevance to whether one side is 'right' or 'wrong'.

Gwsat's main point was that if Sinclair gets paid cash for HD retransmission, then so will every other affiliate that opts for retransmission consent because a precedent will be set. And then everyone's cable bill will go up by a corresponding amount.

So the question is, will the television viewer/consumer understand that Sinclair is taking a position that will take more money out of their pockets? If consumers understand this, Sinclair will lose the public relations battle.

If the cable companies wait Sinclair out, Sinclair will lose considerable advertising revenue. Even though Sinclair would want every cable customer to defect to satellite because a cable company doesn't carry Sinclair's signal(s), that ain't gonna happen. Yes, a substantial percentage will defect, but not enough to make the cable companies back down-- at least the major ones like Comcast, Time Warner and Cox. And the end result will be: major declines in Nielsen ratings for Sinclair and consequent major declines in advertising revenues. Which equals reduced profits and a major drop in the value of stock. Which equals trouble for the board of directors and executives.

So Sinclair's scenario is a "loss-loss" one for them and cable providers. Sinclair loses big time and the cable providers lose also, and Sinclair is hoping the cable providers will cave in because of their losses before Sinclair will cave in because of its losses. So, who is more financially capable of withstanding a war of attrition-- Sinclair or Comcast? We all know the answer.

But Sinclair could have a win-win situation instead ... it has more negotiating power now with the Super Bowl on Fox this year and has more bargaining leverage while it is still in good financial shape-- not yet desperate for any cable deal whatsoever to stem the inevitable drop in the value of its shares.

Too bad Sinclair can't recognize the current opportunity for a "win-win" versus the huge risk of a future "lose-lose."

Originally posted by spwace
That argument was addressed earlier in this thread, it is Sinclair's responsibility to decide what does or does not benefit them financially. Not yours, not mine and not the governments. If they make the wrong choice they will suffer the consequences. It's a business.

It's a good idea not to confuse doing what is one's right with doing what is smart. Of course Sinclair has a right to insist that cable companies pay for the priviliege of retransmitting its HD trasmissions. That doesn't make its decision smart, however.

Cable will cave now or later (when D* starts HD LILs) - as long as there is no real loss of revenue because of the fewer viewers reached, Sinclair has no reason to bend. If it does reach the point where they are losing advertising revenue, I think before you see them give away their signal for free, you'll see a USDTV type of push among local broadcasters.

Actually, I don't think HD LIL will be as much of a factor because Sinclair will be going for the whole enchilada when October 1st rolls around-- it wants to be be paid for BOTH analog and digital signals. So the analog signals will get pulled from cable lineups starting on January 1, 2006 if all goes according to Sinclair's plan. Since HD penetration is still relatively low, the pulling of analog signals will be much bigger news-- and have much bigger monetary impact-- than will Sinclair's HD signals being available via D*.

Also, I don't think we will see any Sinclair HD on satellite in 2005, since there is no Sinclair station in the first 12 markets announced by D*, AFAIR.

Originally posted by SonomaSearcher
Also, I don't think we will see any Sinclair HD on satellite in 2005, since there is no Sinclair station in the first 12 markets announced by D*, AFAIR.

The largest market Sinclair has a station in is Minneapolis/St.Paul, #14, and it's a WB affiliate.

Article in the Des Moines Register:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050204/ENT05/502040417/1046/ENT

Sinclair's approach is interesting, but self-defeating. For instance, in Howard and Harford Counties MD the SD Fox channel is Sinclair's out of Baltimore, but the digital HD channel is out of DC. (Baltimore and Baltimore County are out of luck.) Digtial upconverted gives a better picture with SD as well.
So which Fox channel do you think Comcast HD viewers in those counties will watch, even if the show itself is in SD? That's a big potential local advertising loss.

But Sinclair doesn't care, and so we miss out. Oh, well....

Rich N.

Originally posted by raidbuck
Sinclair's approach is interesting, but self-defeating. For instance, in Howard and Harford Counties MD the SD Fox channel is Sinclair's out of Baltimore, but the digital HD channel is out of DC. (Baltimore and Baltimore County are out of luck.) Digtial upconverted gives a better picture with SD as well.
So which Fox channel do you think Comcast HD viewers in those counties will watch, even if the show itself is in SD? That's a big potential local advertising loss.

But Sinclair doesn't care, and so we miss out. Oh, well....

Rich N.

First, there is no advertising loss, because advertisers are not charged for digital carriage. Second, the HD viewership still represents a very small percentage of the total audience. I'm sure the suits at Sinclair have evaluated the short term risk against the potential long term gain.

Originally posted by spwace
First, there is no advertising loss, because advertisers are not charged for digital carriage. Second, the HD viewership still represents a very small percentage of the total audience. I'm sure the suits at Sinclair have evaluated the short term risk against the potential long term gain.

There is advertiser loss, whether they know it or not.

Consider: If you can choose between watching two affiliates, you'd probably watch your local affiliate, all other things being equal. But if another affiliate offers the game in HD and your local affiliate doesn't, that means that the local affiliate loses a viewer.

Maybe the people buying advertising time aren't smart enough this year to pick up on that and correct their buying rates for it, but you can bet that as time goes on, they'll figure it out.

Yes, HD is a small percentage right now. Also the most lucrative. They're the people who buy big-ticket items, who are up-to-date on technology, and like to have the latest and greatest. When it comes to soap, that might not matter. But when it comes to selling them a new car, you can bet it does. And that percentage is only going to grow, whether Sinclair wants it to or not.

Eventually, I believe Sinclair will cave, but probably not before a lot of people get very, very upset at missing multiple Super Bowls in HD.

Originally posted by sregener
There is advertiser loss, whether they know it or not.

Consider: If you can choose between watching two affiliates, you'd probably watch your local affiliate, all other things being equal. But if another affiliate offers the game in HD and your local affiliate doesn't, that means that the local affiliate loses a viewer.

So does the affiliate with the game in HD. Nielsen only counts analog viewers, so if a viewer watches your digital instead of your analog channel, your viewership drops.

