or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Sinclair Cable Carriage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sinclair Cable Carriage - Page 5

post #121 of 1851
It seems to me if you pay the cable company for a signal they damn well better give you one.
post #122 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by wstanko
I beg to differ and I bet the PA State Utilities Regulatory Commission would agree. Utilities that are monopolies have obligations, and Comcast is my only cable choice, IE a monopoly.

Wait until HD is totally implemented and we will see who has withholding rights.

By law, every TV station can require a cable company to carry their signal (must carry) or they can opt for retransmission consent, whereby they can negotiate for some form of compensation from the cable company. If the station opts for compensation and the cable company refuses to pay, you are out of luck. This applies only to the analog signal, there is currently no must carry protection for digital signals.

Your cable company is not a monopoly, they compete with the satellite providers for your business.
post #123 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by Gary J
It seems to me if you pay the cable company for a signal they damn well better give you one.

They have to give you a signal, and they have to give you whatever was promised when you signed up, but they don't have to give you specific channels. That's a business decision.
post #124 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by CPanther95
"Yes ma'am, I understand you are having difficulty receiving our signal here in your living room, but that big west facing window upstairs in the master bathroom would be an ideal location for your 65" HDTV"

My family room is 17' x 21', and I have exactly ONE place (next to the fireplace) that I can locate my TV. Hopefully, the 5th generation OTA tuners will make this a moot issue. Relocating a TV isn't really a practical solution for most.

She forgot to mention that you will need one of these as well,

post #125 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by spwace
Your cable company is not a monopoly, they compete with the satellite providers for your business.

Not when you can't get satellite because you're not allowed to put a dish on your building, or because the signal is blocked by trees.
post #126 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by wstanko

As for the $2, my Comcast went up $2 also and I got nothing!

Yup, same for me with Comcast. But wait! We got another horseracing channel on the sports tier. Sorry Comcast, gee that's really worth the digital price increase. Sheesh...

Rich N.
post #127 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by Marcus Carr
Not when you can't get satellite because you're not allowed to put a dish on your building, or because the signal is blocked by trees.

That is a problem that is specific to a small percentage of the potential market. It doesn't make them a monopoly. In fact, it is a problem that is specifically addressed in the OTARD ruling, which is intended to make sure that the greatest number of people have a choice of providers.
post #128 of 1851
"Small percentage" or not, monopoly or not, there are people for whom satellite is not an option, and in those cases the cable companies are not in competition with them. Many of these people cannot get certain HD stations via cable because of the stubbornness of Sinclair, which is the whole point of this thread.
post #129 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by Marcus Carr
"Small percentage" or not, monopoly or not, there are people for whom satellite is not an option, and in those cases the cable companies are not in competition with them. Many of these people cannot get certain HD stations via cable because of the stubbornness of Sinclair, which is the whole point of this thread.

It takes two to tango, if Sinclair is stubborn then the cable company is equally stubborn. The difference is that the cable company wants to profit from something that is owned by the station without compensating the station.
post #130 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by spwace
It takes two to tango, if Sinclair is stubborn then the cable company is equally stubborn. The difference is that the cable company wants to profit from something that is owned by the station without compensating the station.

Kissing sinclairs butt huh?

The cable company is not profitting from adding Sinclair's HD feed. Cable companies offer sinclairs HD feed for free via clearQAM. You don't even need to purchase a digital cable package to get it. They are just passing along the feed.

I have a true HDTV and just by hooking up the basic cable from my cable company I can get ABC-HD, CBS-HD, NBC-HD, and PBS-HD.
post #131 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by coomarlin
Kissing sinclairs butt huh?

The cable company is not profitting from adding Sinclair's HD feed. Cable companies offer sinclairs HD feed for free via clearQAM. You don't even need to purchase a digital cable package to get it. They are just passing along the feed.

I have a true HDTV and just by hooking up the basic cable from my cable company I can get ABC-HD, CBS-HD, NBC-HD, and PBS-HD.

Sinclair owns my local CBS affiliate and my selfish motive would be to disagree with them, but in all honesty, I have to agree with them. Go back and read the statement by Sinclair at the beginning of this thread, and if you think they are wrong, tell us why on a point by point basis.

