1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DEAL REACHED: Directv Customers may lose the Sinclair Stations Mar 1

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by LMckin, Feb 18, 2013.

  1. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,249
    490
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    Time Warner went through a dispute with them last year. They actually got pulled. At least with the Sinclair Fox stations, TWC put up another company's affiliates, blacking out content that another local channel had syndicated. They said they were required to provide National programming due to an agreement with Fox. The owners of the replacement stations actually sued, but don't think it went anywhere before the Sinclair dispute was resolved.
     
  2. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    467
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    Directs is using a product they don't own -- an OTA station's programming -- and reselling it to make money. That's why they pay for that. You can't take something you don't own and resell it without permission. The fact that consumers can get it free OTA is irrelevant, another provider can't use it to make money.

    Having said that, I'm not saying I agree with what Sinclair is demanding since I don't know the particulars. It's the principle I'm pointing out.
     
  3. RAD

    RAD Well-Known Member

    16,414
    122
    Aug 5, 2002
    Dripping...
    I wonder how much money DIRECTV is making on local stations? Before they wrapped the local channels charge into the basical service bill wasn't it $6 per month? Now how much money does it cost them to set up a LRF, leasing space, power, hardware, fiber from station when necessary, backhaul to broadcast center ETC to get the signals to them. Then there is the cost of the satellites and the uplink to them for all those DMA's and channels.
     
  4. ziggy29

    ziggy29 Icon

    691
    2
    Nov 18, 2004
    San Antonio DMA
    Fair enough, but I've seen (in too many past cases) where the station owners want to (as much as) *double* the retransmission fees. Do they have a right to do that? Sure -- it's their product and they should be free to decide the conditions under which they are willing to "give" the product away (keeping in mind that giving it way means more viewers and more revenue from advertisers). Do they have a right to pursue a profit (knowing that they go off the air if they can't)? Absolutely. But it's hard for me to sympathize with them when the increases they want are far exceeding the rate of inflation (as is usually the case in these disputes). It's not often where they only want increases of 2-3% (or even 5%) a year per subscriber. And it's hard for me to readily accept that they are willing to leave their viewers (customers in the sense of consuming their advertising) out in the cold as an innocent third party.

    Changing providers isn't like temporarily shopping at another grocery store during a labor dispute. It's a significant hassle and when contracts are involved, it's not always possible to switch without being hit with hundreds of dollars in penalties. Yet the station owners always use the flippant "change providers" tactics which turn me against them since they make it sound like it's an easy and painless thing to temporarily do. (Sure, you could change to Dish, and eat the penalties, and then watch Dish have a similar conflict months down the road.) To me that smacks of "let them eat cake." Or they tell you to use OTA, which a lot of folks can't do (especially in the fringe or where you'd need a rooftop antenna in a condo or apartment).

    Also, as far as reselling for a profit, I don't know how much more D* is charging for the locals beyond their actual costs in providing them. If the answer is little or none, then the argument of "they are reselling a free signal for a profit" is a little less solid. As it is, I would love to know how much (if at all) they really are *profiting* from locals that are "free" OTA, since that would really show me where the worst of the greed is.

    It's also interesting that cable and satellite providers never seem to get into these pissing matches with the O&Os.
     
  5. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    467
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    If they're using the inclusion of locals to entice people to buy D as opposed to cable or Dish, then they are using them to make a profit. How many would not have chosen D without the inclusion of locals? I've been with D since 98 and back then I had to have cable to get my locals.
     
  6. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I don't know that they are re-selling the product. They are selling ACCESS to the product.

    Cable TV started as CATV (Community Antenna TV). It was not selling programming so much as sharing an antenna. Literally, the first guy just stuck an antenna on top of a hill and ran a wire down it to the houses that had no line of sight to the transmitters. He added amplifiers, etc.

    The beginning of reselling programming actually started with HBO, which never had ads to support it. It was actually re-selling.

    Personally, I think OTA should not have retrans fees at all.


