I think I effectively used the correct language. For instance: "purportedly" and "speaking out of turn". I don't believe I used the word "gospel" or the language "written in stone".
I had heard, through the grapevine, that this was the principal issue. While contracts can be extremely verbose, it is possible that some kind of "boilerplate" was used to create the agreement, and some language may have been included (intentionally or otherwise). Simply put, this is what I understood. There may, in fact, be this language. Then again, there may not. There is also the possibility that what you mentioned has merit -- the other broadcasters may be holding out for compensation -- WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BY LAW. It is possible that the language in the contract between Cox and KAKE strongly favors KAKE's position. If KAKE were my company, I can assure you that I would do everything in my power to give myself the edge over my competition.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that subscribers to Cox Cable usually get the minimal amount of service that can be delivered cost effectively. It comes back to driving revenue for the stockholders. Don't expect KAKE or Cox (or anyone in business, for that matter) to give you something for free... even "free" broadcast TV has commercials.
Thanks for completely jumping off the handle, and assuming that everyone else that *might* read this thread is some kind of idiot. If you have something evidentiary that nullifies the issue that I have posed, then post it. Don't criticize it.