Your cable company is profiting by having those stations on, because without them many of their subscribers would opt for dish. I would be one of them. I chose cable because I can get most of the locals and regional sports nets.
post #132 of 1851
Im willing to pay extra...i dont care if the money goes to FOX, Sinclair, or the cable companies. I just want FOX HD on my local cable service.
post #133 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by coomarlin
The cable company is not profitting from adding Sinclair's HD feed. Cable companies offer sinclairs HD feed for free via clearQAM.

Some of them, maybe. Not mine.
post #134 of 1851
Knology, here in the Charleston area has found a way to make it happen. Its time for TWC and Comcast to bite the bullet and come thru for their customers.
post #135 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by spwace
Sinclair owns my local CBS affiliate and my selfish motive would be to disagree with them, but in all honesty, I have to agree with them. Go back and read the statement by Sinclair at the beginning of this thread, and if you think they are wrong, tell us why on a point by point basis.

Your cable company is profiting by having those stations on, because without them many of their subscribers would opt for dish. I would be one of them. I chose cable because I can get most of the locals and regional sports nets.

So if you can justify that cable companies are profitting by being able to give more stations to their customers then you must admit that Sinclair is also proffiting by getting their signal out to more people. Even if it is via cable instead of OTA. More people means more advertising exposure. You act like Sinclair gets absolutely nothing out of this and that they are getting blatently ripped off. They are getting their signal out to thousands of more people for free !!! How can that be bad for anyone? Including myself, the cable company, and Sinclair........
post #136 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by spwace
Your cable company is profiting by having those stations on, because without them many of their subscribers would opt for dish.

Where you would be paying for them also.
post #137 of 1851
Sinclair's HD signals are not on satellite either so what a cable sub gain by switching to satellite?

And when and if satellite start to carry HD LIL, guess what? Sinclair will ask more from satellite to pay for their HD too, just like they are to cable today, guess what will satellite's reaction be? Not too different I guess because so far DBS companies (both E* and D*) have not had to pay a fee to carry the HD networks on their satellites, only SD channels, which in turn the satellite subs have to pay $5.99 to view.
post #138 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by coomarlin
So if you can justify that cable companies are profitting by being able to give more stations to their customers then you must admit that Sinclair is also proffiting by getting their signal out to more people. Even if it is via cable instead of OTA. More people means more advertising exposure. You act like Sinclair gets absolutely nothing out of this and that they are getting blatently ripped off. They are getting their signal out to thousands of more people for free !!! How can that be bad for anyone? Including myself, the cable company, and Sinclair........

It's not you or I that determines the value of those "thousands more viewers". We may feel that Gillette giving away razors for free would be smart because of the profitable replacement blade business, but that's a decision that is left up to Gillette's marketing department and market forces.

Apparently Sinclair has determined that those extra viewers won't generate as much revenue as you think.
post #139 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by coomarlin
So if you can justify that cable companies are profitting by being able to give more stations to their customers then you must admit that Sinclair is also proffiting by getting their signal out to more people. Even if it is via cable instead of OTA. More people means more advertising exposure. You act like Sinclair gets absolutely nothing out of this and that they are getting blatently ripped off. They are getting their signal out to thousands of more people for free !!! How can that be bad for anyone? Including myself, the cable company, and Sinclair........

Broadcasters laid out millions to put those digital signals on the air and have not gotten any of that investment back. No advertiser pays a premium for digital carriage and those viewers are not counted in the ratings so increasing the number of viewers (at least for the time being) doesn't help the station at all.
post #140 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by spwace
Broadcasters laid out millions to put those digital signals on the air and have not gotten any of that investment back. No advertiser pays a premium for digital carriage and those viewers are not counted in the ratings so increasing the number of viewers (at least for the time being) doesn't help the station at all.

Obviously other station owners felt it would be worth it to put their HD signals on cable, in spite of the millions they spent. Either they don't feel that the cable companies should help pay for their investment, or they were able to work out what they felt was a fair deal, or they are already preparing for the day when "increasing the number of viewers" does help them. The question is, what is Sinclair asking for that the others didn't? Whatever it is, they aren't likely to get it, because everybody else would want the same deal.
post #141 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by Marcus Carr
...The question is, what is Sinclair asking for that the others didn't? Whatever it is, they aren't likely to get it, because everybody else would want the same deal.


