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

Sinclair Cable Carriage - Page 3

post #61 of 1851
I can understand how this would be frusterating to people who cannot receive OTA signals. However, a couple thoughts for those who can receive OTA signals but want Sinclair to give away their product for free. Why should local broadcasters be put out of business (because that's what these direct cable-network arrangements would do) to satiate the appetites of those who refuse to use an antenna?

Look, it makes little sense to me why anyone would stick up for the cable companies here. Basically, the cable companies want to receive programming for free and then charge for that programming, and there's no doubt that's what they do because, Basic Cable is only broadcast channels and that's not free. (And yes, it's true that they've laid down infrastructure and the whole nine yards and yes they should be able to recoup that cost to some extent, but the cable company did not lay down that infrastructure altruisticly, they did it so that you would purchase Basic, Standard, Super Duper Cable, and/or High Speed Internet from them.)

One of the sad things in consumer education today is how dang pervasive consumer unawareness is. I try to invite people over to show them look, I paid $20 for an antenna stuck the thing in my attic and got HDTV. I've had people come over and they just assume I've switched back to cable. The cable company just loves reaping $ from the people who call up Cable X and say ... I just got an HDTV I'd like to get HD Cable, and so what happens next thing you know...Well you need Digital Cable to get Digital Television they tell you and all this jazz and jack the average uninformed consumers bill up to $70 just to watch (because that's 90% of what the consumer really wants) CSI in HD or 24 or the Super Bowl.

To those who can't get OTA signals, it sucks yes, but why should the 90% of those who can get OTA signals effectively subsidize your choice to live in a OTA sinkhole, (fortunately with AntennaWeb one can look before they buy at their OTA situation to be, I understand this is a little harsh for those who bought before AntennaWeb and the like, but it's a part of life), it's the same principle as insurance if you want to live in a place subject to flooding, you shouldn't complain that you have to buy flood insurance, if you want to live where OTA doesn't come in (usually in a valley or some other hilly region) why should we the OTA customers subsidize your choice to live in a scenic area?

With ATSC I think cable could be under siege, most people just want the Networks if people find out that they can get HD for free over the air they just might head that route. Sinclair is justfied in seeking payment for their product. As any business would be. Cable companies on the other hand are completely unjustified in seeking to get something for nothing.
post #62 of 1851
Which gets Sinclair more revenue?

1 50 cents per month per HD sub or
2 increased ratings due to HD subs without 50 cents
post #63 of 1851
And if Sinclair has the utmost success in their "Free OTA" ad campaign, how will they make any money from those viewers? They don't want anyone to go OTA in reality.
post #64 of 1851
Sinclair is basically threatening to take all of its signals, both analog and digital-- well, actually digital isn't even there yet, which is the reason for this thread-- away from cable providers, thinking that the cable providers will cave in when customers start defecting to DBS.

However, Sinclair's Nielsen ratings will take a dive and so will its advertising revenue for as long as it signals are not available on cable. So the question is, how long can Sinclair hold out with major declines in advertising revenue? And is it really worth it when the potential gain (.50 per subscriber) is far outweighed by the potential loss (far more than .50 per subscriber in advertising losses)?

And how long can Sinclair go without any cable viewers before Sinclair's board of directors, fearing Enron type liability for failing to act, fire the CEO and other executives and replace them with a staff that "get along" with the cable industry?

Maybe Sinclair is hoping the public uproar will cause Congress to get involved and enact yet another set of bureaucratic laws followed by another, related set of bureaucratic FCC regulations. I hope not, because I thought Sinclair's philosophy was "the less FCC bureacracy, the better."
post #65 of 1851
OK, I'm done playing Devil's Advocate (not that anyone is the Devil) - I didn't want this to just turn into another Sinclair bitch-fest thread where everyone just comes on slams Sinclair and nothing of substance is actually discussed. Obviously, there are plenty of AVS members who are highly motivated to get their HD networks from whatever service provider they have and are commited to. There are much fewer broadcast affiliate members who are going to come into this thread and stir the pot.

I've tried to list every argument that I can think of that Sinclair can make, so moving forward, no matter how upset you are, let's try to keep this to a debate of the possible issues. If you feel one side is completely wrong, that's fine - discuss why. If it simply degrades to "they're idiots", the thread will go nowhere.