    They are using ACCESS to them as an enticement, not the programming itself. In fact, unlike cable channels, DirecTV cannot change a thing. They cannot add their own ads, for example.

    How is this different than paying someone to put up an antenna and a monthly fee for maintenance?
     
  7. Rickt1962

    Rickt1962 Legend

    316
    5
    Jul 17, 2012
    OTA is a free product yes. And Directv for the convenience to ther customers so the dont have to switch back and forth with the Ol' Fashion A/B switch lol. And it cost DTV to re-broadcast it so yea they have to make money on it to recoupe ther costs and make a profit. Its not a station when ther getting Ad revenue like the others.
     
  8. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    467
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    They're still using it make money. That's why they need permission and that requires an agreement.
     
  9. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,249
    490
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    They need permission because the station did not opt for Must Carry status. If Sinclair opted for that, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
     
  10. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    467
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    I'm award of that. Almost all commercial broadcasters went that route, for obvious reasons. They have content of value and are trying to leverage it to make money, as any company would. Directv, Dish and cable use that content to lure subscribers. The broadcasters know that carriage gets them eyeballs, although with DVRs that is less valuable than it used to be. The trick is to find that price point that works for both sides. What you can't do is just grab it and use it.
     
  11. Rickt1962

    Rickt1962 Legend

    316
    5
    Jul 17, 2012
    With the major networks having the shows on the Internet to be viewed when you want to. And being able to use OTA I dont want to pay for it. :mad:
     
  12. Rickt1962

    Rickt1962 Legend

    316
    5
    Jul 17, 2012
    Its ther loss then. So why is Sinclair whinning because DTV is not picking them up. LOL Because they dont want to pay more and pass it along to us.:nono2:
    It was Sinclair that dropped the ball
     
  13. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,249
    490
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    To do that, the station would need to be designated "Must Carry" and as FLWingNut says, that's not happening. Others don't want to pay for channels they never watch, but a la carte won't happen either, especially each channel separate, for a low price and channels not being driven out of business due to low subscribership.
     
  14. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    467
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    Like the Oscars, the NFL, and other major events? Find those online live, in real time. You don't have to pay for it if you can get it OTA, so go that route if you're able. But if a provider is using it as part of a package they sell to people, the broadcasters deserve a cut.

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not necessarily siding with Sinclair ; their demands may be outrageous. I'm agreeing with the principle that they have the right to be paid for their product when it's being used by another company. Not the consumer -- they have no right to charge the consumer for using an antenna, but another corporate entity using that product for profit.
     
  15. PolkSDA

    PolkSDA New Member

    19
    2
    Feb 3, 2008
    I'll be losing both Fox and ABC.

    So what happens if this comes to fruition? Will Directv supply a national substitute, or do we lose half our locals? If the latter, I'll be wanting some sort of compensation...
     
  16. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,455
    88
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Same here, except I have OTA.

    DirecTV can't sub in other channels. No refunds either. Your best bet is to 1) call your affiliate and complain, and 2) call their local advertisers and complain. Do this daily.
     
  17. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,455
    88
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    I somewhat disagree. I think both need each other. The networks need the delivery mechanism (think where the affiliates would be if they were only available OTA) and the providers need the channels are part of their packages.

    They should share the costs to get it to the headend and that should be the end of it.
     
  18. twaller

    twaller Member

    217
    5
    Dec 17, 2005
    There is a simple solution in my area for the potential loss of WSMH Fox 66. Simply provide the "significantly viewed" WSYM Fox 47. Whether this will be done or not is the question.
     
  19. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    467
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    You could say that about ESPN, USA or CNN too. Both need each other. Why does one get paid and the other shouldn't? Particularly since network TV is what people watch most.
     
  20. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,455
    88
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Because those channels are not free OTA. They were formed specifically for CATV and that was their economic model from day one. The affiliates are given spectrum by the people to broadcast programming for the good of the community they are licensed to serve. The ultimate delivery method should not matter. If they want to return the spectrum to the people and go cable/sat only, then more power to them. But as long as they are free OTA, they should not be able to charge the providers.
     

Share This Page