Maybe the people buying advertising time aren't smart enough this year to pick up on that and correct their buying rates for it, but you can bet that as time goes on, they'll figure it out.

Advertising people know exactly what they are doing, they are trying to reach the largest number of people with their message. At this point in time, HD does not help them do that.

Yes, HD is a small percentage right now. Also the most lucrative. They're the people who buy big-ticket items, who are up-to-date on technology, and like to have the latest and greatest. When it comes to soap, that might not matter. But when it comes to selling them a new car, you can bet it does. And that percentage is only going to grow, whether Sinclair wants it to or not.

HD is not lucrative, it is still a money pit for broadcasters. It will become profitable when the number of viewers increases and those viewers count in the ratings. I'm sure Sinclair is keeping their eye on those numbers and they are trying to leverage the cable companies now when the cable companies have more to lose than Sinclair does.

Eventually, I believe Sinclair will cave, but probably not before a lot of people get very, very upset at missing multiple Super Bowls in HD.

And Sinclair is betting that the cable companies are going to take the blame for those missed Super Bowls.

Well, looks like my hope for an 11th hour miracle isn't going to come true. I was hoping something would be resolved to allow us on Comcast to get Sinclair's Fox HD channel. Looks like no dice.

Meanwhile, Sinclair: Why don't you do us a favor and stop putting that asinine banner on the bottom of the screen on your analog channels telling us that the program is available FREE over the air? Anybody who has a clue what you're talking about already knows, and it only confuses the uninformed. Honestly, us cable HD folks are already upset that we have to watch programs like 24 on your crappy analog channel. Do you really need to degrade our viewing experience even further by constantly reminding us with more screen pollution?

Originally posted by hondo21
Meanwhile, Sinclair: Why don't you do us a favor and stop putting that asinine banner on the bottom of the screen on your analog channels telling us that the program is available FREE over the air? Anybody who has a clue what you're talking about already knows, and it only confuses the uninformed.

I think they are probably targeting the uninformed. The informed have either grabbed an antenna already (and are watching the digital channel) or have decided that their HD channel isn't worth getting.

What's asinine is saying channel 43 (or whatever it happens to be) causing people to either receive static on their SD TV OTA, or switching to some other cable channel.

Comcast and Sinclair have reached and agreement to broadcast WTAT-HD in the Charleston, SC area. Now it is currently carried by Comcast and Knology, unfortunately im on Time Warner.

Here's the post from the Charleston thread:

Originally posted by fbtcu
!!!ATTENTION COMCAST HD CUSTOMERS!!!


Comcast is pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement with Sinclair Broadcasting that allows us to carry WTAT HD.


Our engineers are working with WTAT's as we speak to get the channel up and running as soon as possible.

WTATHD will be located on Comcast Channel 183.

Frank Thomas
Comcast Cable

Well now...that's verrrrrry interesting!

CPanther95

Since these negotiations were at the corporate level, the Charleston area could not have negotiated their own settlement.

May I surmise that this is a national agreement?

Surmise all you want - all I know is what was posted re: Charleston.

It would surprise me that Charleston Comcast has the autonomy to negotiate their own deal, and it would equally surprise me if Sinclair settled on some figure in the relatively small market of Charleston that they weren't willing to accept from the larger markets.

But it could just as easily be something to do with local laws or something stupid like the Sinclair CEO and Comcast CEO have a vacation home there and agreed to make an isolated deal - who knows......

Nashville's WZTV is on Comcast as of the last hour (Sinclair-owned Fox affiliate). Unbelievable!

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050204/phf025_1.html

The deelio!

Originally posted by spwace
Nielsen only counts analog viewers, so if a viewer watches your digital instead of your analog channel, your viewership drops.

Well in my case I have 2 fox affiliates to watch in SD. And I can garauntee you it won't be the Sinclair station. So effectively I and others like me are hurting Sinclairs "Analog" Neilson ratings by watching a non-sinclair affiliate. I will not go anywhere near Sinclair's SD station because of antics.

The agreement covers Sinclair Fox stations in six cities, including my local affliate WRLH in Richmond, VA. Sinclair said in a statement it's a "short-term" agreement that only applies to the Super Bowl, but they are still negotiating a long term agreement and hope to have it in place in a few weeks. That would likely mean the Daytona 500 will also be in HD on Sinclair.

They didn't say who paid what, but it looks like good news for football fans in Sinclair land.

i called our local comcast office and they said its permanent. i asked about rate increases, they said they didnt know but they suspect there will be none since they didnt get a heads up

Nothing in the press release says that it is only for the SB. The agreement is "in principle" and should be formalized over the next couple of weeks. Probably for the normal duration, whatever that is (3 years?)

Wow. Guess I spoke just a tad too soon above. I'll be looking for it. Hope there are no technical glitches for the big game.

Congrats to Comcast and Sinclair if this holds true. I just hope I don't have to pay more than I already do for cable.

Thanks. Don't hear that too often ;)

Originally posted by hondo21
Wow. Guess I spoke just a tad too soon above. I'll be looking for it. Hope there are no technical glitches for the big game.

Congrats to Comcast and Sinclair if this holds true. I just hope I don't have to pay more than I already do for cable.

Convenient timing, Mark. ;)

Has anyone heard anything new on any progress that Time Warner and Sinclair may be having ?

Originally posted by leewcraft
Nashville's WZTV is on Comcast as of the last hour (Sinclair-owned Fox affiliate). Unbelievable!

Confimed. Now all we need is the WB and UPN affiliates they own/operate in this market too.

Comcast caved last year to CBS Viacom right before the SuperBowl. Guess they did it again. Still the customers win. :D

Forgive me for shouting, but...

FOX45 HD IS ON COMCAST IN BALTIMORE CITY!

It better be. This is Sinclair's home territory.

Here's the official statement:

http://www.sbgi.net/misc/comcast_digital.pdf

"Carriage of the FOX digital signals should begin immediately in the following Comcast markets: Baltimore (WBFF-TV), Pittsburgh (WPGH-TV), Nashville (WZTVTV), Richmond (WRLH-TV), Charleston, SC (WTAT-TV), and Paducah, KY (KBSITV)."

