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. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    No, they do not charge for the ice. I pay the same with or without it.

    It is open to the public if they can get it. Living in the condo is no different than living in the area if the channel with line if sight to the satellite. So, you are saying reselling is a matter if scale. So, it just means that it is moral or right only when bigger dollars are involved. I see.
     
  2. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    470
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    Sorry, but just because it's not listed on the bill, doesn't mean you don't pay for it. Like any product, the costs to the business is built into the price. The ketchup packs at McDonalds aren't free either, the cost is built into the price of the food, even if you don't use them. If the ketchup distributor doubles their price, the price of food is going up for everybody.

    As for the other example, it's not open to the public, you have to live there. If they turned around and starting running lines outside the building to other homes and business they didn't own, that would be different. At that point they would need to negotiate a rate with the locals.

    We can go around and around on this, but the law allows locals to charge distributors for using their programming. I don't know if Sinclair is being reasonable or not -- that's a different discussion. But they have the right to get what they can.
     
  3. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,342
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    The ketchup packs at Mickey D's are free to you and me, but not to the provider, the local franchise. Big difference in viewpoint.

    You're also wrong about how such a chain prices its products: When the cost of supplies goes up or down, they don't immediately adjust prices. Competition and price promotions lead the way.
     
  4. fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,568
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    In the UK, Micky D's does charge extra for the ketchup and if you get the pancakes at breakfast they charge extra for butter and syrup, too. Because of some arcane UK subsidies on dairy products, milk shakes in a "to go" order are cheaper than milk shakes in a "here" order.
     
  5. loudo

    loudo Well-Known Member

    4,755
    59
    Mar 24, 2005
    Central Maine
    We will lose our local CBS station, if this happens, but will not be much of a loss to our household. The only thing we watch on it is the local news and we can see that on 3 other stations. If my CBS stations goes black, we will switch to one of the other local stations for our news, and will stay there when they CBS comes back.

    Sinclair pulled the same prank here on Time Warner Cable, a few months ago.
     
  6. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,498
    97
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Well maybe they should put it on the bill as a line item. Let the customers know exactly how much extra they are paying for "free" TV. I'll be the affiliates would get some unhappy phone calls.
     
  7. mnassour

    mnassour Icon

    859
    9
    Apr 23, 2002
    :goodjob:

    Love it!

    Dish, DirecTV AND the cable companies should be breaking out the cost of the local stations, just so people can see what this is all about.
     
  8. Ira Lacher

    Ira Lacher Icon

    823
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    The only reason the local stations on DirecTV are important is to DVR the programming, which I can do with the AM-21. The only local station I can't seem to pull in with my antenna is the ABC affiliate. Otherwise I watch all locals OTA. The picture is far better, and there's no delay. We'll lose our Fox station, which is no loss at all for our household.
     
  9. RAD

    RAD Well-Known Member

    16,452
    129
    Aug 5, 2002
    Dripping...
    That is the very first time that I heard someone use propagation delay as a reason for going OTA. Need to know the outcome of Survivor 1.5 seconds before the rest of us;)
     
  10. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Depending on how the channel is delivered, the satellite version may actually be ahead of the OTA. I have seen/heard it!
     
  11. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,342
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Heh, though I kinda bet that he meant channel change delay....

    Ira- The picture is quite a bit better?? I did extensive testing in the SF Bay area and frequently there was no difference.
     
  12. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    My position is that the law is bad. It is the law but it is bad law.

    And, no, I am not charged for the ketchup. I am charged for it only if it costs me more. You are confusing the cost of doing business with the charge to me.

    I walk into Barnes and Noble. I buy nothing. Ever. Just by being in there, I use their light. I use their heat/air conditioning. I even use their free wifi and sit in a chair. Now explain to me how I am paying for any of that. Free to me means no extra cost.

    As for the condo, how is that not open? I can't buy or rent there? I have a residency requirement to get WBFF in Baltimore. I have a residency requirement (sky view) to get directv.

    The fact is that OTA is unscrambled, free to air. It is not espn nor CNN (although those were free once, too).

    The law is bad because it piles onto the monopoly law that gives the local its leverage. It is double jeopardy. Legal but wrong.
     
  13. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Alas, your anology is very flawed.

    In this case you are walking into DIRECTV and purchasing things, unlike the B&N example.

    All the things you (ab)use from B&N are built into their cost of business hoping they will eventually attract you to purchase something.

