The W
Views: 98941244
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.9.14 1439
The W - Current Events & Politics - LIN TV and Time Warner (and Bright House) unable to reach TV agreement
This thread has 108 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.25
Pages: 1
(314 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (14 total)
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 415 days
Last activity: 375 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.91
Basically, LIN TV, which owns 29 TV stations across the US, was unable to work out rebroadcast agreements with the local cable companies, Time Warner, and Bright House Networks. All other affected cable companies (including Comcast and Charter) have agreed to pay the larger fees LIN TV was requesting.

Time Warner (and presumably Bright House as well) believes that it should not have to pay for programming "which is available for free with an antenna or on the Internet."

Time Warner is making antennas available for customers in some of these areas.

I don't know who to blame for this. Luckily there seems like plenty of greed to go around. It doesn't help Time Warner's credibility with me that they've copy and pasted at least 5 different versions of the same notice, changing only the local cable manager's name.
http://www.timewarnercable.com/Wisconsin/products/cable/retrans/default.html
http://www.timewarnercable.com/WNY/products/cable/retrans/default_post2.html
http://www.timewarnercable.com/TerreHaute/products/cable/retrans/default.html
http://www.timewarnercable.com/Dayton/products/cable/retrans/default_post2.html
http://www.timewarnercable.com/MidOhio/programming/lintv.html
So all 5 of those station managers made the exact same quotes? Strange.

Affected markets:
Austin, TX - KXAN (NBC), KNVA (CW), KBVO (Telemundo)
Green Bay, WI - WLUK (FOX)
Buffalo, NY - WIVB (CBS) & WNLO (CW)
Pensacola, FL - WALA (FOX) & WBPG (CW)
Indianapolis, IN - WISH (CBS), WNDY (MyN), WIIH (Univision)
Fort Wayne, IN - WANE (CBS)
Terre Haute, IN - WTHI (CBS)
Dayton, OH - WDTN (NBC)
Columbus, OH - WWHO (CW)
Toledo, OH - WUPW (FOX)

So this is a big deal in the Green Bay area because the local FOX station is supposed to broadcast the Packer game on Sunday. The CBS stations in Buffalo and Indianapolis are also supposed to be showing local NFL games on Sunday. Hopefully they get this worked out soon.
Promote this thread!
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
Yes, here in Austin NBC is just a message from TW saying go yell at the local affiliate. And honestly we all should. Time Warner is 100% right in this case. If everyone can get the signal for free, why should Time Warner have to pay for it? Cause if they do, it only means I have to pay more for my cable.

I only watch NBC for The Office, and I have an antenna on one of the HDTV's already so I won't be missing out on anything. Hopefully the stupid local station loses a ton of money and has to come crawling back soon.
PeterStork
Sujuk








Since: 25.1.02
From: Chicagoland with Hoosiers, or "The Region"

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.48
Broadcasters seem to think that just because cable channels receive per subscriber fees that they can demand the same. If the market will bear it, I guess they can. But Time Warner is smart to push the antenna option in markets where cheap rabbit ears can do the trick (as opposed to a rural area an hour from the station where you'd need a better antenna to receive the channel).



exit 670 dot com | digital route 66
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.96
    Originally posted by PeterStork
    Broadcasters seem to think that just because cable channels receive per subscriber fees that they can demand the same. If the market will bear it, I guess they can. But Time Warner is smart to push the antenna option in markets where cheap rabbit ears can do the trick (as opposed to a rural area an hour from the station where you'd need a better antenna to receive the channel).

Except that cheap rabbit ears will only work through February 19, 2009. Then analog broadcasting becomes a thing of the past.

(edited by Sec19Row53 on 5.10.08 2230)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.40
You pick up digital transmissions over the air with an antenna as well.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.96
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    You pick up digital transmissions over the air with an antenna as well.

Is it the same type of antenna? I admittedly know nothing about this, only that I hooked up my parents' antenna kit this weekend.
PeterStork
Sujuk








Since: 25.1.02
From: Chicagoland with Hoosiers, or "The Region"

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.48
    Originally posted by Sec19Row53
      Originally posted by Guru Zim
      You pick up digital transmissions over the air with an antenna as well.

    Is it the same type of antenna? I admittedly know nothing about this, only that I hooked up my parents' antenna kit this weekend.


