or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Greensboro, NC - HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Greensboro, NC - HDTV - Page 338

post #10111 of 11118
I am getting WBRE on QAM channels 115.2 (HD) and 115.3 (SD) in Burlington. 12.1 and 12.2 are blank.
Edited by ejb1980 - 7/12/12 at 8:41pm
post #10112 of 11118
As FoxEng suggested, it appears WBRE did not give permission for TWC to retransmit their signal into the Greensboro/HP/Winston-Salem market. I was just reading the links (below):

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/business/wbre-tv-debuts-across-the-nation-amid-squabble-1.1342073

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/company-says-time-warner-cant-use-pa-station-2415784.html?cxtype=rss_texas

If this dispute is not resolved soon with WXII, it will be interesting to see what other alternative NBC affiliate station that TWC replaces it with. No doubt, TWC would really annoy many of their customers if there was a total blackout of NBC programming.
post #10113 of 11118
Time Warner should just pick the flagship WNBC Channel 4 from New York. I don't think NBC would want to be blacked out in a market as they approach the Olympics, so I would think they would grant permission or come to some sort of agreement. Meanwhile, is WXII telling viewers on its website to go out and get an antenna? Issues such as this is another reason to use OTA as a back up to cable.
post #10114 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerSC View Post

Time Warner should just pick the flagship WNBC Channel 4 from New York. I don't think NBC would want to be blacked out in a market as they approach the Olympics, so I would think they would grant permission or come to some sort of agreement.

Don't bet on it. I would see NBC putting up a special feed for the markets effected before they grant permission to a station. Even the deal FOX has with TWC is a special feed of network programming, not a station. The issue is, and TWC is having to deal with this now, programs on the shipped in station already runs on other stations in the market and the other stations have the right to demand those same programs are blacked out during their broadcasts on the shipped in station. It would not surprise me if WFMY hasn't already filed the paperwork with CBS Syndication to black out Wheel and Jep on WBRE on TWC in this market to protect WFMY's airings. That is why you wont see an NBC O & O like WNBC on the system.

TWC's attempt to stop any bleeding of subs is causing all kinds of legal issues for them that could make future negotiations with these other companies problematic. I think, ultimately, TWC will have to pull WBRE and NBC will have to ship some kind of special network feed if this goes into the Olympics and NBC wants to be seen in this market.

Certainly, we are hearing of people putting up antennas now. Not a lot, but the thought is now out there. That doesn't bode well for TWC. Then the question bodes, could WXII survive with antennas and without TWC? The general thought is yes. It will be a tough road, but it could be done and it would take a long time.
Edited by foxeng - 7/13/12 at 5:09pm
post #10115 of 11118
In situations like this with WXII and Warner, the way local stations could certainly beat cable is for all the locals to band together and start pulling their signals down. However, it isn't that simple apparently, since each stations contracts do not run out at or near the same times. I am glad to see though that stations are taking action against these huge monopolies, and are not letting them rob them of the money they pay big companies like Viacom and Turner, especially when it appears the FCC is on the side of the richest. This is also good for the local to show that those broadcast towers are still the advantage, and that they are not going to be given up for wireless spectrum easily.
post #10116 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspENC View Post

In situations like this with WXII and Warner, the way local stations could certainly beat cable is for all the locals to band together and start pulling their signals down. However, it isn't that simple apparently, since each stations contracts do not run out at or near the same times. I am glad to see though that stations are taking action against these huge monopolies, and are not letting them rob them of the money they pay big companies like Viacom and Turner, especially when it appears the FCC is on the side of the richest. This is also good for the local to show that those broadcast towers are still the advantage, and that they are not going to be given up for wireless spectrum easily.

There is also another issue. Local stations do not usually do the negotiating. That is done at a corporate level.

I am sure if it were up to WXII, this would have been solved. But you have Hearst corp dealing with TW corp and this is what you usually get. Remember, Hearst stations in other TW markets are also off TW systems. This is not a Triad only issue.
post #10117 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspENC View Post

I am glad to see though that stations are taking action against these huge monopolies, and are not letting them rob them of the money they pay big companies like Viacom and Turner, especially when it appears the FCC is on the side of the richest. This is also good for the local to show that those broadcast towers are still the advantage, and that they are not going to be given up for wireless spectrum easily.

I agree. And I would tend to side with Hearst versus TWC on this issue. We know TWC makes a killing in profits from their customers. But of course they want to twist things around and suggest that Hearst wants a 300% increase in retransmission fees. TWC suggests they are also just trying to keep the costs down for everyone while being tough on this issue.

While I do not have any of the inside facts, I find the contentions of TWC questionable. I also think it is a play on numbers for TWC to suggest that Hearst is seeking a 300% increase. And I also think this is basically propaganda by TWC in their attempt to get customers on their side and against Hearst. Whatever Hearst receives in retransmission fees, it should be equitable in terms of what they also receive from other cable companies and satelite providers. And as I see it, this is basically what Hearst is saying. They are merely seeking comparable fees in terms of what other providers give them, not any more or less. And with all the revenue that TWC takes in, it would seem to me that they can well afford to pay Hearst equitable compensation 'without' raising customer rates. Of course, TWC will always find reasons to raise customer rates regardless of their agreements with local affiliates. This is how it has always been; and it's a big reason why I feel stations should never give up their broadcast spectrum without a very hard fight.

As for WBRE out of PA, I find it interesting that several articles have stated the owner of the station has 'not' given TWC permission to retransmit their signal into the Triad whereas TWC claims they have the legal authority to do so? How would TWC have the legal authority unless they worked out an agreement with the owner of WBRE? Sounds very fishy to me while TWC readily acknowledges they didn't have the authority to retransmit WCNC Charlotte or WNCN Raleigh into the Triad.
post #10118 of 11118

TWC better stop using WBRE's signal.

Sure, maybe the FCC will be reluctant to stand up for local broadcasters' rights and the system of network affiliations, but there are syndicated programming rights involved, too.

 

The News and Record reports that TWC may have infringed on WFMY's exclusive rights to air "Wheel of Fortune" and "Jeopardy!" in the Triad market.

 

If cable systems are allowed to carry out-of-market stations without regard to syndication rights for the programs on the signal they are retransmitting, the entire business of broadcasting could break down.

post #10119 of 11118

What is the relationship among the various affiliate stations throughout the nation for a broadcast network like NBC? Don't they have some obligation to act in the best interests of the affiliate system?

They all receive programming from NBC, but doesn't NBC have some rules that say that they should not be allowed to undermine one another?

So if WBRE were to give TWC rights to retransmit its signal to the Triad, wouldn't that make NBC angry because a Pennsylvania NBC affiliate would be undermining a NC affiliate?

post #10120 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by evan237 View Post

I agree. And I would tend to side with Hearst versus TWC on this issue. We know TWC makes a killing in profits from their customers. But of course they want to twist things around and suggest that Hearst wants a 300% increase in retransmission fees. TWC suggests they are also just trying to keep the costs down for everyone while being tough on this issue.
While I do not have any of the inside facts, I find the contentions of TWC questionable. I also think it is a play on numbers for TWC to suggest that Hearst is seeking a 300% increase. And I also think this is basically propaganda by TWC in their attempt to get customers on their side and against Hearst. Whatever Hearst receives in retransmission fees, it should be equitable in terms of what they also receive from other cable companies and satelite providers. And as I see it, this is basically what Hearst is saying. They are merely seeking comparable fees in terms of what other providers give them, not any more or less. And with all the revenue that TWC takes in, it would seem to me that they can well afford to pay Hearst equitable compensation 'without' raising customer rates. Of course, TWC will always find reasons to raise customer rates regardless of their agreements with local affiliates. This is how it has always been; and it's a big reason why I feel stations should never give up their broadcast spectrum without a very hard fight.
As for WBRE out of PA, I find it interesting that several articles have stated the owner of the station has 'not' given TWC permission to retransmit their signal into the Triad whereas TWC claims they have the legal authority to do so? How would TWC have the legal authority unless they worked out an agreement with the owner of WBRE? Sounds very fishy to me while TWC readily acknowledges they didn't have the authority to retransmit WCNC Charlotte or WNCN Raleigh into the Triad.

Having grown up when "cable" did not exist, I have opinions about this matter that might not make sense to some. Broadcasters were once overjoyed to have their signals retransmitted by cable systems. In fact, the celebrated "must carry" rules came about to assure the thing. The whole business of broadcasters demanding payment for retansmission seems to me a trap that cable customers will be ensnared in so long as they subscribe to cable. I wonder how many different programs a person can watch at the same time.and how many different programs at ever increasing cost a person will allow himself to pay for.. I cannot buy into any of this.
post #10121 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by difuse View Post

I wonder how many different programs a person can watch at the same time.and how many different programs at ever increasing cost a person will allow himself to pay for.. I cannot buy into any of this.

This is the complaint that many people have. There are so many 'filler' channels that subscription viewers are required to support through the monthly fees. I doubt the day will ever come. But it would be nice if paid TV customers could order up only the channels that they actually choose to watch. Of course, in that scenario, there are a number of channels that would no longer be part of the cable or satelite system lineup as there would be insufficient interest to support them.

I don't work in the industry. But it seems broadcasters say they are only looking for their fair share of the revenue generated from cable and satelite subscriptions, particularly given the fact that paid services include access to channels with far less viewers. Retransmission fees are part of the current business model. And it does appear understandable that local broadcasters should receive equitable compensation....taking into account what they receive from other cable companies and satelite providers, as well as the amount of compensation other local network affiliates receive from these providers. Because it is not public knowledge, I have no way of making a personal judgment on whether the fees Hearst are seeking are truly equitable relative to other stations and paid providers. But clearly Hearst chooses to stand their ground against TWC, at least for now.

This is the beauty of OTA in that it doesn't cost the viewer anything other than the cost of installing and maintaining an anetenna. And when supplemented by a provider such as NetFlix, and the viewer's own DVR system, I feel it can work very well. I am currently a TWC customer but I will have no problem cutting them off in the future if they raise my monthly fees. I've done it in the past and got along fine without them.
post #10122 of 11118

It always amazes me when cable TV viewers say that broadcasters should not charge cable systems for permission to carry (retransmit) the broadcasters' signals.

 

If a cable company has to pay ESPN for its programming, why shouldn't it also have to pay the local broadcast stations for their programming?

 

Is CBS supposed to shell out big bucks for NFL games, but then the CBS affiliates are supposed to just give that programming away for free to some cable system? That's preposterous.

post #10123 of 11118
How does the re-airing of "Wheel of Fortune" and "Jeopardy" work with other out-of-market but FCC-granted significantly-viewed channels? "Wheel" and "Jeopardy" air on both WFMY and WTVD ABC 11 (although reverse times of each other) and both channels are on TWC, Directv, and Dish in Alamance County. Davidson County has WSOC which has repeat programming from Triad stations. In fact, since I "moved" to Lexington on Directv so that the Bobcats games wouldn't be blacked out, I see WSOC, WTVD, and WXII right in a row on my guide... all three air Live with Kelly in the morning at the same time. I would never watch it so who gets my viewership is a moot point. Some of the border counties get all Roanoke and Greensboro locals, in HD (At least on Directv). Surely they have repeat syndicated programming.

I assume that WVTC/WSOC are protected by the FCC SV rule and WFMY can't do anything about it. Why can't people in the eastern Triad get NBC17 Raleigh, southern/western Triad get Charlotte, and northern Triad get Roanoke NBC pumped in on TWC? How can anyone argue with the legality of that since people would be getting those channels FOR FREE anyway with a modest antenna?

I am originally from an area close to Canada and our local Fox channel was always in a sim-sub battle with Montreal broadcasters. Sim-sub rules bascially say that when a Canadian TV channel and a USA TV channel are showing the same show at the same time, a Canadian cable system must replace the USA channel with the Canadian channel. So, when Fox44 in Vermont was showing a syndicated show, and CTV Montreal was showing the same show, the CTV signal was seen (including advertising, logos, etc - it was literally the signal spliced on top of Fox44 by the cable company). Annoying, especially to Vermont TV channels that were used to benefiting from the huge population of Montreal seeing their advertising pre-sim-sub laws, despite it not counting in the Nielsen ratings, and inspirational for Canadians to get OTA set-ups to watch the Super Bowl with the American commercials.
post #10124 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

It always amazes me when cable TV viewers say that broadcasters should not charge cable systems for permission to carry (retransmit) the broadcasters' signals.

If a cable company has to pay ESPN for its programming, why shouldn't it also have to pay the local broadcast stations for their programming?

Is CBS supposed to shell out big bucks for NFL games, but then the CBS affiliates are supposed to just give that programming away for free to some cable system? That's preposterous.

Again, what seems preposderous is that cable customers have allowed themselves to be placed between a rock and a hard place. Broadcasters have developed a line that declares their signal, free over the air, is more valuable when delivered ny hard wire. This line seems to be based on the fact that cable companies collect money from customers for something other than providing signal., that is,, programming. CBS affiliates do in fact give their NFL games away to the public. However, much of the public would rather pay another party for those games, for reasons I do not really understand.. In doing so, these customers of cable give carte blanche to the broadcasters and cable companies to charge them what they will. A lot of people are making money providing nothing but a monthly bill.
post #10125 of 11118
At this point the ratings prove overwhelming that local broadcast stations on cable have more viewers than ESPN, which at this point is the most expensive cable channel. The average price per sub for ESPN averages around $4! For local broadcast stations is around $.50 a sub. That is the issue. Cable has let themselves get taken by content distributors on the price they pay. It is way out of balance. The $4 average is what everything is now based on. And NO local broadcaster ANYWHERE gets anything close to $4 a sub. I doubt any get $1 a sub.

Back in the old days before satellite, FIOS, etc and you had ONE MVPD to "choose" from. Sure, local stations wanted on. Cable had a monopoly. That is the not the case these days. In the Triad alone, we have over 15 systems we are on. If you get dropped by one, it doesn't kill you. It hurts the MVPD more since you as a viewer have choices to whom you get your TV from. That is why TWC is fighting tooth and nail to keep NBC programming on while WXII is off the system. If they dropped NBC off altogether, people would leave. The viewer has a choice, OTA, satellite or some form of VOIP. TWC loses you as a customer and they more than likely do not get you back. They lost me in 1998 and I have never returned. Don't plan too.

Yeah, life gets tough for WXII, but unlike TWC once they loose that programming, it is gone. You have no recourse other than to take your money and go somewhere else if you want it. WXII has seen a drop in their ratings. But if this goes on people will get tired of seeing out of market signals (the ratings show they aren't watching WBRE's local programming) and they will do something to get the local signal back. They will either put up an antenna (and some are doing that now we hear) or get another provider. That one hasn't really started yet, but as this goes on, it will. Slowly WXII's number increase again. That is figured in already. Take the immediate hit, and it will eventually get better if it all goes bad. For TWC, if it goes bad, it stays bad. So far, there has not been an instant where a Big Four station has been left off a major cable system in any market. Provider can't afford not too. This will get resolved and WXII will get back on. We have no doubt of it. The question is for how long are they off? Even people at WXII don't know the answer. It is all at the corporate level of Hearst and TWC.

I can guarantee you that no one at WXII wanted this to happen. If the shoe was on the other foot of another station, the same would be true. They work too hard (as we all do) living and working in THIS community to have the perception that they just "turned your back" on you. At the corporate level, life is different. You also have the Olympics coming up driving this as well. It is now a game a "Chicken" to see who blinks first and it appears WXII has the upper hand at this point. Believe me, TWC knows it too. The fact that they are trying to hang on to NBC programming at any cost to them is very telling. Ultimately, history has shown that tactic to not work.
post #10126 of 11118
If anyone needs antenna ideas or help on wiring your HDTV's, digital converters or the like, this is the place to ask and we will help you out. In order to get the signals without any hiccups, you need the correct wiring, antenna, amp and splitters. Going this attic or outdoor route is the easiest way in the long run for most, since buildings block broadcast signals in many cases, and fiddleing with rabbit ears gets old. One indoor antenna model that has shown good results is called a Mohu Leaf, so you may want to check on that if you live in a higher area, and closer to towers. Also anyone new to antennas needs to know that WXII and WUNL are not located in the same areas as the other main channels, so depending on where you live, you may need additional antennas or a rotator.

I am really enjoying seeing TW in the frying pan right now... ( can you tell ) simply because I remember when cable TV wasn't even $20 a month.wink.gif
post #10127 of 11118

For years and years, broadcast TV stations have had to comply with FCC regulations, regulations that were designed to serve the public interest.

That produced the system of the Big 3 networks and PBS, and those four networks provided a lot of good programming over the years.

The local stations also offered public affairs programming because they were (and are) required by the FCC to do so.

 

Do you think the big cable companies are truly committed to local news and local public affairs programming?

I don't think so. Anything that they deign to provide is only because they are trying to prevent congress or state and local governments from imposing regulations.

And frankly, the TV marketplace is so messed up right now, that a hefty dose of governmental regulation to rein in pay TV would be welcomed by a lot of people.

 

Before cable TV, people were not obsessed with sports. They watched perhaps one nationally televised game a week and maybe one or two games carried by a local station through an agreement with a local team.

 

People who did not care about sports were not forced to pay a lot of money to keep an all-sports channel such as ESPN in business.

 

The cable companies have been largely unregulated and have developed an entitlement mentality. The cable companies have not had to spend money to maintain broadcast towers, and in many cases they still have a de facto monopoly on pay TV service in a region. The city and county governments do very little to rein in the prices that the cable companies charge.

 

Now in the past few years the broadcasters have finally decided to fight back and demand reasonable payment for the content they provide.

 

I say more power to the broadcasters, and when are the newspaper ads promoting antennas coming?

When are the promos for mobile broadcast DTV coming?

 

I'd like to see a resurgence of broadcast TV to counterbalance the excessive power of cable companies.

post #10128 of 11118

When TWC substitutes a Pennsylvania channel (WBRE) for a NC channel (WXII), does it strip out the local Pennsylvania ads and replace them with ads for Triad businesses?

Is that even legal? It shouldn't be. WBRE should control over its signal (but it should not be allowed to distribute the signal outside of its assigned market as determined by the FCC), and the FCC should have complete power to stop what TWC is doing.

post #10129 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

When TWC substitutes a Pennsylvania channel (WBRE) for a NC channel (WXII), does it strip out the local Pennsylvania ads and replace them with ads for Triad businesses?

No. You see the PA commercials. Another station in the market can request, through a system in place to have competing syndicated programs blacked out. TWC must honor that.
Quote:
Is that even legal? It shouldn't be. WBRE should control over its signal (but it should not be allowed to distribute the signal outside of its assigned market as determined by the FCC), and the FCC should have complete power to stop what TWC is doing.

Depends on how the carriage contract for the out of market station is written. According to Nexstar, owner of WBRE, TWC doesn't have the right to do it and they say they are going to court to stop TWC. Haven't heard if that has happened or where that stands. TWC is saying they have the right, even though TWC admits, they don't have the authority to ship in other NBC NC stations. So no one is really sure what has been agreed to on this issue.

If a legally executed contract between a station and a cable company has been carried out, and no laws are being broken (at this time, no LAWS seem to be) the FCC will stay out of it. They have no legal authority to get in the middle of a legal issue if no rules they have jurisdiction over are being broken. Since WBRE is not in an adjoining market, it doesn't fall under the Significantly Viewed Rules of the FCC which is probably why TWC will not put a NC/VA/SC NBC station on. PA is too far away to fall under those rules. It now becomes a civil legal action in the courts over breach of contract, which if it isn't spelled out, TWC could loose. One possible scenario could be TWC is hoping the Hearst situation will have resolved itself and they will just pay any fine (if applicable), having gotten what they wanted. I am not saying that is how they are thinking or what will happen, but that is one possible take. The problem is no one except Hearst and TWC really knows what the deal is. People working at WXII don't know either. The rest of us are just speculating on a lot of "what if's."

Your guesses are as good as mine at this point.
post #10130 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

When TWC substitutes a Pennsylvania channel (WBRE) for a NC channel (WXII), does it strip out the local Pennsylvania ads and replace them with ads for Triad businesses?

No. You see the PA commercials. Another station in the market can request, through a system in place to have competing syndicated programs blacked out. TWC must honor that.
Quote:
Is that even legal? It shouldn't be. WBRE should control over its signal (but it should not be allowed to distribute the signal outside of its assigned market as determined by the FCC), and the FCC should have complete power to stop what TWC is doing.

Depends on how the carriage contract for the out of market station is written. According to Nexstar, owner of WBRE, TWC doesn't have the right to do it and they say they are going to court to stop TWC. Haven't heard if that has happened or where that stands. TWC is saying they have the right, even though TWC admits, they don't have the authority to ship in other NBC NC stations. So no one is really sure what has been agreed to on this issue.

...

 

You're looking at the situation as a matter of contract law, but there are political considerations that could come into play, too.

Local TV stations carry a lot of ads for congressional candidates during election years. Just imagine if some NC candidate pays for ad time on a local station that is carried by a cable system. The candidate thinks that his ad will be seen on cable systems in his district, as well as being seen OTA, but, due to a dispute between the station owners and a cable company, the local NC station gets pulled from the cable system and replaced by a PA station. Suddenly the NC congressional candidate is getting a lot less value for his ad dollars, and North Carolinians may be watching ads for Pennsylvania candidates they can't even vote for.

 

TWC is treading on thin ice by not respecting local broadcasting. If a lot of politicians think their advertising will be disrupted, they could start supporting more power for the FCC.

post #10131 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

When TWC substitutes a Pennsylvania channel (WBRE) for a NC channel (WXII), does it strip out the local Pennsylvania ads and replace them with ads for Triad businesses?


No. You see the PA commercials. Another station in the market can request, through a system in place to have competing syndicated programs blacked out. TWC must honor that.
Quote:
Is that even legal? It shouldn't be. WBRE should control over its signal (but it should not be allowed to distribute the signal outside of its assigned market as determined by the FCC), and the FCC should have complete power to stop what TWC is doing.


Depends on how the carriage contract for the out of market station is written. According to Nexstar, owner of WBRE, TWC doesn't have the right to do it and they say they are going to court to stop TWC. Haven't heard if that has happened or where that stands. TWC is saying they have the right, even though TWC admits, they don't have the authority to ship in other NBC NC stations. So no one is really sure what has been agreed to on this issue.


...

You're looking at the situation as a matter of contract law, but there are political considerations that could come into play, too.
Local TV stations carry a lot of ads for congressional candidates during election years. Just imagine if some NC candidate pays for ad time on a local station that is carried by a cable system. The candidate thinks that his ad will be seen on cable systems in his district, as well as being seen OTA, but, due to a dispute between the station owners and a cable company, the local NC station gets pulled from the cable system and replaced by a PA station. Suddenly the NC congressional candidate is getting a lot less value for his ad dollars, and North Carolinians may be watching ads for Pennsylvania candidates they can't even vote for.

TWC is treading on thin ice by not respecting local broadcasting. If a lot of politicians think their advertising will be disrupted, they could start supporting more power for the FCC.

That isn't an issue. With political, it is normal rates until 60 days out from an election then it is the lowest rate on the rate card and you CAN NOT turn down a federal political candidate even if it means your VERY BEST client gets booted for a certain time spot for the candidate. That is the only guarantee the election laws give candidates. That is the law.

The argument you are making applies to ANY advertiser, political or not. Caveat emptor or "Let the buyer beware." Believe me, the ad agencies who are buying for candidates campaigns are FULLY aware of the situation in this market. They are placing buys for other clients on WXII as well. It isn't a vacuum like you might think. No major candidate places their own buys. It is all done via ad buyers. And the local candidates and their people live here so they already know.
post #10132 of 11118

Well, yes, I suppose that most politicians do have people on their staffs who are smart enough to check out a local station before purchasing ad time on that station. So, if the ad buyer were to discover that a certain station might soon be dropped from a cable system, then the ad buyer would find a different station to advertise on. Or would the ad buyer try to bypass the local stations and buy ad time directly from the cable system?

 

Incidentally, how do advertising deals work? If an advertiser purchases time on a local station and that station's viewership drops dramatically, does the station have to refund any money to the advertiser?

post #10133 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

Well, yes, I suppose that most politicians do have people on their staffs who are smart enough to check out a local station before purchasing ad time on that station. So, if the ad buyer were to discover that a certain station might soon be dropped from a cable system, then the ad buyer would find a different station to advertise on. Or would the ad buyer try to bypass the local stations and buy ad time directly from the cable system?

Local politicians do not buy that much TV. They don't have the money. They buy mostly local radio and newspaper. The cost is cheaper per spot for them. State candidates like governor and such have a better money base and they will buy TV, but again, to reach as many people as possible, radio is the main mode of delivery but the ratio from radio to TV is much, much closer. Federal candidates like Senators and Congress people have an even larger pot to pull from. Because the number of constituents for a Congress person isn't as great as Senator, they don't buy as much. Again, mostly radio, but they have to have a good amount of TV as well. Senators on the other hand will run a fairly equal amount of radio and TV. Same for Presidential candidates. Depending on the race, federal candidates will buy not only OTA but cable access spots as well. For a political candidate, it is more like carpet bombing than precision JDAM strikes. They never know where a vote will come from. Even low rated stations will get some kind of buy, even if it is a small one.
Quote:
Incidentally, how do advertising deals work? If an advertiser purchases time on a local station and that station's viewership drops dramatically, does the station have to refund any money to the advertiser?