We got Fox here in Pittsburgh too! I'm off to Jacksonville tomorrow, but I hope when I get back I'll have a Philly victory DVR'd in HD. Thanks to Comcast and Sinclair!

Eagles fan

Originally posted by Sevenfeet
Confimed. Now all we need is the WB and UPN affiliates they own/operate in this market too.

Same here with WB in Baltimore.

Originally posted by CycloneGT
Comcast caved last year to CBS Viacom right before the SuperBowl. Guess they did it again. Still the customers win. :D


?? i'm pretty syre comcast had CBS before last january. I remember watching games in HD on CBS that december.

Originally posted by CycloneGT
Comcast caved last year to CBS Viacom right before the SuperBowl. Guess they did it again. Still the customers win. :D

Where did it say Comcast agreed to pay $0.50? From Sinclair's own statement the deal is not final, which indicated to me Sinclair did not get what they asked for and they still want to work on it more, or else the deal would have been final.

But of course I am happy for those poor Superbowl cable HD souls.

They're talking about CBS owned and operated stations. We got CBS before that in Nashville because they were an independently-owned station who negotiated their own carriage deal with Comcast.

If they agreed in principle, then they've basically agreed on the amount - we just don't know at what price.

Originally posted by Ou8thisSN
?? i'm pretty syre comcast had CBS before last january. I remember watching games in HD on CBS that december.

I believe it was Dec 22nd when CBS started.

I hope they get a final agreement with Sinclair for carriage. I really wanted Fox for baseball since I'm sure they will be showing some?many?all? Saturday games in HD, plus the playoffs, plus NFL etc.

This is great!

Rich N.

What I really wanted was NASCAR!

I'm going to check out every HD show on FOX this week.

Great for you Comcast guys. Congrats. Now if if they would only agree to terms with Adelphia. :(

It did not state that...

a quote is:

"Our policy requiring compensation in some form has not changed," said Barry Faber, Sinclair vice president and general counsel.

Balt. Sun Article (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-sp.hdtv05feb05,1,4731203.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines)

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Where did it say Comcast agreed to pay $0.50? From Sinclair's own statement the deal is not final, which indicated to me Sinclair did not get what they asked for and they still want to work on it more, or else the deal would have been final.

But of course I am happy for those poor Superbowl cable HD souls.

Any word on an agreement between Time Warner and Sinclair ?

Originally posted by MisterDTV
It did not state that...

a quote is:

"Our policy requiring compensation in some form has not changed," said Barry Faber, Sinclair vice president and general counsel.

Balt. Sun Article (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-sp.hdtv05feb05,1,4731203.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines)

Sure 0.05 is compensation too. Comcast never said they totally reject the idea of compensation, just not giving Sinclair special treatment.

This much we know is Comcast is not going to raise price because of the deal, so the compensation can't be too great or else, you know how cables are. Allowing Comcast to insert some commercials on Sinclair stations can be a very reasonable request in exchange for the compensation for example.

At least we finally agree on some thing, we all consider this good news.

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Sure 0.05 is compensation too. Comcast never said they totally reject the idea of compensation, just not giving Sinclair special treatment.



Exactly, and "compensation in some form" is considerably different than 0.50 per sub cash. It appears Comcast stuck to their guns and Sinclair was the first one to blink.

Yeh, right ;)

Originally posted by keenan
Exactly, and "compensation in some form" is considerably different than 0.50 per sub cash. It appears Comcast stuck to their guns and Sinclair was the first one to blink.

In someone elses court...no word...

Originally posted by shuttermaker
Any word on an agreement between Time Warner and Sinclair ?

Originally posted by MisterDTV
Yeh, right ;)

I knew that would get a response..:)

Unless someone spills the beans we can only assume what would be logical..going from "0.50 a sub" to "some form of compensation" indicates a change in Sinclair's position...;)

As long as Comcast does not raise my fee, MisterDTV can brag as much as he wants, I am happy that you are happy.

Well, there we're probably negotiations and both parties seem to have worked something out. That's great for everyone...Comcast and Sinclair. Who knows who got the "better" deal, but more importantly, they both got a deal they could live with. Sinclair probably moved some, and so did Comcast, isn't that what reading the statement suggest?

So what does this mean for the other Sinclair stations.

Will we in the Sacramento area get KOVR (our CBS affiliate which is currently owned by Sinclair) in HD on Comcast BEFORE Viacom takes over the station?

No doubt it was my email to Sinclair that brought about these successful negotiations.;)

I'm curious what the "long term" framework that they agreed upon with Comcast includes that apparently the other cable companies are resistant to. Sub-channel carriage?

Originally posted by Marcus Carr
No doubt it was my email to Sinclair that brought about these successful negotiations.;)

On behalf of everyone at AVS forum, our sincere thanks and appreciation Marcus ...we couldn't have done it without you ...;)

Hopefully the boys at Sinclair and Comcast won't try and take all the credit...

Originally posted by CPanther95
If they agreed in principle, then they've basically agreed on the amount - we just don't know at what price. I guarantee you Comcast is not paying cash for Sinclair's HD signals. Both sides will probably remain mum about it, so we may never know for sure.

No doubt, Comcast agreed to carry both Sinclair's analog and digital signals through at least 12/31/2008, maybe longer. Comcast also probably agreed to some sort of multicasting carriage-- a digital sub-channel or two that Sinclair has not launched yet but plans to sell advertising on, thus making money off of Comcast that way.

Comcast also surely agreed to the traditional advertising buy/exchange/sell that has always occured in all retransmission consent deals, and probably at advertising rates that are increased beyond what Comcast currently buys/exchanges for Sinclair's analog channels.

There likely is a side deal regarding VOD which may or may not involve a little cash.

But anyone who understands the cable industry and Comcast knows that Comcast is not agreeing to pay cash for Sinclair's HD signal. ;)

Originally posted by MisterDTV
"Our policy requiring compensation in some form has not changed," said Barry Faber, Sinclair vice president and general counsel.Now I have just read this quote. This proves to me that Comcast did not pay cash.

"Compensation in some form" has always occurred for analog signals in the form of advertising buys. So what we have here = increased advertsing buys, multicast carriage, VOD rights, but definitely not cash compensation.