With FOX having broadcast rights to MLB , World Series, NFL, and the Superbowl, I believe they hold some pretty powerful cards. After all, live sporting events look their best in HD. I wonder if there are some CBS broadcasting groups that are wishing they had the forethought to attempt what Sinclair is doing?
post #142 of 1851
When Jerry Richardson came up with the idea of selling PSLs (a fee just for the right to buy season tickets) - nobody thought that it was practical. Nobody except the Panthers, and the NFL fans in Charlotte, who were more than willing to pay the fee. Since then, you could probably count on one hand the number of new major sports stadiums that were erected without PSLs attached.

I don't know if this will work out for Sinclair, but just because nobody else is doing it, doesn't mean that it is doomed for failure. I'd also bet that as existing contracts expire, you'll find quite a few other broadcasters joining Sinclair, Raycom, etc. in demanding higher fees for HD - unless this is resolved in the cable company's favor before then.
post #143 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by Marcus Carr
Obviously other station owners felt it would be worth it to put their HD signals on cable, in spite of the millions they spent. Either they don't feel that the cable companies should help pay for their investment, or they were able to work out what they felt was a fair deal, or they are already preparing for the day when "increasing the number of viewers" does help them. The question is, what is Sinclair asking for that the others didn't? Whatever it is, they aren't likely to get it, because everybody else would want the same deal.

Other ownership groups have gotten payment in kind for carriage rights. Many of the big groups also own cable networks and carriage of those networks comes into play when retransmission consent for the local channels is negotiated. For example Viacom might insist on carriage of MTV2 in exchange for the local stations, Disney would bring the lesser incarnations of ESPN into play and NBC might play the Universal card.

To the best of my knowledge, Sinclair doesn't have any cable nets so they are asking for cash to level the field.
post #144 of 1851
Sinclair is crazy if they don't give a damn about increasing the amount of viewers that watch their stations. I've got 2 SD Fox affiliates on my cable system and you can bet your butt I am not watching the Sinclair owned one. If they would give me their HD signal I'd switch, but without it I'll watch the other one just out of spite Apparently they can do without me or any other viewers.
post #145 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by coomarlin
Sinclair is crazy if they don't give a damn about increasing the amount of viewers that watch their stations. I've got 2 SD Fox affiliates on my cable system and you can bet your butt I am not watching the Sinclair owned one. If they would give me their HD signal I'd switch, but without it I'll watch the other one just out of spite Apparently they can do without me or any other viewers.

I'm sure Sinclair does care about the size of their viewing public. However, for the greater good of the bottom line in the future, they will live with the publics hard feelings and unpopularity . I'm almost positive that Sinclair will get their way and be paid a fee per sub, and if they offered better programming on top of their contractual MLB and NFL schedule, They might get it sooner than later.
post #146 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by spwace
Broadcasters laid out millions to put those digital signals on the air and have not gotten any of that investment back. ...

That's what's called a "sunk cost." They were required by law to upgrade to digital TV for their OTA signal. It should have no bearing on economic decisions going forward.

Look, Sinclair has a tough sell with many of us around here, because they have not been consumer-friendly at all. Sinclair entered the digital age kicking and screaming. They fought the transition long after it was well underway by more forward-thinking broadcasters. They threw up smokescreens about the 8VSB system, saying it was technically inferior, when their real motive was simply to not spend money to comply with the law. When they did go digital it was usually barebones minimum, with low power and a crappy 480i signal quality. At least for the Fox affiliates it was only when Fox mandated upgrades and helped the stations do it that they finally fell in line.

It's this past consumer-unfriendly behavior by Sinclair that merits them absolutely no sympathy among a large number of HD enthusiasts. They have no "good will" equity with me, to the point that I favor the cable companies (and that isn't easy for me to do) in this struggle.