Exact same type of antenna. As long as it has a UHF loop (and basically any $10 piece of crap from Wally World will) it will receive digital channels (with the use of a digital receiver). Now a rural customer sixty miles from the tower might need to upgrade from a small pair like that to a bigger antenna - maybe even a rooftop antenna - but old ones will still work for most.



exit 670 dot com | digital route 66
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 152 days
Last activity: 40 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.25
Welcome home, men of the 2nd Bn, 127th Inf, 32d "Red Arrow" Brigade, WI Army Nat'l Guard! Good luck to those down south.

Guys...take it from somebody in the TV biz. LIN TV (who operates one of my competitors) is right, and Time Warner is wrong.

Time Warner argues that they shouldn't have to pay for something that's free for the end user. (Sure, if you use an antenna and NOT their service.) What they're whining about is that they've gotten local channels into their system for free since cable began, and simply don't wanna pay fair market value for that programming that they're RESELLING by putting it on cable. Funny...they pay every other provider of content, such as ESPN, for every channel they get in...and then re-sell to you.

Think of it this way: local over-the-air TV is like a bubbler (that's "drinking fountain" for you non-Wisconsinites) in a park. Free for everybody, OK.

Now think of Time Warner as a beverage company. They'll deliver you lots of different flavors: Gatorade, fruit punch, lemonade, Coke, Pepsi...and they pay the makers of those products for those bottles...then re-sell 'em to you. What they're b*tching about is that they should be allowed to fill their plain water bottles from the public fountain, and then re-sell 'em to you...thus making money off a public resource! (Remember, the over-the-air frequencies the stations operate on are public domain, and regulated by the FCC.) They simply don't wanna pay for that water from the wholesaler, like they do for everything else. It's crap.

Time Warner's "but it's free elsewhere, so we shouldn't have to pay" argument is shot to pieces by one thing: they have an option where you can just subscribe to your local channels ONLY thru Time Warner Cable...and no, it's not free. You pay Time Warner. So there they are, charging you for something you can get for free on your own...but they don't wanna pay the provider.

Remember, Time Warner is the same outfit that still can't come to a deal with the NFL Network (when everybody else has), and barely got a deal done with the Big Ten Network in time for this football season. These a-holes don't wanna negotiate...they want you all to bend over.

Time Warner sucks. We TV folks are not in the biz of providing them free content to make money off of without us being properly compensated. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. People can get us for free w/ an antenna...if they want. If our programming is to be part of what you're selling people, then we want some $ for our raw materials you're fashioning cable packages out of.

Folks, switch to DirecTV (or DISH Network). I'm not sure I can recommend AT&T U-Verse, if it's in your area yet. LIN TV will not be the first company to have this argument with Time Warner...I promise you.

(And by the way, for those of you with HD sets...I find that HD programming from your local affiliates or their network looks much better over-the-air with a plain' ol UHF antenna than over cable OR satellite. Much less compressed and cleaner.)









NWAWisconsin.com...Live, Local Pro Wrestling!

wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
Of course TW charges for just a basic cable setup. They still have to maintain the lines and signal quality, etc. It's not like they're doing nothing for you there.

The difference between paying for ESPN and local stations is that people can't get ESPN for free.

And it's not like the local channels are left in the cold if TW doesn't pay them. They make plenty of money off ads they wouldn't get if they aren't on the local cable provider.

Doesn't seem TW wants US to bend over, as they are avoiding paying fees for something thats free. Seems like LIN wants us to bend over and pay extra for what we can get for free.
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 8 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.12
    Originally posted by The Thrill
    What they're whining about is that they've gotten local channels into their system for free since cable began, and simply don't wanna pay fair market value for that programming that they're RESELLING by putting it on cable. Funny...they pay every other provider of content, such as ESPN, for every channel they get in...and then re-sell to you.


On the flip side, local affiliates bitched quite a bit when the "big three" networks decided to stop compensating for prime-time carriage back in the late '90s.


    (L)ocal over-the-air TV is like a bubbler (that's "drinking fountain" for you non-Wisconsinites).


As a brand name, that should be "Bubbler" (copyright held by Kohler, Inc.)


    (Remember, the over-the-air frequencies the stations operate on are public domain, and regulated by the FCC.)