Originally posted by SonomaSearcher
Now I have just read this quote. This proves to me that Comcast did not pay cash.

"Compensation in some form" has always occurred for analog signals in the form of advertising buys. So what we have here = increased advertsing buys, multicast carriage, VOD rights, but definitely not cash compensation.

Exactly, Sinclair blinked, plain and simple. Comcast was the 800lb gorilla in this negotiation, Sinclair needs Comcast far more than Comcast needs Sinclair.

I am sure that it was MY email and not Marcus where I referred to SINclair as greedy scum that really moved this deal.

FOX HD working in Nashville Comcast on 183!

Looking for info on other Sinclair related stations, namely UPN.

I still contend that how can you force a Cable Franchise to carry any local OTA station and then not regulate any associated fee imposed by that station.

I smell some MisterDTV baiting going on - unfortunately, I doubt he's gonna fall for it. ;)

You guys are just gonna have to wait for the next stalemate where the cable company releases what Sinclair is asking for that the other affiliates do not, and Sinclair's response saying it is no different than what Comcast is doing - then you'll find out the real skinny.

If Sinclair ain't talkin' publicly now about the terms it's getting from Comcast, it ain't gonna talk just to put pressure on other cable companies in the future.

Sinclair was smart to do the deal now, because its leverage would have dropped dramatically after the Super Bowl.

Sinclair also is surely requiring Comcast not to disclose the terms of the deal, so Sinclair can continue to push for cash from smaller cable companies. Just because Sinclair didn't get cash for HD from Comcast doesn't mean it can't get it from lesser cable companies. ;)

Maybe one of the industry publications will do an article quoting an anonymous source who will describe the basic terms of the deal.

i dont buy somosearcher's argument. if all that you are saying is true, comcast could have done so at the beginning of the initial launch of FoxHD back in like september. Why did it take like 5 months and the weekend before this game to get a deal together?

also, about sinclair wanting 50 cents per subscriber, as they had mentioned in their letter, does that mean 50 cents per HDTV sub or any sub? becuase as we all know less than 10% of all cable subscribers are HD, there would be hell to pay if comcast were to send out a letter to everyone saying you'd have to pay an additional 50 cents because some of our viewers have HDTV...

I guess I just dont understand the impetus for this deal? as many mentioned, becuase Neilsen ratings dont include HD, why would sinclair care one way or the other? I think Comcast would have more to lose than Sinclair, seeing as the cable subs would blame them for not providing the HD signal.

and as someone mentioned here, if Comcast never gives up money, what could cause sinclair to blink? they have nothing to lose here... Comcast does, and Comcast walks away with an agreement? i'm totally perplexed.

As I said, it comes down to advertising buys/sales, multicast carriage and VOD. Plain and simple. Comcast does not pay cash for broadcast network HD.

And has anyone heard of the term "most favored nation"? Let's say Comcast is agreeing to pay .25 per sub for each of those six stations's digital signals. That means it is also going to have to pay .25 per sub for the ABC, NBC, CBS and (where applicable) WB digital signals also. So that's $1.00 or more per sub.

Any of those ABC, NBC and CBS stations with a most favored nation clause in those markets should be able to look at the Comcast-Sinclair agreement when it is done to verify whether their most-favored nation clause kicks in. So that is another potential source for finding out what the terms of the agreement are.

VOD is free in our area, how would that benifit sinclair?? i mean anyone with a digital cable box can get VOD, and check it out. most of the stuff on there is free.

Re VOD, why don't you ask that same question about Comcast? If most VOD is free, then why does Comcast even bother with it?

Comcast loses money when it comes to VOD.

Why? Because Comcast views VOD as a churn reducer and even a marketing edge to gain new subscribers away from satellite and overbuilders. So Comcast pays money for VOD rights, which it turns around and gives free to digtial subscribers, because it figures that it helps keep those subscribers versus losing them to satellite.

Originally posted by Ou8thisSN
i dont buy somosearcher's argument. if all that you are saying is true, comcast could have done so at the beginning of the initial launch of FoxHD back in like september. Why did it take like 5 months and the weekend before this game to get a deal together?

also, about sinclair wanting 50 cents per subscriber, as they had mentioned in their letter, does that mean 50 cents per HDTV sub or any sub? becuase as we all know less than 10% of all cable subscribers are HD, there would be hell to pay if comcast were to send out a letter to everyone saying you'd have to pay an additional 50 cents because some of our viewers have HDTV...



Both sides were getting hammered by viewers and there was a fair amount of news coverage to stir the pot in affected cities. That still doesn't tell us who blinked.

But the one thing we do know was that Sinclair was demanding 50 cents per month for ALL Comcast subs, not just the ones currently receiving the digital and/or HD signals from other network affiliates. The fallout if they had gotten everything they were asking would have been huge as other stations and groups demanded the same.

We don't know for sure whether they got a little cash or none, but I do think it's safe to conclude Sinclair got nowhere near what they were seeking.

Originally posted by CPanther95
I smell some MisterDTV baiting going on - unfortunately, I doubt he's gonna fall for it. ;)



Well, we had to try...:D :p I at least got a squeak from him..:D

Originally posted by Ou8thisSN
and as someone mentioned here, if Comcast never gives up money, what could cause sinclair to blink? they have nothing to lose here... Comcast does, and Comcast walks away with an agreement? i'm totally perplexed.

"Stuff" rolls down hill, there have been numerous media articles about the non-carriage, advertisers see the articles, Sinclair may get grief from the advertisers, Sinclair shareholders get upset, Sinclair stock goes down, Sinclair's stock price is at almost half what it was a year ago, that's a huge pile of worth.

Even though HD advertising is not being tracked, the advertisers know that there is a growing group of viewers that are watching HD. A group that is a prime target for spending money whether they are being rated or not.

I'm just going to watch stock prices on Monday. If Comcast and Sinclair trade in directions opposite of the market, I plan on getting a hint on what happened from there.

Originally posted by j_buckingham80
I'm just going to watch stock prices on Monday. If Comcast and Sinclair trade in directions opposite of the market, I plan on getting a hint on what happened from there.

