Dayton / Lima, OH - HDTV - Page 213

With all the issues they're having with their move, I suspect TVGOS is near the bottom of their priority list !

I'm still waiting for the friggen audio to return...

Ch.26 (over the air) sound quality seems to be improving. It doesn't sound like they are talking in a tunnel as much. Has anyone else noticed the sound improvement on ch.26 (over the air broadcast)?

Does anyone know who and how to contact WHIO about the EPG/TVGOS issue?

Thanks,
John

The station engineer at WHIO is Chuck Eastman.

I found this contact info in an earlier post:


The TVGOS is sorely missed!

Ken

Saw in the Dayton Daily News today that Time Warner has deals in place to replace the Sinclair locals currently under dispute with Cincinnati/Columbus locals. I don't have cable, but this would seem to be the perfect solution for Time Warner. Neither WKEF or WRGT carry any local programming other than the news, so no big loss for many viewers. Plus, those who buy advertising time on WKEF and WRGT won't be happy with the major loss of viewership.

They'd been saying all along that in spite of the dispute, that WRGT and WKEF would "allow" Time Warner to still carry or show certain, popular programs, i.e. Simpsons, Glee, etc. I thought this article was more of the same... In fact, it says, as skylab mentions,
How is this allowed ?

It's not. But that's not stopping Time Warner.

- Trip

Good for them then ! Their customers will be relatively unaffected other than losing the local news, which in this case is the same newscast, just at staggered times... and they're the lowest-ranked in viewership at that. I'm sure the Cincinnati locals that are being shown could care less either way. It's not like their advertisers will see a boom in business from "new" customers.

Citation? WCPO, for example, is on the significantly viewed list for Montgomery County. I thought at one time WXIX was as well (it is carried by Time Warner in the southern suberbs already).

Sure.

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2...-signal-switch

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2...ck-twc-ch-swap

Significantly viewed stations are in a different category, since they're already carried. This would be importing stations that are not otherwise available in the area to replace existing ones, likely in violation of multiple contracts with multiple parties.

- Trip

What do those stations show at 8pm in the Dayton market? They switch to syndicated programming, not regular prime-time programming.

Thanks. From the articles,it does not appear that replacing WKEF/WRGT with WCPO/WXIX is a per se violation of any FCC rules.

From the articles, it looks like three potential issues. The first is the 30-day notice requirement for changing/removing programming. At least in the Dayton market it would appear Time Warner has complied with those rules by posting the channel change notifications on its web site.

The second issue is that of network non-duplication rights. WKEF/WRGT would have to ask for protection, and, even if granted, there appears to be a 60-day window for TWC to continue carrying the stations. Arguably a network should not be able to ask for this protection if it is refusing to allow the local cable system to carry its station (which is exactly what is happening here). Further, without researching, I'm not sure how these rules would apply to a significantly viewed station.

A third issue might be whether the network affiliates TWC uses to replace WKEF/WRGT consents. Apparently in the PA TWC cases, such explicit consent was never obtained. From the Dayton Daily News Article, it would appear such consent has been reached. TWC - Dayton dividision probably already had the rights to use WXIX and WCPO anyway.

I'm not a fan of TWC by any stretch of the imagination, but I have to feel for them on this one. The local only "lifeline" service in Washington Twp. is something like $6.75/month. This is a regulated rate. I'm willing to wager TWC doesn't make a dime on these subscribers (considering the costs of maintenance, sending bills, customer support, etc.) If Sinclair wants $1 or $2 a sub, TWC loses money on these customers. Something has to give.

Its been awhile since I had cable. TWC gave me WXIX and WKRC. I seem to recall that at 8pm the network programming ceased on WXIX, but it continued on WKRC. Hence, when TWC had its dispute with WHIO I could continue to watch network programming on WKRC. I specifically recall always being able to watch different NFL games.

Now, I think part of this goes back many years to "agreements" reached among the Cincinnati/Dayton network affiliates. WHIO/WCPO apparently agreed that duplicate programming was not a problem (e.g., from WHIO's perspective, any viewers lost in the Dayton market would be offset by those in the Cincinnati market where WHIO was carried on TWC).

My point with this is that the 8pm cutoff on WXIX could have been mandated its retransmission agreement with TWC (per the informal agreement among Cincinnati/Dayton Fox afilliates). Agreements are subject to change, and from the DDN article, it would appear that is the case here. No love lost for Sinclair by Scripps/others.

