or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by 16x9rochester

Absolutely. ESPN sells ads, and also gets money from cable. For some unexplained reason, people think only ESPN (and dozens of others) gets that pie, while local stations can not. Strange. Beyond that, local broadcasters were happy to give their content away for years, but the intense competition from cable channels (who are actually getting paid by the cable company to help them be even more competitive) have forced local broadcasters to finally belly up to the bar....
You're not incorrect. While it's the most logical answer from the consumers point of view, who only want to pay for the portion of a product that interests them, it's not logical for the businesses bringing these products to market. That's like going to Epcot and only riding on Soarin' and Mission Space, and wanting an ala carte ticket price. Or going to a hotel and only using one bed, and not opening the soap, not using the wifi in the lobby and wanting an ala carta...
I would agree with that statement IF they had not extended this agreement. Obviously, that barrel isn't so firm, otherwise why continue talks that would result in TW paying more? As I said earler, Sinclair was aware of this TW/Fox agreement befoe they entered into this battle, so they probably have some reason to believe that it's not as much of a barrel as some may think, specifically because there is some speculation that the cost to TW for just 2 hours per day of...
How can they do anything with it if they don't have it? This doesn't make any sense. Or did you mean do without? If so, I'm perfectly willing to forgive that slight error. Although, the amount of paid programming on WUHF is very comparable to the amount on other locals, especially when comparing to how much time their network occupies per day. WUHF actually has to fill much more space than the big 3 affiliates, so their amount of PP is actually proportionately less. ...
The carefully written words you refer to were "network affilate" (see previous post) not the ones your petty attacks are picking at now, but nice deflection from... Why the question mark? Which facts weren't straight? Has this happened routinely in other places? Or ever? tumbleweeds..... Anyway, an extention. No surprise. Gotta love business.
Why the question mark? Sure, affiliates going dark for a while on cable has been happening for decades, but bringing in the network directly, almost as if a new long term solution, seems to be different. Maybe I wasn't clear that it's this aspect that seems different. Has this happened routinely in other places? Or ever?
Yes, I understand that you just believe broadcast channels should give their content away for free to others who will benifit from it....I'm just asking you WHY you believe that. Apparently not. But according to your logic, they get a pass anyway, but the broadcast stations do not. Sorry to hear about your situation...it's been tough on a lot of people the last few years. I don't think Sinclair or TW are greedy....stupid or arrogant, maybe. I don't think it's really...
Quote: Originally Posted by Racerbob I repeat what I said. I do not believe that TW and any other service provider should have to pay to be able to show programming from channels that I can receive from the antenna on my roof. It is all about GREED. Plain and simple. I am neither a supporter of Sinclair or Time Warner. BOTH enterprises are supported by advertising that is run on their systems. Also.. how many $$$$ millions does TW sink into their 24 hour...
I got my facts from the link you provded. Yes, it's an increase....that seems obvious otherwise there would not be a negotiation going on here....yes? Which facts are not straight? Please, maybe you should try and not make cheap generalizations like Fox News comparisons, especially with no basis. However your use of the word insanity once again shows your blind alligence to TW here. Reign it in? Really? Funny how D* and E* and other cable companies (acccording to the...
Philip is correct that many Sinclair stations run news "on the cheap" because most are 2nd or even 3rd tier network affiliates....meaning they are "on the cheap" because they are on Fox or even CW/MYTV stations. It's pretty tough to compete at local news with the big 3 in your market. That's why they eventually had to combine with WROC in Rochester to maintain a news operation. There's just not enough demand for a 4 or 5th local news choice that they can pump the same...
New Posts  All Forums: