Sinclair Cable Carriage

I knew things would have to hit a brick wall before we found out what kind of cash we're talking about.

$0.50 per sub per month is more than fair. Stick to your guns.

Mr. Aitken,

Since I don't pay for television anymore, I want to take this opportunity to thank Sinclair going HD AND boosting the power levels on the Fox and WB affiliates in Nashville. That extra power makes a world of difference for the Free HDTV antenna types like myself.

Good luck on your cable struggle and, hopefully, a speedy resolution.

-Reagan

Talk about thumbing your nose at the consumers.

Fortunately, I do not have to watch my local Sinclair stations, namely ABC and FOX (WSYX and WTTE). Unfortunately for their advertisers, I will never see their products.

Mark,

How do your advertisers feel about your digital channels not being on most cable systems?

For me your stations in Nashville come in fine OTA, but others don't have that luxury. That means they don't watch your stations, which also means they don't watch your advertisers advertisements. That can't be good for business.

I am just glad Sinclair will leave our market for good.

Lucky Sacto viewers!

Are you asking for $0.50 for every cable subscriber, even those with basic cable only, or just those on an HD/digital tier? What about the cable companies who want to offer OTA digital channels via unencrypted QAM, allowing anyone with a QAM tuner to receive them without a cable box?

But that's not the end of the inquiry, I think. If a cable company pays fifty cents per month per subscriber to Sinclair for Fox, it's going to have to pay another fifty cents a month per subscriber to every other HD provider in its market -- instead of nothing, which it pays now. What cable company in its right mind is going to do that?

I think Sinclair is being a dog in the manger and should be ashamed of itself. It takes a lot for me to take Cox Cable's side of ANY dispute but doing so this time isn't hard. I have an OTA antenna. Nevertheless, the only Fox HD programming I watch -- ever -- is the NFL on Fox. Think about it.

I don't think that's "more than fair". If you were to multiply that by the various stations out there, it begins to add up to serious cash! Sinclair has nothing to offer the local cable companies except their OTA transmissions. So, the only thing they can request for carriage is cash. Even Cox is about to get at least one of their local channels on cable (KTVU in the bay area), so why is it so hard for Sinclair to get this worked out.

For a group who went kicking and screaming into HDTV in the first place, and now expects the world in return for doing it.


Amen! Although I can record KOVR-DT to DVHS, I'm waiting for the day that I can record all programming just to my PVR. Viacom ownership of KOVR can't come soon enough.

I suspect he was saying so with sarcasm.

Adelphia is not charging me extra to receive HD Networks. They are all available via ClearQAM on Adelphia. Adelphia is charging me a cable box rental, but not for the networks. I do have to pay extra for the HD tier that has non networks like HBOHD, StarzHD, ShoHD, and MaxHD. My TV has a built in ATSC tuner and I can get CBSHD, ABCHD, NBCHD, and PBSHD without even getting a cable box.

I mentioned this in another thread. I have 2 SD Fox stations on my cable system. As it stands there is no reason for me to watch the Sinclair owned station. But if Sinclair would allow my cable company to carry their HD signal then I have all of the reason in the world to it over the other fox station. Isn't the increased viewership and advertising worth it to them.

Damn they are stubborn.

The other networks are not sinclair owned. The relevance is that Sinclair is using the excuse that Adelphia is making money off of their signal and not passing the money on to them. But that is not true because Adelphia passes the networks HD signals for free via ClearQAM.

Don't you need at least a basic cable subscription to get the clear QAM channels? Without knowing a clear breakdown of what each basic channel costs, I guess you could argue a portion of that fee pays for the HD signals.

As a consumer what is the best way to fight this? My congressman? The FCC?

I wasn't being sarcastic at all - I think the fees we are forced to pay for basic cable/sat have gotten way out of hand. As long as those fees are handed out to Oprah so she can have the Oxygen channel make more money for her, etc. I'm all for a fair portion going to the networks who still provide the most HD original programming that I watch on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, economically Sinclair loses nothing by "sticking to its guns". Since digital viewing is not rated, they don't lose ratings by not having the HD signal on cable. And while I would love having Fox on HD, it does cost money to go digital and Sinclair does have the right to insist on payment.

Sinclair has had other problems which I don't want to go into on this forum. But when I read about their problems, not once did anybody mention how they are at war with cable companies over their digital signal.

It just isn't on anybody's radar except those of us with no antenna and a desire for HD through cable.

I am wondering when satellites will get the rights to show local HD in local markets to all subscribers. If they pay Sinclair and get them I think that may spur cable companies into negotiating further. But there are laws and policies that I don't know that cover these issues.