Yesterday when turning the Insignia and Zenith converters to WBDT 26.1 the screen was blank but then each converter suddenly switched to 26.3 and there was the picture. Not sure what's going on but the last time I recall seeing anything like that happen was when WCET 48 was in the process of adding another subchannel. Hope that's what's going on and I hope it's Antenna TV if so.

Good luck with that. The last two times I emailed him I got no response. Let me know if you get anywhere so I can reset my DVRs to start looking for TVGoS again. They give up and quit looking after a while.

There should be no sympathy or "good for them" feelings for Time Warner. They are refusing to pay for the right to distribute someone else's content. The argument that it's free over the air is irrelevant. If Time Warner is going to use it to make money (which they are) then they must pay for it.

How much is Sinclair asking for these stations? I will guarantee that it's less than ESPN per subscriber, and many more people watch the FOX and ABC affiliates than ESPN.

I am no fan of TWC, but what are they supposed to do if it cannot raise prices because of regulated rates and an OTA network is demanding increased fees on a per subscriber basis?

Moreover, why should consumers be forced to pay higher fees simply because they choose to receive local OTA programming through TWC rather than through an antenna?

The vast majority of cable subscribers subscribe to cable so they can watch programming not on the OTA networks. As you well know, a large percentage of them could go OTA if they wanted and pickup the OTA networks via an antenna. A minority subscribe to cable because they can't get an OTA signal -- and they have the lifeline service to fall back on -- but, as shown above, TWC does not really make money on the lifeline customers.

So the argument that TWC is profiting from carrying OTA networks for "free" really doesn't hold much water because (1) if forced to pay for it, people could get it for free OTA and (2) those who are forced to subscribe to cable for OTA networks can subscribe to the lifeline service at the regulated rate.

If Time Warner didn't carry the OTA networks at all, then the value of their service would be lower, and that would result in less subscribers. Therefore, having the OTA networks makes Time Warner money. If it's not worth it to them, then they shouldn't carry the OTA networks. I don't see what the problem is.

I understand that as a consumer, you (or whoever is subscribing to cable in an example) wants the OTA networks, and wants it to be as simple as possible (all TV: cable nets + OTA nets on one system/channel lineup). But just because a consumer wants something doesn't mean that the company providing a service can do whatever they want to accomplish that.

Why does ESPN get near $4 per subscriber, when that vast majority of subscribers NEVER watch ESPN yet are forced to pay for it? You're saying FOX isn't worth $.20 per subscriber?

I mean the whole thing is really simple... how valuable is the OTA net to the cable company? If the cable company can get by just fine without it, then why is it carrying it to begin with? The reason is that the cable company would lose subscribers without the OTA nets. That's the value that the OTA nets bring and that's what Time Warner needs to pay for. That simple.

I would add another wrinkle and ask, do people care which OTA nets they receive? I would say no. I was just fine here when the Cincinnati locals were available in the part of the Dayton area that DirecTV messed up the ZIP codes on. I would happily watch New York, Philly, Atlanta, etc... I couldn't care less about Dayton locals per se.

I guess we'd have to conduct a survey, but I do. I want the Cincinnati locals AND the Dayton locals. The only way for me to get that is with an antenna, which also happens to be the free way to do it.

I'm not sure if you are a sports fan and if you are, who your teams are, but watching the Bengals win and the Browns lose is always on my mind, and getting the New York affiliates would keep me from watching those teams in general, so there's another wrinkle for you.

As you well know, the local networks have been given a monopoly on the airwaves for free (there are others that would be willing to pay alot of money for those same airways). Why should they get it for free when they make money on the advertising? Well, they give there signal away for free. But they shouldn't have it both ways when it comes to cable retransmission. Its either free or it isn't. Consumers shouldn't have to pay for it just because they can't get an OTA signal and are forced to subscribe to cable.

I agree its worth something for TWC to be able to retransmit local OTA signals. But I don't think TWC is making anything substantial off of this service, particularly when it comes to lifeline customers. Exhibit A is TWC's unwilingness to pay for the ability to retransmit local network affiliates.

At the end of the day, however, what its worth to TWC is irrelevant when the content is otherwise given away for free. The price of any good or service is not determined solely by what one party is willing to pay.

To take your example, sure, some people aren't willing to pay $4/month for ESPN. For others, its worth alot more than that (and might be the only reasons they subscribe to "pay tv"). But the customer that is willing to pay $20/month for ESPN pays the same as someone who is willing to pay just $1.00 per month. The key difference here is that ESPN has chosen to charge everyone for its content. The OTA networks have not. They could just as easily move their best programming to "pay tv" networks and make money that way.

