Rypro 525

This is sure to piss alot of people off if this goes through
I got this from Lopforums.com
The future of WWE SmackDown might be at stake of losing a lot of its United States audience. According to an article in The Baltimore Sun, Sinclair Broadcast Group, a group which supplies Fox and CW content to many Comcast cable systems around the country, is now looking at charging for there service which up until now has been provided for free. On the one hand, if they decide to charge and Comcast pulls them they will lose a lot of their audience and it will be extremely hard to sell advertisements on those networks. On the other hand, if they do decide to charge and Comcast pays the fee, other cable systems will be faced with having to pay, therefore more issues of Fox and CW being pulled across the nation will arise. Sinclair’s deal with Comcast expired on March 1st but an extension was negotiated up until March 10th.

I don't see this happening knowing how many people watch 24 and American Idol.

smashthesymbols

You've got your title all wrong. Comcast isn't wanting to charge anyone anything. Sinclair Broadcasting is trying to force Comcast into paying a fee to carry it's programming. Comcast is refusing saying they and their customers shouldn't have to pay for content that is available free over the airwaves. If they don't reach an agreement Sinclair would pull something like 30 Fox and CW stations in a handful of cities around the country. At least that's my understanding of the situation, and it seems to me what Sinclair is trying to do is ridiculous. Of course, I've never liked Sinclair Broadcasting anyway.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business...tory?track=rss

collven

It won't happen. Similar groups have been trying to make cable companies pay for their local channels for years, especially since the advent of HD, citing the costs of upgrading. No large cable companies have caved though, that I know of. It would create a disastrous domino effect and would make cable bills increase even faster if it happened.

MovieExchange

I don't know if it's that ridiculous. How many people refused to get satellite because they couldn't get local channels? How many people would refuse to have cable if they didn't have local channels?

Cable TV has become so commonplace that many people forget that in some cases it's the difference between having all the local affiliates and having the two or three that your crappy outside antenna can pick up when the weather is right.

So if the presence of local channels is something that is bringing in money to Comcast, why shouldn't they pay some of the profits out to the people that provide it?

I know from a customer standpoint it sounds horrible, because you know the bastards won't eat the cost and will just pass it on to us. But from a business standpoint, it's very understandable.

rfduncan

Well I have DirecTV and I have to pay to get local channels. So why shouldn't people with cable have to pay?

TS in my book.

Jay G.

On the flip side, it could be argued that Sinclair is already benefiting from having their free over-the-air programs, and also commercials, delivered by Comcast to customers that would otherwise not receive it. That Sinclair wants both the extra viewers and Comcast to pay for the "privilege" of supplying Sinclair with more viewers could be looked upon as greedy.

Red Dog

That's exactly how I see it.

Jay G.

People with cable do pay for the local channels, it's just included in the base price instead of being an optional add-on. DirectTV doesn't pay fees to the locals for broadcasting their stations either, so if Sinclair gets their way, you may eventually end up paying more for your local channels as well.

squidget

It can happen it has happened to some extent in my area. We do not get ABC HD over cox because the local affliate wants to charge cox for it and cox refused to because HD is free OTA so why should they pay? (a valid point) We now no longer have ABC HD - its been that way since october.
it sucks that I can't get lost or GA in its full HD glory.

MovieExchange

So it's OK if I bootleg movies, as long as I leave the commercials in at the beginning?

Peep

That's a great analogy as those movies, like broadcast TV, are given away for free. Hey, wait a minute....

SonOfAStu

This again? I'm sorry, but this has been going on for years now. It may be different now that the contract with Comcast is up, but Sinclair has been pulling this same shit in all their markets since at LEAST '04 (when I started following it). And it won't just be FOX and CW networks. Sinclair owns ABC and CBS locals in some markets as well.

Here in Pittsburgh, Sinclair was withholding their HD content from all the cable companies until a couple years ago when Armstrong cable made a deal for the HD channel. (Not sure if they caved and paid or worked something else out). Then Comcast struck their national deal with Sinclair and most everyone finally got FOX HD. My parents had Adelphia and they never paid, so they never got FOX HD until Adelphia folded into Comcast.

Chances are, Comcast will pay for the channels. They did before and they will again.

MovieExchange

Hey, the claim was made that it's OK for Comcast to make money off of other people's work, since it exposes that work to another audience. So I don't see too much of a difference in bootlegging movies. Sure, I'm not splitting the profits with the people that actually did the work, but it's exposing their product to a new audience, right?

But if you want to nitpick, then fine...

I'll take Heroes, which is shown every week for free on TV, and I'll put it on DVD. I'll even leave the commercials in. When the season is done, I'll sell season sets for $10 each. That's ok, right? The greedy bastards that make Heroes shouldn't have a problem with it, because I'll be exposing their show to a new audience.

Jay G.

The difference is that Sinclair actually already makes more money off of the increased audience, since they can charge more for advertising. A retail DVD isn't given for free and supplemented by the advertising on it.

No that's not okay because your DVDs aren't trackable and its transposing the show to a format that's permanent and rewatchable.