I get my locals OTA and the majority of cable companies are passing through HD locals at a reasonable rate compared to the prices I cited which are for my local cable company that only services a single county. So in reality, I have no personal investment in this issue. but I do believe the debate itself is important for two reasons:

1) This issue will become much more prevalent over the next couple of years as more stations try to redefine the market.

2) Some similar arrangement may be the only way that the very small market affiliates will ever upgrade to HD.


I've thrown on the gasoline - now have fun.
post #66 of 1851
Quote:
Originally posted by Gary J

2 increased ratings due to HD subs without 50 cents

I know some of us have our priorities out of whack, but I hope there are no HD subs that don't have $0.50 to their name.
post #67 of 1851
Competition is good. Why not allow out-of-market network affiliates compete with in-market network affiliates IF the in-market network affiliates are unable to reach a retransmission deal with a cable company and IF the network in question allows such competition in its affiliation agreements?

The prospect of competition could be limited in certain respects, such as: (1) only neighboring markets would be allowed to compete, for example, D.C. and Baltimore; and (2) the network's signal would have to be MIA from a given cable system for a given period of time before "permission to compete" would kick in, let's say 120 days for sake of argument.

So, as an example, let's say on January 1, 2006, the analog signal of the Sinclair owned Fox affiliate in Baltimore disappears from Comcast's systems because Sinclair wants cash payment and Comcast refuses cash payment-- but offers the traditional "advertising buy/exchange" arrangement. By April 30, 2006 (120 days), Sinclair and Comcast still have not reached an agreement. Comcast subs in Baltimore are unable to watch Fox, analog or digital. Beginning on May 1, 2006, the D.C. Fox affiliate is allowed to negotiate with Comcast to put its signals (analog and/or digital) on Comcast's Baltimore systems ... IF the Fox Network gives the go-ahead to do so.

Of course, the NAB would scream bloody murder if there was even a whiff of a scent that the FCC might allow this but, as I say, for consumers, competition is good and almost all monopolies are bad.

Something to think about ... and I am also ready to give it a rest while I will be closely following the Cox/Cable One vs. Nexstar saga and looking forward to October 1, 2005 rolling around, when the initial salvos will be fired by Sinclair and Emmis (and other station group owners of like mind).
post #68 of 1851
Quote:
Originally posted by j_buckingham80

To those who can't get OTA signals, it sucks yes, but why should the 90% of those who can get OTA signals effectively subsidize your choice to live in a OTA sinkhole,

What 90% are you talking about? Best estimates put OTA viewers at about 15-19%, clearly the minority. Sinclair markets may vary one way or the other but they are probably pretty close to the national average. As I noted earlier and SonomaSearcher reiterated, it's really simple, once advertising becomes a factor and HD viewership increases, there ain't a chance in h*ll that Sinclair or it's board is going to forsake the 65-85% of potential viewers for those advertisers to reach over a silly-ass .50 cent per viewer fee.

Sinclair's stand may be admirable, blah, blah, blah, but when it comes time to check the P&L, they'll come around, no doubt about it...

The fact is, for me I really don't care what Sinclair does as there isn't any Sinclair stations in California(we don't allow them ) but what they are trying to do has implications far beyond their own markets and merits watching and acting against.
post #69 of 1851
If we truly could pay for cable channels "a la carte" I would have no problem choosing my local Fox digital channel and having a portion of the money go to the station owner (Sinclair), just like I would choose ESPN and and Turner Classic Movies and then they get paid. I would opt out of all the stupid (to me) channels that I have no interest in and save $$ overall. (Of course, I wonder how new channels could ever catch on in such an arrangement, but I digress.)

But "a la carte" is not the reality of the situation for us cable subscribers right now. The reality is that we have to buy cable as a package deal, in various tiers. We are sensitive to ever-increasing cable bills. We don't want anything to make it go up even more.

So when we see that all (or most of) the other network digital channels in our locale are available on the cable with no fuss, but one of them (Sinclair) is holding out from such an arrangement, bucking the status quo, and bottom line it would cost us more .... guess who the bad guy is to us? As much as we may dislike the cable company, they aren't the villain to us in this. Our attitude is, "if it's good enough for the other station owners, why isn't it good enough for Sinclair?" They've already spent the money to upgrade to digital, as required by law. Wouldn't the increase in viewers on cable be a benefit to them? Look, they may not like the structure, but they are alienating their customers by trying to change it. And it's a losing battle as far as I can see.