God help us all if a deal as insignificant as this in the scheme of a multi billion dollar business like cable, has an impact on stock prices.

I say to the deal parameters, who cares. I say 'gratz to both Comcast and Sinclair for getting this done for all of our benefit.

Regards,
GoIrish

Does FOX itself have any say in what other station owners do with their shows? Could they have put any kind of pressure on Sinclair and/or Comcast?

They couldn't put pressure on Comcast, maybe Sinclair, but I think it's highly unlikely such a thing happened.

I've always heard the affilate relationships allow sole decision making at the local market level as to how they choose to run their business.

No Cash, No Carry
Digital broadcasting reignites the fight over whether cable operators should pay to carry TV stations
By John M. Higgins and Bill McConnell Broadcasting & Cable 2/7/2005
The hot consumer-electronics product in Abilene, Texas, is a set of “rabbit ears,” the old-fashioned TV antennas that most viewers haven't used in years. But suddenly they're essential for Cox cable subscribers who want to watch the local NBC station, KRBC.

“We've been selling 40% more than normal,” says Thurman Richardson, manager of a local Radio Shack store. “People keep coming in.”

Richardson is profiting in part from Nexstar Broadcasting's fight with the local cable operator, Cox Communications. Tired of cable systems' refusing to pay cash for carrying its stations, Nexstar is demanding that they start paying 30¢ per subscriber monthly for the right to retransmit the signals.

Raising the stakes on Dec. 31, it pulled stations off Cox cable systems in Abilene and San Angelo, Texas, and The Washington Post Co.'s systems in Texarkana, Texas, and Joplin, Mo. Nexstar took an additional station off a Cox Louisiana system last Wednesday. As a result, more than 120,000 cable subscribers have lost their Nexstar NBC and CBS stations so far.

“We have to do this,” says Nexstar COO Duane Lammers about the fight with Cox. “This is about the survival of local television.” Unlike cable operators, over the past few years, DBS companies have paid 15¢-20¢ per subscriber monthly for local broadcast signals.

The scuffle is playing out across the country between local broadcasters, which want cash from cable systems carrying their signals, and cable operators, which don't want to pay. At the heart of the fight is a 1992 law that gives stations the right to attempt to negotiate payment or simply demand guaranteed carriage for free. Now, with technology advances promising new high-definition TV and digital channels, broadcasters think they have new leverage to get some cash for their content.

In Baltimore, Pittsburgh and 13 other cities, cable subscribers couldn't watch the Super Bowl in HD without using an antenna because of a fight between Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns the local Fox affiliate, and cable operators. The broadcaster, known for being outspoken, wants cable operators to pay 50¢ per subscriber monthly to carry its stations' HD signals.

Broadcasters are also looking for new payments for digital channels they plan to create as they make the transition from analog signals. Their hopes could be dashed, however, by an expected ruling this week that would hand cable tremendous leverage in carriage of digital broadcast programming. Broadcasters are hoping to delay the vote until after Chairman Michael Powell—who favors cable in this dispute—actually departs in March.

Many broadcasters cheer Nexstar executives on, but most see the odds as too long to join them. “We realize we're not in a strong position to negotiate,” says Young Broadcasting CFO James Morgan. Besides Nexstar and Sinclair, cable operators say Emmis and Media General demand cash for their digital stations.

But one major broadcaster may be reconsidering. Fox TV Stations Chairman Lachlan Murdoch wants his stations to start demanding cash instead of settling for carriage of Fox cable networks.

More here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=505874

Bad link...?

Originally posted by fredfa

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/editpost.php?s=&action=editpost&postid=5129189

Sorry. It is corrected now in the above thread. But it is:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=505874

No where did it say any one of the cable companies caved in, did it? If anything else, Cox wouldn't even give a penny. As a result people are buying rabbit ears, but the sale had only gone up 40%, so not much a pick up to me.

But going back to the HD locals issue, in many cases people will not even be able to get with rabbit ears because many of the Sinclair stations are still at low power, and DBS is not carrying HD LIL to give people an alternative, while D* has announced HD LILs, we don't know when it will bear any fruits, and even if they had begun today, how much will Sinclair charge D* vs. how much D* will want to pay, if you believe that D* doesn't want to charge their HD subs extra for HD LIL beyond the $5.99 SD LIL cost.

Why do people believe the broadcasters will have an upper hand in the HD locals negotiations, when they could not even get anywhere with SD locals when people actually can have OTA and DBS as their alternatives.

Anyone have any news about Sinclair and Time/Warner? I'm in Columbus and Sinclair owns FOX and ABC. I'm missing Alias and 24 and HD and not too happy about it!

Anyone think the agreement between Sinclair and Comcast will basically set the precident for all others? Hopefully soon...but I guess not soon enough to watch the Superbowl :(

The rest of the article:

FEAR OF PAYING CASH

Any money that broadcasters could secure would be pure profit. But cable operators fear that starting to pay cash to a few stations would open the floodgates, ultimately leaving them paying billions of dollars for the programming they already carry.

Right now, cable systems generally secure the signals of strong stations of, say, Fox or CBS parent Viacom by agreeing to launch cable networks. For broadcasters that don't own cable networks, cable systems agree to buy ad time on their stations. (“They're now top-10 advertisers in every market,” says Young's Morgan.)

But major operators have refused to simply pay for carriage. They complain that they will be faced with trying to recover those costs from their subscribers, whose rates already go up regularly, and will get blasted every time they raise rates.

Cable operators, known for raising rates excessively, now conveniently claim to be defending consumers. “It's really not us they're trying to extract money from,” says Cox Communications COO Pat Esser. “It's our customers.”

In the current fights, big cable operators may have an advantage. Cable systems in bigger markets have more leverage because broadcasters have more money at stake.

Small operators often are barely competitive with satellite TV and could be ruined if their local stations walked away from the negotiating table and were carried solely on EchoStar and DirecTV. “Rural operators feel broadcasters are putting the screws to them,” says one FCC staffer. “They have no negotiating power because the channels are must-have.”