This is not correct in several ways. First, there is no "monopoly". I'm not sure where that even came from. Second, broadcasters don't get the airwaves for free, they pay for them.
You might want it to be that way, but it isn't. A content owner gets to choose who gets to use their content, and how they get to use it. The owner of a popular song may charge $16 for a CD with a bunch of other songs you don't want. You might also have the option to buy just that song digital download for $0.99. And then again, you might also have the option to listen to it for free on FM radio. Oh... and then you could pay $13 or whatever it is per month for SiriusXM and listen to it on satellite radio. So no it's not "either free or it isn't."
Nobody is forced to do anything. We have free will. I can't get ESPN over the air, but that doesn't force me to subscribe to cable. People seem to forget about the choice to do without.


Yes, it's worth quite a bit!
YES THEY ARE! Without the OTA locals on their line-up, their business would suffer greatly.
Let's try not to get caught up in one-offs, but know that lifeline rates are enough to cover any expense the cable company might have in providing that service to the customer.
They pay for lots of local network affiliates. The dispute isn't over whether they will pay, it's how much they will pay. Not being carried on cable will hurt an affiliate's ratings. It will also hurt the cable company's subscription numbers. There is a value to be determined by the market, and that's what Time Warner needs to pay. All you're seeing here is the market at work.


NO! It's not irrelevant. It's 100% relevant! What it's worth to TWC is what TWC should be willing to pay!
Well, in a specific circumstance, it is. If I am going to buy a car, I'm willing to pay x. If dealer offers it for x or less, I will buy the car. If not, I won't. It's that simple, and the same case here. If the TV station offers it for x or less, the cable company will pay for the rights to distribute the channel.


The costs I listed are not what consumers pay, they are what cable companies pay. The cable companies charge a lot more than that.
So, you're saying that if ESPN decides to offer their programming streaming online for free, that they shouldn't be allowed to charge for it on cable???
Or, if FOX45 decides to turn off their OTA broadcast tower, that then (and only then) they can charge the cable company to carry their content?

I realize I responded to a lot of comments above, but really, the only thing that matters is this: Time Warner needs to pay the station owners what the content is worth. I don't know what that amount is. But, Time Warner needs to decide how much they're willing to pay, and the station owners need to decide how much they're willing to accept. They need to negotiate and come to an agreement. If they can't come to an agreement, then the station will not be carried on cable.

Sorry, don't want to beat this to death, but just wanted to add one more point:

The reason all of the BCS games were on ESPN this year and not on broadcast TV as they had been for decades is because of that huge per subscriber fee that ESPN gets along with their commercial revenue. March Madness is migrating to pay-tv as we speak. Soon it will be the Olympics if this trend doesn't stop. How can a broadcast affiliate compete with $4 per subscriber, per month when they are getting nothing or a few cents? Content will continue to migrate from OTA to pay-tv until broadcast nets are paid their fair value (which according to many studies and surveys is MUCH higher than ESPN).

Jim, what would happen if the cablecos and satellite providers all dropped the local networks ? How long do you think the locals could survive ? Would they fall back to advertiser revenue only ?

It's going to "pay-tv" for one reason: The pay-tv networks are willing to pay more $$$.

$$$ which they have because of the subscriber fees they receive.

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/file...e-sub-fees.png

- Trip

That's kind of a silly train of thought... What would happen if the cablecos and satellite providers dropped ESPN and all of the Disney family of networks? How long do you think they would survive??

Look, there is an amount of money that the local affiliates are worth to Time Warner. That amount might be 2 cents per subscriber. It also might be $5 per subscriber. I don't know what it is - that is for the market to figure out, and that's what is happening here. If Time Warner decides to take a stand and say they aren't going to pay the 20 cents that Sinclair is asking for, and they drop the channels, my quarter says that Time Warner looses a bunch of subscribers to DirecTV, Dish, and OTA-only. There might be some viewers who use OTA to complement the Time Warner lineup too. I'd say a very small minority say they can get by without the Sinclair stations at all and continue paying the same monthly rate for two less channels.

If the channels weren't worth anything to Time Warner, they would have dropped them already. Obviously that's not the case.