Suffice it to say, I am resigned to not having Sinclair-owned stations on my cable in HD for a long time. Hey, look what has happened to the NHL. Now that's a negotiation disaster and is shutting down the whole sport. This is merely an aggravation.

Rich N.

My local nbc in roanoke, va has been in hd for over a year. They can not come up with an agreement with my local cable company (cox). But in the mean time, My local cable company has added cbs hd, abc hd and fox hd. I do not understand why a station would let rival networks get a leg up. This fall my wife and I only watched new programs that were in HD. Thats how well got hooked on Lost & Housewives. We did not even give the NBC shows a chance since we could not get there HD version. So why would a network allow this to happen. As a consumer, I don't care who is right or wrong. But Nbc should be upset with these stations that are playing hard ball & causing there networks to lose viewers.

Do you think advertisers are oblivious to this? Don't you think they take it into account?

I think yes, advertisers are oblivious to it. It would only affect local advertisers, and only for those people who would watch the HD and not the SD version of a Fox show. (I'm a part of the problem. I did watch the SD version of the NFC playoffs since the HD was not available). Now if advertisers produced HD commercials, I think they would be a bit more concerned about non-carriage of HD on cable.

But my opinions are of an HD fanatic who has no knowledge of the cable or carriage business side of things.

You're not fooling anybody. Sinclair has always done their best to screw we the viewing public. Delay, delay, delay, delay some more.

How come your stations aren't providing appropriate power? Why aren't they all broadcasting HD? Why did it take years for the few that are digital and HD to come on line?

We know why.

Yeah, I agree. You notice they aren't holding any of their SD signals hostage for payment. They invested a lot of money acquiring/building those stations, too, but there's no problem-o with cable carrying them.

Having said that, I think they're getting a bit desperate. SBGI's done some really silly things, but putting out a press release explaining that you're actually demanding .50/subscriber/month for a local channel with a viewership that probably rivals the local PAX affiliate is pretty insane.

> But that's not the end of the inquiry, I think. If a cable company pays fifty cents per month per subscriber to Sinclair for Fox, it's going to have to pay another fifty cents a month per subscriber to every other HD provider in its market -- instead of nothing, which it pays now. What cable company in its right mind is going to do that?

Let's do some math. If each of the "big four" networks got fifty cents per subscriber, that would add up to $2 total. Say that the "little two" (WB and UPN) are worth another quarter each, and that comes up to $2.50 per subscriber per month.

Cables systems currently pay over $2 per subscriber per month for the analog version of ESPN. That's *one* channel, and a channel that has much lower average ratings than any one of the "big four" affiliates in most markets.

Considering the cost structure that the cable industry has established, I'd say that paying $2.50 per subscriber per months for *six* channels of high definition content seems reasonable.

It's well over $3.00 with generous increases over the next 5 or 6 years with most systems - when you factor in the other mandatory ESPN channels required. Plus they must carry it in the basic analog cable package - not a higher priced tier.

You'd see a lot of pissed off cable subs if Sinclair or one of the other holdouts decided to release that little bit of info to the general public in comparison to what they are asking. Worst case is all the HD subs (maybe 6%) continue to blame Sinclair, but about 2/3 of all the cable subs would be pissed to find out a channel they never watch costs almost as much as HBO.

At least this time the press release actually involves them. They've been putting out garbage press releases on HDTV/DTV for years. Remember the one about the LG next gen receivers being fantastic at the same time the great majority of Sinclair stations hadn't even broadcast a digital signal? I do.

Like aenea said, why does Sinclair let cable companies rebroadcast their analog signal for free?

The entire television industry has gotten out of hand. Stations, cable providers, DBS providers, etc. Most of us are looking at huge monthy bills and the rates are getting worse. I guess thats the price we pay for getting addicted to this crap in the first place.

At about $2 for just ESPN, HBO is about 5 times that. How is that almost as much?

It's the law.

Cable pays closer to $3 for ESPN* (and well over $3 for all the ESPNs) per sub - they pay about $5 - $6 per sub for HBO {less than $4 for the Starz/Encore lineup}. Plus, I bet if a cable company was willing to make HBO part of it's basic cable package, HBO would gladly reduce that fee to ESPN levels. ESPN currently has over 80 Million "subscribers" compared to HBO's 27 Million



Cox was paying $2.61 for ESPN before the last contract was signed that offered a 7% increase over the next 9 years. Reportedly the rate increases were higher in the earlier years. We are entering the second year of that contract

So the law states that they must let cable companies rebroadcast their Analog signal for free, but it doesn't have any provisions for the digital signal?