When broadcasters won the right to charge for their signals in 1992, some of the major broadcast networks initially bragged that they would withhold their O&O stations unless cable paid as much as $1 per subscriber monthly. One by one, they folded their hands. ABC was first to drop its cash demand, settling instead for cable carriage of its then-new sports network ESPN2. Then NBC and Fox struck similar deals. CBS waited too long and got nothing. The new rule seemed to be: No cash, no carriage.

After a few years, negotiations got brutal, particularly a 1996 fight between Disney/ABC and Time Warner, which helped prompt Congress to require that broadcasters negotiate deals “in good faith,” meaning that stations could not refuse to negotiate and must provide reasons for turning down an operator's offers. The good-faith requirements were extended to cable and satellite operators last year.

TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT

Compared with other negotiations in the past few years, the Nexstar dispute is unusually fierce. There were practically no conversations between Nexstar and the cable companies leading up to a Dec. 31 deadline when the company dropped a last-minute demand: Pay 30¢ or go dark. “It came in as a take-it-or-leave-it,” says one Cox executive.

In all four markets, Nexstar runs commercials on its own stations and in local newspapers urging cable subscribers to switch to satellite TV. Cox and Cable One are blasting back with charges that Nexstar simply wants to increase their bills. In Joplin, Mo., Cable One isn't waiting for its subscribers to go to Radio Shack for antennas; the cable system has given away a few thousand pairs of rabbit ears to its customers.

Eager to exploit the dispute, DBS companies EchoStar and DirecTV are running their own ads and special promotions to steal customers. The companies claim their sales in Nexstar markets are picking up.

Says Nexstar's Lammers, “We know that thousands of people have cancelled their cable, thousands more are going to cancel their cable.” He could not, though, verify the number.

But the victory may be hollow: Nexstar is already losing precious advertising dollars. Even with a herd of rabbit ears, the broadcaster has likely lost many of the 60% of locals who were getting their broadcast stations via cable (sometimes far more clearly than with an antenna).

STRUGGLE TO KEEP ADVERTISERS

Advertisers say Nexstar stations immediately began offering 30% additional “bonus” spots to every order. That hasn't kept all the customers happy. Gary Grubb, who buys advertising for Abilene's largest car dealer, Lawrence Hall Chevrolet, has shifted about half his TV spending to other stations.

“I have reduced my budget with KRBC,” he says, “but I haven't completely excluded it. Our trade area covers a 45- to 50-mile area,” he adds. “There a lot of people who would receive KRBC anyway, via the old-fashioned way.”

Lammers insists that “our losses so far are far below what we thought.” He notes that there are plenty of non-cable homes in these markets and not every cable operator in a particular market is in the fight: “In Joplin, Mo., it affects just one out of eight homes.”

Cox and Nexstar finally met last Monday, but it didn't go very well. Two executives from Cox's Texas region and a lawyer from Cox's Atlanta base traveled to the broadcaster's suburban-Dallas headquarters.

During the meeting, Lammers waved a penny in the air, then laid it on a desk. To even start, the Cox executives had to acknowledge that Nexstar's stations were at least worth a penny. He told them, “If you agree to the concept, we'll give you the stations back right away. We know we'll get somewhere between 1¢ and 30.” He got to keep his penny.

A Cox spokesman characterized the meeting as “unproductive. We are hopeful that this is just the start of the dialogue.”

One big hurdle for broadcasters comes this week, when the FCC decides whether TV stations can demand that cable operators “must carry” each of the six or so digital channels that stations could offer. The conversion to digital broadcasting gives stations space in their slice of the spectrum to create new channels. NBC stations, for example, are launching local digital Weather Plus channels. In a digital world, the National Association of Broadcasters wants an operator to carry not just a station's primary video but whatever “multicast” channel it puts on. Cable operators don't want to be forced to surrender more real estate. Powell agrees with cable and is expected this week to push a rule declaring that broadcasters get only one slot unless they can negotiate a better deal.

The fight is so divisive that even executives inside the Cox family disagree. Cox Broadcasting President Andy Fisher visited Washington two weeks ago to ask FCC officials to delay a vote his cable cousin, Cox Communications President Jim Robbins, supports. In an FCC filing, the National Association of Broadcasters insists that Fisher was lobbying on its behalf “and not as a representative of Cox Television.” Emphasis added.

And a sidebar:*

How the Fight Started

The initial spark for the latest firestorm between TV stations and cable operators was ignited more than a decade ago, when station owners lobbied for safeguards in the 1992 Cable Consumer Protection Act.

For years, cable systems were allowed to simply carry broadcast signals for free, as they were, in effect, merely retransmitting a gratis, over-the-air service. But the 1992 law shifted new power to TV stations, creating two choices for cable operators to consider.

Under the first option, a TV station can simply demand that its local cable operator carry it on the basic or most popular expanded tier. If a station chooses this option, known as “must-carry,” the cable operator is required to add the station to its basic channel lineup but doesn't have to pay the owner a cent. Stations most likely to choose the must-carry option are ones whose loss would spur few cable customers to cancel their subscriptions, like Pax stations or independent UHF outlets featuring home shopping or televangelists.

The second option allows a stronger station to negotiate for compensation. No cable operator wants to go without the local NBC or CBS outlet, so broadcasters in 1992 believed they could make operators pay them fees the way they pay cable networks such as ESPN and MTV. They expected a river of cash to flow from cable systems into their stations, but it didn't work out that way.

Eight of ten stations chose to bargain for retransmission compensation when the first round of talks for three-year contracts opened in June 1993. But it soon became clear that broadcast networks and affiliate groups had very little leverage over big cable operators who vehemently vowed never to pay for broadcast signals. By then, 60% of American TV households subscribed to cable and no station could seriously threaten to withhold retransmission rights.

Cable homes, for the most part, no longer even had antennas. “We gave away this business when we let everyone take their antennas down,” says Jeff Smulyan, CEO of Emmis Broadcasting. “No one was focused on it.”

Major broadcasters quickly drafted business plans for new cable networks, bartering retransmission rights for carriage of the new channels. Fox formed FX; ABC created ESPN2; NBC created what eventually became MSNBC; Scripps Howard launched HGTV; and Tribune helped form the Food Network.