Spots, whether TV or radio are bought in what is called "flights". It is a certain time with certain spots running. With federal political candidates with large war chests like senators and presidents, frequently they have a "pot of money" they will allocate to a station and then will buy flights within that pot of money increasing or decreasing amount and frequency depending on how things are going. Usually the pot of money is only for a specific time frame like a week or two or a month or two months then things are re-evaluated and you hope for another pot of money! Just because you get a "pot" doesn't mean you will get buys. You can only bill on what is run, not what is bought because the order can increase or decrease or go away completely. During the primary, stations were hoping for a Romney/Santorum battle and a Perdue/Republican battle. Well that didn't happen. Santorum dropped out before North Carolina and Perdue decided not to run. That lead to the Republican candidates to focus on areas of weakness between themselves and there was so little time for the Democrats to get fully organized, that their money never materialized either.

North Carolina is normally not a battleground state so presidential money doesn't flow like it is this time around. And don't let the Democrats fool you about this so called "Republican advantage over PAC money." When Obama isn't running, the Democrat Party PAC is. The anti McCory spots that have been running are also from the Democrat Party PAC, not the candidates. They haven't started running yet. The party PAC is called Progress for NC, if I remember correctly. You have to read the fine print sometimes because these political parties will do whatever they can to disguise themselves so the casual viewer doesn't know who is really running what. Something else that the Democrats are taking advantage of is a part of the election law that states any claims against a candidate has to be sourced. No where does it say that the source has to be correct, just sourced in the ad. Every political ad that comes in is closely scrutinized for sourcing. If a claim is sourced, it runs. Doesn't matter to the law that it might not be true, just that is "sourced." If it is untrue, the candidate can then sue for it. What is happening is statements are being taken out of context and then sourced. It is an old trick, but it is very prevalent this cycle. The Dems seem to be doing it more right now than the Republicans, but by November, who knows what will have been said by either side. As long as the checks don't bounce! biggrin.gif This is how our political system works. It is like the old saying, "Making sausage. It isn't pretty."

Certainly in this cycle at least, Caveat emptor is the phrase to remember when it comes to political advertising. There are all kinds of stuff like that that will make your head explode!
Edited by foxeng - 7/15/12 at 4:32pm
post #10134 of 11118
So can 8.2 not be received by directv customers via ota. I couldn't get a signal for the longest time. But was able to get a good 80 today. But when I go to the channel get searching for signal. 8.1 nice at 80 too, but with great picture. On the west side of Winston in pfffffffffftwn. Thanks
post #10135 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by freered@windstre View Post

So can 8.2 not be received by directv customers via ota. I couldn't get a signal for the longest time. But was able to get a good 80 today. But when I go to the channel get searching for signal. 8.1 nice at 80 too, but with great picture. On the west side of Winston in pfffffffffftwn. Thanks

This is an on-going issue. Please email, call, annoy Directv about it like a bunch of us do and someday, maybe, they'll fix it! I can't imagine it being a hard thing to fix....
post #10136 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post

I can't imagine it being a hard thing to fix....

Here's an excerpt from an e-mail I got at the first of June, after the helpful rep told me it had been passed up the line and should be fixed within the week:

"As I mentioned in my previous email, I escalated your subchannel issue through my supervisor and manager in an attempt to open up a more direct communication with our Broadcasting and Engineering teams. The feedback that I have received is that this is a matter which will not receive immediate response and may take quite some time to be resolved. The information has been escalated to the appropriate department and is in the hands of the teams that need to resolve the issue, but due to the many hands that the issue has to pass through before a final resolution is implemented, neither I or my supervisor will get any direct response to the matter.

I apologize for setting an inaccurate expectation when we first spoke. Based on the information you provided, I felt that this would likely be a relatively quick resolution. There is more involved in the process, even after having the channels details, that must be completed for us to not only resolve the technical issue but also ensure that all portions of the change remain within industry and FCC compliance."