I also think it's funny how Sinclair keeps touting "HDTV free over-the-air" -- when you know that the last thing in the world they would really want is for everyone to go OTA, since they wouldn't get paid anything more. It's just a ploy to try to divert the blame back to cable companies.

BTW, isn't the title of this thread a bit of an oxymoron?
post #70 of 1851
Another factor in this that shouldn't be underestimated is the advent of the DVR. I started renting the Moto 6412 box from Comcast last month, for $10 per month. So far, I love it. Being able to time-shift HD and SD content at a reasonable fee is great. It's a feature that I don't want to lose.

So now Sinclair informs me that they have "free HDTV over-the-air." But what about my HD DVR? Last I checked the Satellite/OTA models aren't cheap. (Or does Dish now let you lease them? I'm not sure.) Point is, it ain't free.
post #71 of 1851
Well, for a little while longer we have Sinclair owning Channel 13, the CBS affiliate. And of course, the Comcast subscribers in Sacramento cannot view the HD signal without OTA equipment. Viacom is in the process of buying the station, which will make it an O&O. Most expect a quick provision of the digital signal to cable when that happens.

25 miles north, in Woodland, Charter Cable has no plans to provide HD signals. Luckily, Directv and OTA reception are available.
post #72 of 1851
> Competition is good. Why not allow out-of-market network affiliates compete with in-market network affiliates IF the in-market network affiliates are unable to reach a retransmission deal with a cable company and IF the network in question allows such competition in its affiliation agreements?

The networks don't generally allow such competition -- that is why the affiliation agreements are EXCLUSIVE agreements. They grant EXCLUSIVE rights to the network's programming to the affiliate for a given market. On top of that, the syndicated programming that runs on stations is also sold on a market-by-market basis.

It seems to me that the folks who are making arguments that cable systems should be allowed to bypass the local affiliates really want the government to come in and basically invalidate the exclusivity provisions in existing network and programming contracts.

Meanwhile, from further back:

> ESPN commands what the market bears

Does anyone seriously believe that this is the truth? The pricing for basic cable networks occurs in an environment that has little resemblance to a truly open markets -- media oligarchies negotiating over packages of programming in a manner that makes it very difficult to determine what the true market value of a particular network is. For example, it may well be the case that a cable company that refuses to pay the price for ESPN might find itself having trouble getting retransmission rights for ABC's owned and operated stations, or for some other Disney-owned channels.

> Someone said earlier that analog locals are retransmitted without compensating the stations. So the FCC does have a hand in the cable world with must-carry rules.

But whoever said that was wrong. Local broadcasters can elect either must-carry or retransmission consent. If they elect the latter, they can negotiate whatever terms they can get the local cable companies to agree to.
post #73 of 1851
Quote:
Originally posted by Thomas Desmond

But whoever said that was wrong. Local broadcasters can elect either must-carry or retransmission consent. If they elect the latter, they can negotiate whatever terms they can get the local cable companies to agree to.

True, but IIRC, if they elect the latter, retrans-consent, then "must carry" doesn't apply. And in the near future stations will have to decide whether they want one or the other for their primary signal and most would probably choose "must carry" for the one that is going to provide the greatest return as far as advertising. This, I believe, is why some stations of any stature are trying to lock in re-trans agreements for the HD signal as they know that will be the one people will be watching. If they don't, they know that the HD signal will become the "must carry" due to the ad revenue it will produce because it's the one people will be watching. Tough to compete with a SD signal when other stations are doing HD, and getting the viewers..
post #74 of 1851
Quote:
The networks don't generally allow such competition -- that is why the affiliation agreements are EXCLUSIVE agreements. They grant EXCLUSIVE rights to the network's programming to the affiliate for a given market. On top of that, the syndicated programming that runs on stations is also sold on a market-by-market basis.

It seems to me that the folks who are making arguments that cable systems should be allowed to bypass the local affiliates really want the government to come in and basically invalidate the exclusivity provisions in existing network and programming contracts.

I agree and I'm also in favor of stations being able to negotiate retransmission consent for any and all parts of their content, since they contractually have exclusive rights to that content.

But what I don't understand is how the stations will continue to contract with the networks and keep exclusive rights to the digital content when they are not successfully negotiating to keep that content carried on the cable companies.