Also it's important to note, I think, that the graphic Trip referenced (thanks I was looking for that) shows what the cable company pays for those channels, not what the subscriber pays. In an a la carte system those values would be very different. In this case, the numbers are not based on the number of people that watch those channels, but rather on the particular channel's "switching appeal." That is, what happens to the cable company's subscriber base if they carry versus don't carry that channel. A higher number means more people would switch pay-tv providers based on that channel's availability. So, obviously based on the per subscriber charges, a lot more people would switch to company B if it carried ESPN but company A did not.

Part of that switching appeal factor is a result of exclusive, appealing programming. For example, Reds games are something that a fair number of people want to watch. If I want to watch the Reds, and I have the choice of Company A who has FSN, and Company B who does not, obviously I'd choose Company A, ceteris paribus (all other factors remaining the same). Now, lets say I enjoy war documentaries. The History channel has good war documentaries, so I'd prefer the company that has it. However, the exclusivity is much lower, because there are other options for war documentaries - Discovery, A&E, National Geographic, TLC, Military History Channel, and oh... PBS. So while I might enjoy the war documentaries on History Channel, if I were a Company A subscriber and they dropped History, but Company B had it, I may be less inclined to switch because there is no highly desirable exclusive specific content that I no longer have access to.

Local network affiliates have highly desirable exclusive specific content. Local news being a huge part of that, as well as the many large events that are carried by the national broadcast networks. Take the local affiliates away and you lose a huge draw. YOU may not care for local news but a lot of people do, and the number is higher than the number of people who would switch based on ESPN. That should give you somewhat of an idea of what local stations are worth to cable companies.

Really? You mean there was an auction for the TV spectrum at the time of the digital transition? Did I miss something? The fact of the matter is that TV broadcasters pay essentially nothing for the spectrum they are using. If an auction were held today for this spectrum, it would not be used for free TV. And yes, it is a monopoly. Any use of the spectrum is fundamentaly a monopoly. No one else can use the specific airwaves used by a particular broadcaster.




Agreed. And the OTA networks give it away to the consumer for free, but want to charge cable who then have to charge their customers. A musician choosing to allow his or her music to be played over the radio is the opposite of what it happening with OTA and not a valid comparison.


Well, I think that Hall has made an excellent point on this. Where would the OTA networks be without cable? Maybe CABLE should charge them for using their bandwidth and delivering the signal to their viewer's homes free of broadcast interference. As established above, what it is worth to cable is not solely determinative of what the ultimate price is.


I agree that, to some extent, we are seeing the market at work. But the problem I pointed out is that for TWC and its lifeline customers the market doesn't work. It is regulated in how much it can charge for the OTA networks. So get rid of the market regulation and allow TWC to pass on these costs to its lifeline customers. Then we might actually see if there is any validity to your statements if the price for carriage iss ever disclosed.

I understand what you are trying to say, but no, it's not a monopoly. At the very least you are mis-using the word. Broadcast TV has spectrum reservation because it provides a public service, just as ham radio, AM/FM radio, 2-way radios, 900MHz cordless phones, and 2GHz wifi devices all do. We could probably have a public auction for the spectrum used by all of those services and the Verizon and AT&T would buy it all up to use for cell phones, but that doesn't mean it should happen. It's the FCC's job to allocate spectrum based on the public good, not based on who will pay the most money for it.




Sure it's a valid comparison. Content is content, and the content owner gets to choose how it's used. By your logic, because I can watch The Office for free over the air, I shouldn't have to pay for the DVD box set of Season 1, and if I use my VCR or DVR to record a show, I should be able to share it with whomever I please. That's not the case as you know.




That's absolutely true, and if the OTA stations needed cable more than cable needed them, then the OTA stations would have no leverage to ask for money. Obviously that's not the case and my point has been proven.




Market at work is exactly what we're seeing. The lifeline example is a one-off mandated by the government.

Your case is not proven. Unless we know what agreements were made between the cable/satellite companies and stations, we can only speculate.

A couple scenarios come to mind...

• After TW announced their plans to broadcast locals from other cities, an extension was granted... Hmmm, who "needs" that more ? TW sure doesn't.

• A couple of years ago when WDTN (LIN ?) was in dispute with Time Warner, they were able to come to an agreement 1-2 weeks before the Fall ratings week (can't recall what it's called now). As I understand it, this is when the 'audience numbers' are calculated and what stations use for advertising costs. WDTN really couldn't afford to have what, 50% of their viewers MIA.

For the record, I am not a TW customer.

In regards to cablecos carrying local stations, I think it's a "service" they offer to customers. Tell the average person to drop cable and use an antenna and see what response you get.