To me, the FCC comment seems a bit overblown but I think it's at least reasonable that the proverbial left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and, therefore, there are a lot of people (too many) involved in the fix (and authorization for it).

Above I posted a question about whether or not any here would be interested in trying to use a specific case number and see if we could aggregate our requests, but I got no responses. I also asked the same question of my D* contact but I got a phone call (unidentified via Caller ID, therefore unanswered) instead of the e-mail response I requested.

Edited to add: I just sent another e-mail to see if I could reach the rep with the question about us combining our requests.
Edited by SVTarHeel - 7/15/12 at 8:46pm
post #10137 of 11118
I just don't get the whole local TV charging cable systems a per-subscriber fee. Unlike CNN or ESPN which I can only get on cable, the broadcast stations are already available to me OTA. The fees Time Warner pays to the local stations just get passed through to me with no real value added. You'd think the local TV stations would let their signal be carried for free in order maximize their audience and increase ad revenue.

I suppose you could say the same thing about CNN and ESPN, which still show commercials despite me paying for them to come into my house. However, that's another issue.
post #10138 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by torridn View Post

I just don't get the whole local TV charging cable systems a per-subscriber fee. Unlike CNN or ESPN which I can only get on cable, the broadcast stations are already available to me OTA. The fees Time Warner pays to the local stations just get passed through to me with no real value added. You'd think the local TV stations would let their signal be carried for free in order maximize their audience and increase ad revenue.

I suppose you could say the same thing about CNN and ESPN, which still show commercials despite me paying for them to come into my house. However, that's another issue.

 

The reason that you should want local TV stations to get paid by cable providers is simple.

Without that, many local stations would be forced out of business because few people nowadays are willing to go 100% OTA.

 

And if the local stations go out of business, people will be even more at the mercy of the pay TV distributors (cable and satellite companies) that raise their rates every year (because they can and because content providers keep charging them more).

 

There are a lot of content providers that would like to see local broadcast TV stations disappear.

Those content providers, which might even include the companies like Disney and Comcast that own the broadcast networks, may well be looking for ways to get rid of broadcast TV and put their shows directly onto cable systems.

 

But if that happens, local news will practically vanish, and there will be no concern for providing local public affairs programming or educational programming.

 

Thank goodness public broadcasting is not going the way of commercial media.

It's about the only source left for good long form documentaries.

post #10139 of 11118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTarHeel View Post

Here's an excerpt from an e-mail I got at the first of June, after the helpful rep told me it had been passed up the line and should be fixed within the week:
"As I mentioned in my previous email, I escalated your subchannel issue through my supervisor and manager in an attempt to open up a more direct communication with our Broadcasting and Engineering teams. The feedback that I have received is that this is a matter which will not receive immediate response and may take quite some time to be resolved. The information has been escalated to the appropriate department and is in the hands of the teams that need to resolve the issue, but due to the many hands that the issue has to pass through before a final resolution is implemented, neither I or my supervisor will get any direct response to the matter.
I apologize for setting an inaccurate expectation when we first spoke. Based on the information you provided, I felt that this would likely be a relatively quick resolution. There is more involved in the process, even after having the channels details, that must be completed for us to not only resolve the technical issue but also ensure that all portions of the change remain within industry and FCC compliance."

To me, the FCC comment seems a bit overblown but I think it's at least reasonable that the proverbial left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and, therefore, there are a lot of people (too many) involved in the fix (and authorization for it).
Above I posted a question about whether or not any here would be interested in trying to use a specific case number and see if we could aggregate our requests, but I got no responses. I also asked the same question of my D* contact but I got a phone call (unidentified via Caller ID, therefore unanswered) instead of the e-mail response I requested.
Edited to add: I just sent another e-mail to see if I could reach the rep with the question about us combining our requests.

I bet all someone has to do is go into a computer and change a little box from "RF 8" to "RF 35" and it's fixed. I bet if they really knew what they were talking about, it would take them less time to fix it than it does for them to reply to our emails.
post #10140 of 11118
Talking with directv about this issue now. Rep says they know nothing about this problem. That by the code I receive, 792, it is a cable/ connection problem. I then informed her that if it was a cabling issue that I shouldn't be receiving a signal quality of 80 for it or channel 8.1. She said its a fox 8 problem and also referred me to antenna web.org to help with my problem. She then said she knew nothing about ota. This was supposedly a tech.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Greensboro, NC - HDTV