The networks may not care much yet whether their digital content (HDTV?) is carried on cable because there are not yet many viewers watching it that way. But cable HD seems to be coming on strong and networks are increasingly spending extra bucks for prime time HD. So digital cable carriage is becoming increasingly important to the networks.

Given all that, what is the chance that during the next contract negotiations the nets may not insist on some non-exclusivity clause for digital carriage when the stations don't successfully get carried for some reason. That is, what stops the network from asking for the right to sell directly to cable in some area that isn't already being covered that way?

Unless there is some obscure law preventing it I suspect that some of those conversations may already be occurring.

- Tom
post #75 of 1851
Quote:
Originally posted by keenan
Must we go here again? We've discussed this in another thread and I thought we both agreed that if the customer is in an area that is INCAPABLE of getting an OTA signal, something that companies like Sinclair seem to be completely ignorant about or refuse to acknowledge, the signal should be provided at no additional cost. The station is the one that is going to lose out, and I think the advertisers are the ones that will ultimately decide this issue.

The plain and simple fact is that OTA viewers are a very small minority, whether they can get the signal and are too lazy to try or because they simply cannot get the signal period. This idea of re-couping costs by charging viewers for the installing of new digital equipment that was mandated by the FCC to retain their license to broadcast is just BS. Nobody is forcing them to broadcast a HD signal. Eventually when advertisers notice that people are watching the HD version of a broadcast on another station and the HD version of say a Sinclair station is not on the cable system, guess what, advertising revenue will go in the toilet. If the station decides to transmit a SD and a HD signal and wants to charge for the HD signal, charge the advertisers not your viewers, like stations have been doing it for the last 50yrs, or don't broadcast a HD signal. When the station realizes they've lost viewers to stations that are broadcasting a HD signal, the station will come around to reality, it's really just simple economics and market reality.

Getting back to the OTA thing, please qualify your remarks about OTA reception to include only those who can actually get an OTA. I've spent over a $1000 on OTA equipment and to no avail, is a station like Sinclair going to reimburse me for that expense, hell no, instead they want to charge me money to get the signal that is freely broadcast OTA. Concerning this issue, I have no sympathy for the broadcasters, you want to play the game, learn how to play it, just don't ask me to subsidize something so that others can get it for free.

Rant over..

Well Put
post #76 of 1851
here's some news Sinclair made a mistake with the Armstrong cable contract and now have to let Armstrong carry the Fox hd signal.
post #77 of 1851
Cox just agreed with Comcast and Charter. They were joined with Sinclair in withholding their HD signal. As more of these agreements occur, Sinclair will be out in right field on their own.

So now several cities that had Cox (I know KTVU Fox in SF-Oak) are now going to be on Comcast in time for the Super Bowl.

Rich N.
post #78 of 1851
A couple more points, as pointed out, competition is good. I agree, generally competition benefits us all. But it is those who are demanding that broadcasters be forbidden from charging for their signal who are opposing competition. We recognize the importance of copyright protection for networks and broadcasters because other than the 6Mhz channel they are granted to by the FCC, that's the only big property that they have.
This protection than allows the Network and affiliate to arrange how the Network signal will be send out. If an affiliate is too demanding, the Network will abandon the affiliate see e.g. KRON in S.F. So, because the networks only provide about 30% of total affiliate programming, and networks want their programming to be on the affiliate the network grants exclusive rights in exchange for being associated with that local channel within that market area.
That's what competition is, if Broadcaster X wants more concessions from the Network than the Network is willing to give, eventually, the Network will leave that affiliate. Now, that Broadcaster owns exclusive rights to that signal within that market area. That's what the affiliate has paid for, that's what they own. Competition is not, let another affiliate (or the network more generally) breach the contract they have with the local affiliate by government fiat.

On another subject, a number of people on here suggest that the last thing broadcasters really want is for people to go OTA, but I ask why it is that they think this is so? Broadcasters would absolutely stand to benefit if people dropped Cable to go to OTA or Satellite. Why? In an OTA market, Broadcaster X of Network A represents effectively 25% of the programming on an individual's television. This means that when OTA consumers turn on the TV, they are more likely to watch Broadcaster X than if Broadcaster X only represents 3% of the programming on that individuals TV.
Effectively, an OTA customer is substantially more likely to watch the 19th rerun of Seinfeld than a cable customer who may jump over to Sportscenter, South Park, or some other cable show. When Broadcaster X provides their signal to a cable company they give up 22% of the programming on television and have gotten in return carriage on the cable system. If Broadcaster X believes that 22% loss is worth $.50 per sub and carriage, than they have a right to negotiate for it.
So, by pushing people to leave cable and move to OTA, Sinclair and other broadcasters are looking to increase their Programming share. The share that their channel possesses over the total programming available to that television. For satellite, the broadcaster is able to get the $.50 per sub or whatever it is they settle on.