Comcast brings in extra viewers that are trackable via Nielsen, thus increasing what Sinclair can charge for advertising. Comcast's transmissions are also simultaneous with the free OTA broadcast and aren't permanent, essentially being of the same type of media OTA is, but over a wire.

The closest real-life parallel situation that I can come up with is if you allowed your neighbor access to your antenna, and Sinclair wanted to charge you a fee for doing so.

MovieExchange

Hey, I'm helping them make more money also! Someone buys my DVD, likes the show, and starts watching the first-run broadcasts of the next season. I've just brought them new viewers, increasing ratings, thus increasing what can be charged for advertising.


In all seriousness though... Sinclair has the right to tell a company "if you're going to use our product to make money, then you should be paying us for using our product." Anyone in their position with business knowledge would be doing the same thing.

Comcast pulls the same bullshit. I own my own business, and when I was setting everything up I decided that since I needed high-speed internet access, I might as well go through Comcast and get cable TV as well so I could watch TV when there weren't any customers in the store.

I contacted Comcast and was told that since I was a business, I would be charged $50 a month for just my local channels. It'd be even more if I wanted the cable channels. Why? Because since I'm a business, Comcast automatically assumes that I'll be using my TV to attract customers, and if I'm going to be making money off of their product, guess what? They want a cut. It didn't matter that I told them that it's a resale business with one employee, and the TV is positioned so that I'm the only one that can watch it.

So excuse me if I see Comcast as a bunch of whining hypocrites in this situation...

Red Dog

I don't disagree that the right exists, but Sinclair is getting something out of the relationship too - a lot in fact. CATV is delivering a crystal clear picture that many folks wouldn't get with an antenna. It broadens their audience which translates to increased ratings which translates to $$$. CATV is delivering a free method of distribution for Sinclair to eyes that may not normally see their product. Why kill the symbiotic relationship?

Furthermore, CATV isn't getting commercial ad time on those networks like they do with ESPN, USA, TNT, etc.

Jay G.

The difference is that Comcast gives them new viewers and increased ratings now, for the very episode they're transmitting. Your "increased ratings" is of some hypothetical future situation. And you're still turning a temporary transmission into a permanent, rewatchable copy, which Comcast doesn't do.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

For the first several decades of cable broadcast, locals saw the advantage in cable co-transmission of their broadcast even without extorting fees. If they didn't, they'd lose audience to their competitors who did. It's only now when a conglomerate like Sinclair that controls so many markets can try and force cable companies' hand.

Ah, I see now. You have a grudge against Comcast. It's a shame Sinclair isn't targeting some other cable company, since it'd be interesting to get your unbiased opinion.

Ronnie Dobbs

I hate Comcast but my apt building won't let me get anything else.

MovieExchange

Wow, you're really good at building that strawman.

Let's just tear it down now, ok?

I'd be of the same opinion if I wasn't in that situation. Furthermore, unlike Sinclair's claim, Comcast's claim that I would be making money off of their product was completely without merit.

Jay G.

That's really impossible to know for sure, even for you.

What claim? The only info from Sinclair on this thread is that they want to charge Comcast a fee.

MovieExchange

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know I was dealing with a psychic here.

I know my own mind. Obviously you're going to twist anything I say in order to maintain your little world, so I guess this conversation is done.

SonOfAStu

You're sorely mistaken. In fact most broadcast network owners don't charge cable cos at all to rebroadcast their regular OR HD signals. Sinclair is definitely the exception to the rule. Is it your claim that all those other network owners don't have any "business knowledge"?

outer-edge

http://www.kcci.com/news/10915854/detail.html

Already happened. Sinclair pulled channels from Mediacom and the two companies had a standoff for a month. They came to an agreement eventually, restoring service. I don't know which side came out better, but it appears Sinclair made leeway in getting money. Now they are doing it elsewhere.

Jay G.

No, just a rational person. Any rational person can see that having a negative experience with one of the companies in question would likely bias you against that company. Also, rationally, a biased person's opinion that their stance would be the same if they weren't biased isn't really useful at all since that opinion is, well, biased.

We're not talking about your mind though. We're talking about a hypothetical mind in an alternate history you didn't experience.

However, even ignoring the question of bias, you haven't replied to the points myself and others have made that counter yours, such as how all the other local affiliates besides Sinclair don't have a problem with allowing cable companies to transmit their free OTA broadcasts without a fee, and have done so for decades.

Or how just because somebody can do something doesn't mean they should.

Or how Sinclair, and all other affiliates, actually benefit directly from cable transmissions via advertising revenue already.

Or how a win for Sinclair here could mean potential other battles with other cable and satellite providers, and potentially from other affiliates, changing the way cable and satellite deal with locals, and potentially either removing services or driving up costs for the end customer.

And that's really the main point, in the end Sinclair's grab for more money is going to hurt the end consumer, us. Either we'll lose having clear signals of our locals provided to us by our cable/satellite providers, or we'll end up paying more for them. All for channels that should be, and are, available for free.

Jay G.

Thanks for the link. It's interesting to see that just two days before the agreement was announced, Mediacom announced that they were raising rates. Coincidence?