Sinclair Cable Carriage - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 09:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SonomaSearcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 2,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You gotta love the misinformation that some of these guys are getting this naive reporter to include in her article, such as :

Quote:


"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.
SonomaSearcher is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SonomaSearcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 2,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
SonomaSearcher is offline  
post #93 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 87
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?
Gary J is offline  
post #94 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 10:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
agtiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cranberry Twp, PA
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
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.
agtiny is offline  
post #95 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 10:14 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 385
Quote:
Originally posted by SonomaSearcher
The more public knowledge about these issues,

Okay, I'll go back to bed, maybe my brain will wake up the same time my body does next time...
Keenan is offline  
post #96 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 10:18 AM
Senior Member
 
j_buckingham80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.

OTA Only since 2/05!
j_buckingham80 is offline  
post #97 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 10:24 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
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.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #98 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 10:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spwace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Colfax, CA
Posts: 3,760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 20
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]
spwace is offline  
post #99 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 10:35 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Threads merged.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #100 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 10:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
raidbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bel Air, MD
Posts: 1,638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
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.
raidbuck is offline  
post #101 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 01:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
agtiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cranberry Twp, PA
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
agtiny is offline  
post #102 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 01:27 PM
Senior Member
 
BlackwaterStout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
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.
BlackwaterStout is offline  
post #103 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 02:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
wstanko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canonsburg, PA (Steeler Country)
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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!
wstanko is offline  
post #104 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 02:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
agtiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cranberry Twp, PA
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
agtiny is offline  
post #105 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 02:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
agtiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cranberry Twp, PA
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
agtiny is offline  
post #106 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 03:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Is this the first Sinclair Fox HD channel on cable?
Gary J is offline  
post #107 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 03:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
agtiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cranberry Twp, PA
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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?
agtiny is offline  
post #108 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
shuttermaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Knology in the Charleston, SC area has FOX HD. Comcast and TWC in the same area do not.
shuttermaker is offline  
post #109 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 03:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
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?
Gary J is offline  
post #110 of 1851 Old 01-28-2005, 04:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
shuttermaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Yes, WTAT Fox24 is Sinclair owned.
shuttermaker is offline  
post #111 of 1851 Old 01-29-2005, 05:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
hondo21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Jeannette, PA
Posts: 824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about the Armstrong-Sinclair deal. Includes a Comcast statement.
hondo21 is offline  
post #112 of 1851 Old 01-29-2005, 06:45 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Is this a joke, or did he mean antenna ???

Quote:


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."

CPanther95 is offline  
post #113 of 1851 Old 01-29-2005, 06:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I guess he means TV with rabbit ears.
Gary J is offline  
post #114 of 1851 Old 01-29-2005, 07:29 AM
Senior Member
 
svtdougie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 280
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
WOO WOO. My Fox HD just showed up on Armstrong too last night. Superbowl here we come. Way to go Armstrong!!
svtdougie is offline  
post #115 of 1851 Old 01-29-2005, 07:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Adam Tyner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


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.
Adam Tyner is offline  
post #116 of 1851 Old 01-29-2005, 07:55 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
"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.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #117 of 1851 Old 01-29-2005, 08:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
wstanko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canonsburg, PA (Steeler Country)
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
wstanko is offline  
post #118 of 1851 Old 01-29-2005, 08:47 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:


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.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #119 of 1851 Old 01-29-2005, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spwace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Colfax, CA
Posts: 3,760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Nobody's obligated to provide you with anything. You have choices and you have made one.
spwace is offline  
post #120 of 1851 Old 01-29-2005, 08:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
wstanko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canonsburg, PA (Steeler Country)
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


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.
wstanko is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off