As such, all major broadcast networks are (or used to be, can't remember) "must carry" on cable providers. Which brings to mind why they don't just negotiate with a different Fox station? WFXS is closer to Green Bay than it is to Rhinelander, which is in the same DMA, and I'm sure they'd be happy to air in GB. No one cares about the FOX newscast (unless they started out as an Independent back in the '50s and became FOX later) and WLUK's non-network programming has been crap since Ned the Dead moved to The WB, then further down to on-demand status


    Time Warner's "but it's free elsewhere, so we shouldn't have to pay" argument is shot to pieces by one thing: they have an option where you can just subscribe to your local channels ONLY thru Time Warner Cable...and no, it's not free.


It's not just the local broadcast channels in those pqckages, it's also the weather channel, a C-Span or three, and the local public access channels (which are again, "must carrys" by federal law)


    Remember, Time Warner is the same outfit that still can't come to a deal with the NFL Network (when everybody else has), and barely got a deal done with the Big Ten Network in time for this football season. These a-holes don't wanna negotiate...they want you all to bend over.



In these cases, it's the Big10 & NFL network's fault. If they were willing to be put on a separate sports tier, I'm sure TW wouldn't care. Thing is, they want to charge TW a premium and still be on basic cable, forcing them to raise their rates and look like the bad guys.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 415 days
Last activity: 375 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.91
    Originally posted by Zundian
    As such, all major broadcast networks are (or used to be, can't remember) "must carry" on cable providers. Which brings to mind why they don't just negotiate with a different Fox station? WFXS is closer to Green Bay than it is to Rhinelander, which is in the same DMA, and I'm sure they'd be happy to air in GB. No one cares about the FOX newscast (unless they started out as an Independent back in the '50s and became FOX later) and WLUK's non-network programming has been crap since Ned the Dead moved to The WB, then further down to on-demand status



Must carry is a moot point with a major network.
A station can petition the cable company for must carry. But in doing so they give up the right to charge for retransmission rights. As such, the only stations that would do so are stations not affiliated with the big 6 networks. That is, stations who the cable companies would have no interest in carrying anyway.
In my area, there was a station named WWAZ that did that. But their financial situation didn't improve, they petitioned the FCC to switch to digital-only, and I haven't heard what happened since then.

But anyway all the major stations opt for negotiation of retransmission rights rather that get involved with must-carry.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.73
all I know is that my daughter, who is in Terre Haute, is missing her David Letterman and the Unit. She got rabbit ears



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.


“That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy” - Swift

Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.40
I spent about 20 minutes trying to find the Terra Haute franchise agreement.

Will, you are definitely not representing the cable side of the argument. If you want to argue the TV side, feel free... but you don't really understand the cable side.

For instance: Did you know that it probably costs your cable company around $.60 - $.90 for every minute that you speak with a representative?

Did you know that most municipalities require the local franchise to provide free service to schools and other local organizations?

Anyway, I don't want to argue from my opinion - I'd rather start with the Terra Haute, IN franchise agreement and go from there. I went through the 880 pages of city code that was available online and I couldn't find the details.

So, if you want to have an educated opinion, please do. Otherwise, don't just talk shit about cable - especially if you are pretty much just passing along the talking points of the TV station. Facts are important, at least here.

Things that could be discussed:

* Advertising rates for local TV channels, including the coverage claimed by them when determine advertising rates
* Direct cost to the local TV station
* Any incidental costs to the local TV station by having more people watch their broadcast
* Local "drop in" cable ads, and if they are allowed by the franchise agreement.
* Are fees for basic cable set a certain level by the franchise agreement?
* If so, were they set based on no cost retransmission, or would charging for local stations increase the cost for pensioners and others on a fixed income?
* Why should the people of Terra Haute be expected to pay for local channels, when they are effectively just taking advantage of a (C)ommunnity (A)ntenna, (The origin of CATV)?
* Should call center services, electricity for transmission of signals, cable infrastructure, public access, Government TV, educational content, PSA content, and low cost basic cable all be susbidized by those who have more expensive packages?
* Do the OTA broadcasters not see this as double dipping?

The cable company isn't holding anyone hostage here.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 51 min.
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.51
Welp, guess that means no World Series for me this year.
Thread rated: 5.25
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Is Barney Frank to blame?
Next thread: As Butters Might Say, Simpson Did It
Previous thread: VP Debate
(314 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Although some of your questions are intriguing, Karlos, from my end my most overpowering sentiment is my own personal experience, which today was:
The W - Current Events & Politics - LIN TV and Time Warner (and Bright House) unable to reach TV agreementRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.123 seconds.