Really, a lot of people are frusterated with Sinclair, as though they have done something wrong. Really, they haven't...All the arguements come down to...everyone else gives away their signal for free to Cable, so Sinclair should too; that, just is not persuasive. Go look at www.myfreehdtv.com,
obviously, broadcasters think they have some incentive to move people away from Cable and Sat cos to OTA transmissions, I've already presented a couple (I think) good reasons for why this is so.
Look, if you want a bunch of other programming choices (Cable or Sat), and be offered the ability to fast forward through advertising (DVRs) one better be prepared to pay for programming. Because otherwise there's just a lot less ways to generate revenue. And coo, I have no interest in Sinclair, except that I used to be a cable customer and have since gone OTA only. Which is no more or less of an interest than, being a cable customer who doesn't want to see Comcast pay for programming on the broadcast affiliates.
As to the Networks selling their programming directly to cable, that may happen, but will the cable cos really benefit? At that point they really will be paying for Network programming, and you know what, the Network's could probably command much more than $.50, if, for example, ESPN is worth about $3/sub, one can imagine how much CBS would be.
And really as to blaming Sinclair, do they really look to be the baddies? They thought they had a deal with Comcast, tentatively allowed the Comcast to carry the biggest event of the year, but ultimately decided that Comcast wasn't being reasonable? What more can they do? Sinclair seemed to be incredibly reasonable esp. in allowing the Super Bowl on Comcast. Forbid that they should try to seek a good deal after allowing the SB on Comcast.