As to the 90% that I mentioned earlier it is very important to note, that I used the word can not do. The 82% or so who choose to get Cable or Sat do so because either they got tired of snow or want more programming options. My bet is on the fact that most people went for Cable, initially, because they got tired of snow, ghosts, adjusting antennae, etc. If Broadcasters are trying to steer people back to OTA because the ghost and snow issues have been eliminated and the ease of getting a clean signal is much easier that certainly seems to be a wise business model. Broadcasters had to give their signal away for free in the NTSC world because regardless of what people watch, most do not like static, snow, or ghosts, so the broadcaster would have lost that 22% and the 3% because the poor signal meant people wouldn't watch, cable provided carriage of a clean signal to distant places within their market area. Now that the clean signal is less of an issue it makes sense that broadcasters would like to jump in on the gravy train.

Lastly, for this post anyways, is the point about how this will make cable companies charge more and cable is already too expensive. I completely agree that cable is already too expensive, but this should show that it is the cable company that is gouging, not the broadcasters, the cable company is effectively demanding to get high quality (Network programming) programming for free. Cable companies are in the business of reselling programming, they do this for even low quality programming. What effectively is happening is that the cable company is requiring you to buy 40 channels you don't want to get the 15 channels you do. Worse yet, the cable company is trying to take programming from the channel you most want for no cost and take that revenue from you and give it to the channels you don't want.

Sinclair may yet lose this battle, but as a broadcaster it's certainly their right to try. Satellite is putting the hurt on cable, and OTA may begin to soon as well, where I live probably more than half the homes have dishes, and if Satellite is willing to pay for the locals, why shouldn't Cable be willing as well? Just because Cable's always gotten a free pass? Well that's because of the nature of NTSC transmission. If Sinclair wins, maybe Cable companies will have to revisit their nature of tiering crummy channels in with good ones because as extended basic climbs up to $70/mth, people will say the the 10 cable shows they watch just aren't worth it, then maybe cable will allow individuals to weed out the wheat from the chaff (a la carte pricing).
post #79 of 1851
"Payments to Slinclair Should Not Increase Your Cable Bill"

Umm yeah... Did Mark Hyman write that? I don't say this very often, but I hope the cable companies win this one.
post #80 of 1851
Quote:
Originally posted by j_buckingham80
Now that the clean signal is less of an issue it makes sense that broadcasters would like to jump in on the gravy train.

This is a very presumptuous statement. First, it's not an issue of the signal being "clean", the issue is getting the signal at all. If the use of the word "clean" got tied up in semantics I'll assume you meant "receiving a usable signal". Yes, OTA tuners have become much better at signal locking and multipath rejection, but to dismiss the difficulty of receiving those signals as a thing of the past is just not true. It may be so in your market, and that's great for you, but in a market like SF for example, OTA reception, at best, is a hit or miss proposition, and if you don't have a rotator, forget about getting all the signals with a stationary antenna. And this is for broadcasts from a single tower(Sutro). OTA reception needs to become far more reliable and easy to get than it is now for it to ever regain or take back viewers lost to cable or sat. With current and near-term ATSC technology, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
post #81 of 1851
I grew up in Walnut Creek and know of the trial and travails of getting OTA reception in the Bay Area. Walnut Creek itself is nearly impossible for any DTV. As a result, it's probably unlikely that Bay Area broadcasters would insist on a fee for carriage. That's not to say it wouldn't happen if Sinclair gets its way, it may, but then Consumers in dark areas may push for additional towers.

However, if you go to the Sacramento valley a very large percentage of target consumer can get excellent DTV reception. I for example, get every broadcast DTV channel available from Sacto. I think this means that Sacramento broadcaster would have a great incentive to require Cable companies to pay for their signal.

My point about a clean signal is more just to suggest with ATSC, if you're getting a picture you get it free of snow and ghosts. With NTSC, you get 25 miles out and you get a good picture, but an imperfect one, or it changes with the weather. All issues that most consumers wish to avoid. I do think the "clean" signal issue is still an issue just a substantially reduced one moving forward.