LIN Television and other station groups bargained for carriage of local weather and news channels. Other broadcasters won the right to sell ad time on cable or sell local news updates to CNN and Headline News.

CBS held out for cash, but it was too little, too late. As the Oct. 6, 1993, negotiation deadline drew near, then-Chairman Larry Tisch offered to start a cable channel in lieu of payment. But it was too late to come up with a programming idea compelling enough to attract enough cable systems to make the channel practical. Consequently, CBS penned a series of one-year deals allowing operators to carry its O&Os—and got nothing in return.—B.M. [Bill McConnell]

*Both this and the immediately preceding post contain quotes from the article excerpted by fredfa, above:

No Cash, No Carry

Digital broadcasting reignites the fight over whether cable operators should pay to carry TV stations

By John M. Higgins and Bill McConnell

Broadcasting & Cable

2/7/2005

per Legg Mason (one of Sinclair's investment bankers):

"While final terms are not available, we believe Sinclair likely received additional advertising from the cable company. "

Sounds like they capitulated, but why not to the other cable co's?

Originally posted by aldujaparov
per Legg Mason (one of Sinclair's investment bankers):

"While final terms are not available, we believe Sinclair likely received additional advertising from the cable company. "

Sounds like they capitulated, but why not to the other cable co's?

Only speculation but, sounds like the other cable companies arent willing to give a little to get a little. At least thats the way it appears from the viewpoint of this Time Warner sub.

quote <<CBS held out for cash, but it was too little, too late. As the Oct. 6, 1993, negotiation deadline drew near, then-Chairman Larry Tisch offered to start a cable channel in lieu of payment. But it was too late to come up with a programming idea compelling enough to attract enough cable systems to make the channel practical. Consequently, CBS penned a series of one-year deals allowing operators to carry its O&Os—and got nothing in return.>>

haha CBS sucks

Breaking news today by Multichannel News:

Comcast, Sinclair Near Digital, HDTV Deal

-----------------------------------------------------------

By Linda Moss

2/10/2005

5:27:00 PM [et]

Comcast Corp. and Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. are nailing down a long-term digital-HDTV-carriage deal that could serve as “a template” for the rest of the cable industry, an official at the broadcast company told analysts Thursday.

The nation’s largest MSO and Sinclair are in the process of finalizing an agreement in principle that they reached last week, which allowed Comcast to carry Super Bowl XXXIX in the six markets where the broadcaster owns or operates Fox affiliates: Baltimore; Pittsburgh; Nashville, Tenn.; Richmond, Va.; Charleston, N.C.; and Paducah, Ky.

During a fourth-quarter-earnings conference call Thursday, Sinclair CEO David Smith spoke in generalities when asked about the status of negotiations with Comcast.

“We made a short-term deal with them to be able to carry the Super Bowl because we believe they were clearly acting in good faith in an effort to construct a long-term deal with us, and my sense is that we should get that deal done,” Smith told analysts.

“I can’t tell you if it’s going to be in 20 minutes or 20 days,” he added. “But everybody’s working on it very hard and, in the end, if we do get it done, it will clearly be in Comcast’s best interest and our best interests.”

Both Smith and a Comcast spokeswoman declined to comment on whether or not the MSO will tender cash to carry Sinclair’s HDTV or digital signals.

“I’m just not going to comment on it … because I know Comcast’s sensitivity to disclosing these kinds of things and, certainly, it’s not in our best interest to disclose anything, given that we’ll be negotiating with 100 other cable companies -- systems -- in the next couple of years,” Smith said. “Actually, not in the next couple of years, it’ll be this year, because the retrans [retransmission-consent deals] end this year.”

Sinclair owns, operates or provides sales services to 62 TV stations in 39 markets.

“In the event that we do get a deal done with Comcast, my sense is that it will kind of lay the groundwork for every other cable company within our industry where we broadcast,” Smith said.

“My sense is that it’ll become somewhat of a template for other cable companies to look and say, ‘Well, if Comcast can do the following, then I guess we better be prepared to do the following, given that they’re the leader in the industry.’ So we’d like to get it done,” he added.

The Comcast spokeswoman said the digital-signal-carriage deal it is finalizing with Sinclair is comparable to the deals it has struck with other broadcasters.

During its conference call, Sinclair also voiced its support for Nexstar Broadcasting Group Inc., which has pulled the signals for several of its stations from Cox Communications Inc. and Cable One Inc. in a retransmission-consent dispute over cash for carriage.

“They deserve a lot of credit, and I hope they succeed,” Smith said. “I think [Nexstar president] Perry [Sook] is in a unique situation because he is using the opportunity that he has in small markets … In a three-station marketplace … it just seems to be that the consuming public’s view of the world is going to be, ‘If I can’t watch the basketball games on CBS or Desperate Housewives on ABC or whatever,’ they are not going to be deprived of that opportunity, and they will go where they have to go get it.”

He added that he’s heard some “staggering numbers” in terms of the defection of cable subscribers to direct-broadcast satellite in the markets where Nexstar pulled its signals.

“I don’t think that it really bodes well in the long term for the cable industry to want to do what they’re doing, from the standpoint of allowing these people to leave,” Smith said, “because once they leave, there’s no reason to come back.”

He welcomed the entrance of phone companies such as Verizon Communications and SBC Communications Inc. into the video business, pointing out that markets will have four direct competitors -- a cable company, a phone company and two DBS providers -- all offering TV services.

“We think in the long term, that’s a good thing for the industry to have four competitors who want our product, and I think that as those four competitors kind of carve up the marketplace, we’ve got to kind of stand in the middle and figure out how to take the best financial advantage of it that we can,” he added.Emphasis added.

Originally posted by SonomaSearcher
Breaking news today by Multichannel News:

Emphasis added.

Which really says it all..;)

yeah, thanks for the post but that added no new information. the guy was intentionally vague

Originally posted by Ou8thisSN
yeah, thanks for the post but that added no new information. the guy was intentionally vague

It did confirm that Sinclair did not get near the $0.50 they asked for, if any.