As I said before, I have no problem with the concept of individual broadcasters getting paid a fair amount for the retransmission of their signals, but only if I get to choose all the stations I want to pay for (a la carte cable). Unfortunately, that is not the system we have now. Every time new channels are added we are asked to pay more, whether we want them or not. Thus, our cable bills are too high and I have no tolerance for additional fees for one station when its competitors aren't demanding the same.

Maybe a selfish view, but all politics are local.
post #147 of 1851
I'm surprised nobody has already posted this article from today's Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...=1045855934844

Note the opinion of the anonymous "source", which I have emphasized in bold below. I would not be as optimistic as the "source" if I lived in a Sinclair area, but anything is possible.

Quote:


RADIO/TELEVISION: HD viewers: Super Bowl snubbing?

JERRY LINDQUIST
POINT OF VIEW

Jan 31, 2005


Super Bowl XXXIX is less than a week away, and there are some very angry people who have invested a lot of money in high-definition sets but won't be able to see the game in hi-def.

That is, unless local cable provider Comcast can settle its differences with the Sinclair Group, which owns local Fox affiliate WRLH-35.

The dispute between Comcast and Sinclair is about stations' right to charge for retransmission of their digital signals. Sinclair, one of the largest independent owners of television outlets in the country, reportedly is asking cable systems for 50 cents per subscriber per month. The fee, Sinclair told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, will offset costs of $1 million spent to provide high-definition technology at each of its 62 stations.

Until late last week, none of the cable companies in 20 markets nationwide with Sinclair-owned Fox affiliates had agreed to the fee. A breakthrough, of sorts, came in western Pennsylvania, where Armstrong Cable, serving about 125,000 homes, and Sinclair (WPGH Fox-35) reached an agreement. This did not, however, cover the major metro viewing area in Pittsburgh, which is serviced by Comcast.

While negotiations have been on the corporate level, local Comcast operators are waiting, you might say anxiously, for a resolution. In the meantime, they have to be careful what they say, mindful Big Brother at the Philadelphia headquarters is watching.

"Comcast deals with hundreds of stations across the country. There are dozens of ownership groups that we have high-definition agreements with," said Kirby Brooks, who runs the local Comcast operation. "In Richmond, we have ABC, NBC and now CBS. We have made proposals to Sinclair that is consistent with what we've offered to - and has been accepted by - stations here and throughout the country. We have to be consistent."

Comcast and Raycom, which owns local CBS affiliate WTVR-6, settled their differences over hi-def transmission about a month ago.

With the Super Bowl a must-see in most homes, Sinclair presumably has a welcomed, if temporary, bargaining chip with the cable companies who will take the brunt of - if not all - the criticism from irate hi-def set owners. Then again, local station owners risk losing revenue from advertising by not having their signals on cable.

"The biggest sporting party of the year . . . and unfortunately Fox has the rights. Why do they and Comcast want to anger their customers?" a local viewer wrote (in part). "Is there any government agency that has some influence?"

There is another way to get the game in high-definition, but it means buying an antenna (cheap) and tuner ($250-$300) in addition to spending several thousand dollars for the set - if it doesn't come equipped with an HD receiver. Most apparently don't.

And that setup doesn't necessarily guarantee HD clarity based on your location from the over-the-air feed. Even satellite dish owners, we're told, have to petition the provider to get the networks in HD.

So, who are we talking about here, how many Richmond-area Comcast subscribers have hi-def sets? Brooks estimates about 5 percent of his 230,000-plus. Nationally, the figure is said to be closer to 10 percent of this country's TV households.

Brooks can't say it, but another source says there's a good chance the impasse between Comcast and Sinclair will be resolved in time for the Super Bowl.

"We've got Channel 213 ready in the event there's an agreement," Brooks said.

Emphasis added.
post #148 of 1851
post #149 of 1851
The more and more I dwell on this the more and more I hope that the cable companies don't give in and pay Sinclair. Even at my own expense. I'd love to have Fox HD but considering how Sinclair has been through this whole ordeal and considering their past lack of customer concern I really hope they don't get anything. I'll watch my other SD fox affiliate and enjoy all of Sinclairs competition in HD.
post #150 of 1851
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Sinclair Cable Carriage