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. Mar 1, 2013 #201 of 214
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    What I said in post #38 of this thread holds true once again. I have seen too many of these local station disputes play out like this to be concerned. This one was resolved five hours sooner with respect to the deadline than the Capitol Broadcasting dispute was. It is extremely rare for a local station to go dark on DirecTV due to a protracted carriage dispute. The risk of losing local channels (and everything else) from a thunderstorm is far greater than the risk of losing the channel to a carage dispute.
     
  2. Mar 1, 2013 #202 of 214
    jsk

    jsk Icon

    780
    12
    Dec 27, 2006
    Fallston, MD
    Sinclair is on a buying spree so we may have more retrans disputes as these stations come up for renewal. Then, the next time the Sinclair renewal for all of their stations comes up, they could own (or "operate") 100+ stations. I think they are doing this because the FCC is looking at removing the loopholes that allow Sinclair to own or "operate" multiple stations in a market. Basically, relatives of the Sinclair family set up extra companies that "own" the stations and Sinclair "operates" them. See Cunningham Broadcasting.

    Sinclair buying Barrington stations for $370M

    Sinclair will buy four Cox Media TV stations for $99 million

    And I know they are trying to buy a few Fox owned stations, including My24 in Baltimore.
     
  3. Mar 1, 2013 #203 of 214
    goober22

    goober22 Godfather

    544
    5
    Sep 8, 2004
    Sunny...
    The TV world would be much better off without Sinclair & LIN as affiliate owners.
     
  4. Mar 1, 2013 #204 of 214
    tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    I unfortunately have both as owners in my market.
     
  5. Mar 1, 2013 #205 of 214
    SParker

    SParker Active Member

    1,588
    2
    Apr 27, 2002
    Same in GR, MI.
     
  6. Mar 2, 2013 #206 of 214
    Dazed & Confused

    Dazed & Confused Godfather

    273
    0
    Jun 13, 2007
    So who blinked?
     
  7. Mar 2, 2013 #207 of 214
    SParker

    SParker Active Member

    1,588
    2
    Apr 27, 2002
    I'm sure it was us the consumer who blinked :D, we will see the results next time our rates increase.. :lol:
     
  8. Mar 3, 2013 #208 of 214
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    The press release you linked to speaks only to a short-term extension of the recently expired agreement.

    The event is not over until a long term agreement is signed. However unlikely it is that they fail to come to agreement, the channels may yet be removed in the short term.
     
  9. Mar 3, 2013 #209 of 214
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    The way they are doing it is standard. It was just unusual that the wording got out that it was an extension (to get the wording exactly right). They never sign an agreement until all the lawyers get to it. Do you really think all the last minute announcements are of fully signed agreements? Do you really think companies continue to wage a war of words after they have reached agreement but before the ink is dry?
     
  10. Mar 3, 2013 #210 of 214
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    If you review the progression of the Tribune deal from just under a year ago, it sounds an awful lot like how the Sinclair deal is progressing.

    Tribune allowed that they would keep the channels up pending a final agreement. DIRECTV subsequently made a press release announcing that a "handshake deal" was done pending paperwork. Tribune fired back with a rousing hell no. DIRECTV responded that they were "extremely perplexed".

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...1_directv-tribune-broadcasting-local-channels

    It isn't about what any of us hopes or thinks is going to happen. It is uniquely about the signed carriage agreement that has not been announced by either party.
     
  11. Mar 3, 2013 #211 of 214
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Uh, no. That is not what happened here. Directv said there would be an extension at the least the day before. When the news leaked, one source at directv didn't know it was out and the promise webpage still had the same from the day before. That has been changed to say the deal is done. Sinclair is saying the same. It was all timing on tweets, etc.

    And you are spreading FUD.
     
  12. Mar 4, 2013 #212 of 214
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Here's what the Promise page says this evening:
    I'm confused as to why it still says "continue working towards a new agreement" if a deal is done.

    What seems different in this case versus the Tribune case is that this time, Sinclair is saying a handshake deal is done and DIRECTV is implying that there's work to be done on a deal. I'm inclined to believe the party that says it isn't done. Why would they say it (or let it remain the official update) if it weren't true?
     
  13. Mar 4, 2013 #213 of 214
    usnret

    usnret Icon

    603
    2
    Jan 16, 2009
    Whats all the big worry about some verbage? It will get done or it won't. Don't worry - be happy :)
     
  14. Mar 4, 2013 #214 of 214
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    You re still spreading FUD.
     

Share This Page