Sinclair is apparently negotiating with Comcast for multicasting of ALL of its stations.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21290/

I don't care about multicasting, but at least it indicates that they plan to put all of their network affiliates on cable, not just FOX stations. Hopefully that means I'll get WB HD in Baltimore.

Exactly as I thought. No cash, but Sinclair does get multicasting rights, i.e., bandwidth, in addition to the traditional advertising buys that the prospective deal almost certainly includes. This is nothing new for Comcast, as it agreed to multicasting or cable network carriage rights to get the "primary video", i.e., HD, digital retransmission rights for the O&O ABC (Disney) and CBS (Viacom) stations, for example.

That answers THAT question.

Originally posted by SonomaSearcher
Exactly as I thought. No cash, but Sinclair does get multicasting rights, i.e., bandwidth, in addition to the traditional advertising buys that the prospective deal almost certainly includes. This is nothing new for Comcast, as it agreed to multicasting or cable network carriage rights to get the "primary video", i.e., HD, digital retransmission rights for the O&O ABC (Disney) and CBS (Viacom) stations, for example.

The multicasting Sinclair talks about is different than what Comcast had agreed with ABC and CBS. In the case of ABC and CBS, Comcast agreed to "multicast" other cable channels produced by Disney and Viacom in exchange for the rights to carry their primary netwrok feeds.

Sinclair was asking Comcast to carry their digital multicasting channels, meaning a few SD or HD/SD broadcast channels stuffed in the single OTA band.

The question is why would Comcast allow that, when they fought so hard in the Congress and won FCC's nod not to be obligated to do digital multicasting, then set a precedent to potentially nollify the FCC's decision?

It is without question however that Sinclair did not get the $0.50 they asked for, and now are seeking alternatives at the table. But since they have already agreed with Comcast "in principle" to allow their FOX HD feeds on cable before Superbowl, I don't know what other demand they can make.

Pull the FOX HD Feeds in those markets off if not agreed by Comcast? Now that will really piss many viewers off and the fingers will be pointed at Sinclair if it should happen.

No, let's take ABC as an example. Comcast DID agree to give the ABC O&O's some digital multicast rights: we saw this in the form of the ABC News Now channel, weather/radar subchannel (in some markets) and other SD subchannels (for example, the current SD subchannel put out by KGO in the Bay Area that replaced ABC News Now-- which is NOT just an SD simulcast of the analog channel).

Comcast and the cable industry have never opposed putting multicast channels on cable, as long as the retransmission of multicast is the product of fair negotiations. It was "must carry" multicast rights that they opposed.

Originally posted by SonomaSearcher
No, let's take ABC as an example. Comcast DID agree to give the ABC O&O's some digital multicast rights: we saw this in the form of the ABC News Now channel, weather/radar subchannel (in some markets) and other SD subchannels (for example, the current SD subchannel put out by KGO in the Bay Area that replaced ABC News Now-- which is NOT just an SD simulcast of the analog channel).

Comcast and the cable industry have never opposed putting multicast channels on cable, as long as the retransmission of multicast is the product of fair negotiations. It was "must carry" multicast rights that they opposed.

My bad, I made such conclusion because Cocmast in Sacramento does not carry ABC weather or news subchannels. I did notice however they started to carry the lcoal PBS subchannels, so you are right they are not against simulcast. If this is the case I don't know what Sinclair was bragging about.

BTW a little off subject, I asked you a question in the HDTV recorder forum, do you know if the Sacramento Comcast is 850mhz or something less?

Ragarding Comcast and Disney, there was a split of opinion among the Comcast lawyers as to whether their deal with Disney included carrying subchannels. Many felt that it did not but the lawyers won the day and on they went. IT was felt that it was best not to fight it even though I sure would as the contract is basically silent on the issue. That weather radar channel is really helpful! There is no bigger waste of bandwidth anywhere on cable. The ABC affiliate here doesn't even have their own audio and puts the NOAA radion channel on it.

The key with Comcast (and most other cable companies, I think) accepting multicasting as part of a retransmission agreement is that Comcast wants to know what the other multicast channels are going to be. It's not going to accept "Whatever we, the station owner, want to squeeze into 19.3 Mbps" or "six infomericial/home shopping channels". Comcast wants to spell out exactly what the multicasting will be, or limit it to some finite universe of programming that its subscribers will value (news, sports, re-runs, syndicated talk shows, kids programming, etc.)

Take PBS stations for example. Comcast agrees to carry their multicasting in part because it knows what it is going to get: kids, cultural, news, other PBS programming-- no garbage stuff, infomercials, etc.

If that is the price to get HD carriage, then so be it, as long as the multicasting is programming that Comcast thinks its viewers will value-- the PBS multicasting being the perfect example.

To be clear, I am not supporting multicasting, especially to the extent it takes away from HD programming. However, what I have described is part of the reality of the situation, to the extent I understand it. Which may not be very well. :)

> Comcast wants to spell out exactly what the multicasting will be, or limit it to some finite universe of programming that its subscribers will value(news, sports, re-runs, syndicated talk shows, kids programming, etc.)

I'll note that such requirements could easily be spelled out in any sort of multicast must carry rule if the NAB hadn't been so intent on opposing any sort of public service requirement as a "quid pro quo" for getting multicast must carry. I'm a strong proponent of must carry rules in general, but tend to think that stations should have to carry some sort of programming other than infomercials or home shopping to be elgible for must carry -- and I'd extend that to the current analog stations.

As for Comcast and Sinclair -- I tend to doubt that Comcast cares all that much what Sinclair will put on those multicast channels. Making an agreement like this simply allows each side to save face, since Comcast can correctly note that it did not end up paying cash to carry the Sinclair stations, and Sinclair can claim that they got something of value from Comcast in the digital retransmission agreement.

Am I the only one who would have rather seen a $0.50 fee than an agreement that all but guarantees the local affiliate will be motivated to add a number of sub-channels?

Originally posted by CPanther95
Am I the only one who would have rather seen a $0.50 fee than an agreement that all but guarantees the local affiliate will be motivated to add a number of sub-channels?
$.50 per local? You might be at least in the minority.