    Similarly many things we all use at any business are just part of the cost of doing business.

    Yet where a business can recoup those costs, they should--so long as it doesn't reduce the overall business. Some things will ruin a brand and Netflix learned that the hard way... :)

    I gots no problem with local stations and DIRECTV finding reasonable ways to build their mutual businesses and recoup costs. The real world situation is that content is king, thus the local stations, which have the content are more valuable to DIRECTV than DIRECTV is to the local stations. (Yet DIRECTV is valuable to the local stations too.)

    The problem is local stations over estimate their value, especially relative to the rest of the entertainment on DIRECTV.

    Sinclair is going to learn that many of us don't need DIRECTV to distribute--I can get OTA very nicely. And that DIRECTV is still providing me a great service in recording that OTA content. Sinclair ain't losing me--but they are losing a opportunity to earn a reasonable amount of money from me. Too bad for them... :)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  14. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    So, the light and wifi are free if I don't pay for a book but they aren't if I buy a book? That is the crux of my example. If I don't pay for it, I don't pay for it whether cash passes hands or not. Remember, this was in response to a post that says nothing is free. All things provided by a business are bought by me. But they aren't.

    The OTA stuff is till out if kilter regardless. They are a forced monopoly that then gets the right to hold companies hostage for their services. That is one bad aspect. If they have monopoly status, their fees should be regulated.

    Second, their charter says they are OTA to serve the community. It is part if their license agreement. How is withholding their services from community members whose redistributor isn't ponying up enough cash serving the community? Any withholding of their signal fir pure profit is and should be a violation of their license agreement.

    But the law (lobbied hard by them, in essence paid for by them) makes this disregard of their license agreement and the extra leverage they have perfectly legal.

    Still isn't right.

    And don't give me crap about needing to make up money. Poor Sinclair is hurting so bd and the business is so much a loss that yesterday they announced they were buying 4 more stations, all in smaller markets. Guess it isn't such a bad investment after all.


    Add: They will lose viewership. We here are abnormal. The vast majority of directv customers don't have OTA. That is why directv took the tuners out if the boxes. A lot if people now rely 100% on satellite or cable.
     
  15. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Now you know better. OTA re-distribution is not cost free. Someone has to pay for the mechanisms and equipment it takes to get the signal to DIRECTV.

    Sure, DIRECTV could put up an antenna, receive the signal, and put it into their network. But that is not going to give the best quality feed. So for better quality, local stations want to connect to DIRECTV--and that costs money. And I gots no problem with stations recouping that minimal cost.

    I do gots problems when thems want to ask for more than the value of their product.

    Remember, the FCC does provide a mechanism to review a dispute. So far nobody wants to use that approach, it's largely untested and very slow. Yet the process does exist.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  16. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    470
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    They're not withholding anything from the community, they're available via OTA. They're withholding from Directv, not shutting down the transmitter. If Directv wants to resell the signal, they have to cut in the broadcaster.

    The monopoly you refer to is like a franchise agreement. Like the NFL, for example. The Miami Dolphins hold exclusive rights in South Florida. The Seattle Seahawks can't decide to play home games in Miami; if you want to see an NFL game in person in South Florida, it's the Dolphins. They control NFL rights there. Same way with networks. Your local affiliate is the rights holder for that market.
     
  17. jdh8668

    jdh8668 Legend

    211
    2
    Nov 7, 2007
    As an advertiser on several Sinclair stations in my market, I am getting ready to tell my agency to demand lower rates on their stations since we will be losing Directv viewers, or else we will move our money. Granted I'm only spending $10k a month with them, but I'm sure some of the bigger players will be doing the same thing. It will add up.
     
  18. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,317
    500
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    That certainly will help more than just regular people emailing them, it directly affects their wallet.
     
  19. Glenee

    Glenee Cool Member

    30
    1
    Sep 22, 2007
    I feel the same way. If Sinclair is going to reduce my AD market, which is what their doing. I want some reductions in my fee's or it's a No go for the AD Dollars. Here in Oklahoma a Big part of our Audience is rural and DirecTV subscribers. We might as well push those precious Dollars where they will benefit us the most, like other channels that are still available to our customers.
    We see it this way. Most of the commercial eatery establishments that broadcast sporting event's use Directv which is a big part of our market.
    There are other channels on Directv that can give us more Bang for the Dollar.
     
  20. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I have no problem sharing costs either but we both know this is not about sharing costs.
     

Share This Page