Also, I think Walnut Creek and Concord both provide Astound and Cable TV, providing the consumer with additional choice.
post #82 of 1851
Quote:
Originally posted by CAM356
here's some news Sinclair made a mistake with the Armstrong cable contract and now have to let Armstrong carry the Fox hd signal.

According to Armstrong, this statement is false.
post #83 of 1851
> On another subject, a number of people on here suggest that the last thing broadcasters really want is for people to go OTA, but I ask why it is that they think this is so? Broadcasters would absolutely stand to benefit if people dropped Cable to go to OTA or Satellite.

This is an "it depends" type of situation. Part of the "it depends" is that it depends on who owns the station. Remember that if people dump cable/satellite and go OTA-only, the companies that own both broadcast stations and cable networks are not necessarily happy about that -- the advertising revenue that they'd gain from higher ratings at their broadcast stations would likely be offset by the losses from the cable networks. Generally, this is the big companies -- Viacom, NBC Universal, Disney, and News Corp.

On the other side is the broadcast only companies -- folks like Sinclair, Clear Channel, Gray Broadcasting, Emmis, etc. These companies don't have any financial interest in the cable business, and are thus happy to see the cable networks lose viewers.

Finally, cable and satellite are not equal in the eyes of many broadcasters -- because cable can sell local advertising in competition with the broadcasters, whereas satellite can't. So even if satellite takes away some of the broadcast stations' audiences, it still can't sell to local advertisers in direct competition. Thus, when viewers switch from cable to satellite, broadcasters may feel like they are gaining.
post #84 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by agtiny
According to Armstrong, this statement is false.

I know one of the engineers at Armstrong he said they should have the signal broad casted before the super bowl.
post #85 of 1851
From The Sun-Sentinel-Florida

Fans with HDTV fume at Super Bowl picture

Static: Some owners of costly new sets learn that a cable dispute means they can't see football with hoped-for super-clarity.

By Andrea K. Walker
Sun Staff
Posted January 28 2005

"Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., the Hunt Valley company that is one of the largest independent owners of television stations in the country, owns Fox 45 in Baltimore. It wants Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable TV provider, to pay to retransmit the station for high-definition viewing. The Philadelphia-based cable operator doesn't want to pay the fee, 50 cents per subscriber per month, that Sinclair proposes.

In Baltimore City and county, Comcast estimates that fewer than 10 percent of its subscribers own HDTV sets.

HDTV owners who receive their signal via satellite television are not affected by the fight.

Sinclair said none of the cable companies in the 20 markets around the country where it owns a Fox station has agreed to pay the fee. While companies on both sides say they continue to negotiate, the issue could take months or longer to settle."


Complete article here,

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business...ness-headlines
Fans with HDTV fume at Super Bowl picture: South Florida Sun-Sentinel
post #86 of 1851
That's not entirely accurate, any satellite viewers are completely locked out because Sinclair would never grant a waiver to receive the national Fox HD feed.
post #87 of 1851
Quote:


Originally posted by keenan
From The Sun-Sentinel-Florida
....

By Andrea K. Walker
...

HDTV owners who receive their signal via satellite television are not affected by the fight.
....

Quite a misleading statement and bad journalism.

The statement implies that satellite subscribers in Baltimore can receive Fox HD via satellite. But, as we know, Dish doesn't offer Fox HD at all and Baltimore DMA residents are NOT eligible for the DirecTV feed.
post #88 of 1851
http://www.tvpredictions.com/swannirants012705.html

good opinions on cable fighting the affiliates and on EDTV
post #89 of 1851
The fact that no cable company has agreed to Sinclair's demands I think is indicative of their unwillingness to actively negotiate. Cox just signed an agreement with Comcast and Charter.

Charging .50 per customer doesn't sound bad, but I don't remember them saying "For HDTV customers only". In effect, Sinclair wants the HDTV feed to subsidize the rest of the company. By charging SD analog subscribers the same as HD really is upsetting.

But it is Sinclair....

Rich N.
post #90 of 1851
Yeah, I honestly didn't read the whole thing, just a quick run-through. The point though is that the issues with Sinclair vs the cablecos needs to get into the media as it can have an effect, the negative PR for both sides can often help make a resolution come about. We've witnessed that very thing happening here in the SF Bay Area.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Sinclair Cable Carriage