DBSTalk Forum banner

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

25K views 213 replies 91 participants last post by  tonyd79 
#1 ·
Sinclair Broadcast Group recently began informing its viewers that it does not expect DirecTV to continue to carry any of Sinclair's stations after the existing carriage agreement terminates on February 28, 2013. Although DirecTV and Sinclair have been negotiating for quite some time in an effort to reach a new agreement, at this time it does not appear that these efforts will be successful. Although Sinclair does not believe that it is constructive to negotiate its private business relationships in public, Sinclair is informing the public in advance of the end of carriage because it is aware of the impact on a segment of the public from the end of the relationship between the Sinclair stations and DirecTV.

http://www.foxbaltimore.com/template/shared_content/dish/DirecTV_retrans_statement.pdf
 
#152 ·
FLWingNut;3187677 said:
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.
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.
 
#153 ·
tonyd79 said:
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.
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
 
#154 ·
Tom Robertson;3188018 said:
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
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.
 
#155 ·
tonyd79 said:
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.
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
 
#156 ·
tonyd79;3188030 said:
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.
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.
 
#157 ·
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.
 
#159 ·
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.
 
#160 ·
Tom Robertson;3188046 said:
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
I have no problem sharing costs either but we both know this is not about sharing costs.
 
#161 ·
Tom Robertson said:
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.
That is how DirecTV gets my HD locals. At the old FOX affiliate building which is the LRF there is a tower with 5 Yagi's each pointed to maximize reception from each affiliate.

Lot's of smaller markets can't do fiber feeds.

And yes, I do think my OTA feed looks better. I mainly use it to watch sports live.
 
#162 ·
FLWingNut;3188089 said:
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.
1. Don't be silly. They are withholding from a segment of their market. Available OTA is a joke. How many antennas do you see? The vast majority in urban and suburban areas depend on cable and satellite. I cannot get half my locals OTA and I live close to Baltimore. Digital has made it harder to get channels OTA with multipath problems and more.

2. The NFL does not have a charter to serve the community as do OTA channels via their licenses. I don't recall any announcements asking for testimony from the public for an NFL license renewal.
 
#163 ·
tonyd79;3188109 said:
1. Don't be silly. They are withholding from a segment of their market. Available OTA is a joke. How many antennas do you see? The vast majority in urban and suburban areas depend on cable and satellite. I cannot get half my locals OTA and I live close to Baltimore. Digital has made it harder to get channels OTA with multipath problems and more.

2. The NFL does not have a charter to serve the community as do OTA channels via their licenses. I don't recall any announcements asking for testimony from the public for an NFL license renewal.
And they are serving their communities. The transmitter is up and running which is what the law requires. It does not require them to make their signal available for resale to whatever private corporate entity wants it.

My NFL analogy was an attempt to explain why you can't use locals from another market. Territorial rights. Without those, the system that works to serve local markets breaks down.
 
#164 ·
tonyd79 said:
1. Don't be silly. They are withholding from a segment of their market. Available OTA is a joke. How many antennas do you see? The vast majority in urban and suburban areas depend on cable and satellite. I cannot get half my locals OTA and I live close to Baltimore. Digital has made it harder to get channels OTA with multipath problems and more.

2. The NFL does not have a charter to serve the community as do OTA channels via their licenses. I don't recall any announcements asking for testimony from the public for an NFL license renewal.
If the issue is people don't have antennas but have satellite dishes (that cost more), then get cheaper antennas. :)

I have both, yet you won't see the antenna. It's in my attic. (And still picks up signals from 40+ miles. Yet doesn't corrode or facilitate birds poopin' on my roof.)

Peace,
Tom
 
#165 ·
FLWingNut said:
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.
Directv will not absorb the costs it will be passed down to us :nono2: so any so called cut in is going to effect all of us. I guess its time for DTV to put locals back on Alacart. Would solve the entire problem and if the Network in that viewing area isnt Double dipping and wants ther signal Re-broadcasted
 
#166 ·
Maybe DIRECTV needs to borrow a playbook from Dish when they lost the AMC channels, give a AM21 and indoor OTA antenna to folks effected for free that call and complain. Dish gave away free Roku's and a bill credit to help offset the cost of watching AMC shows via internet sites which made some folks happy. DIRECTV doing some similar might help keep folks happy and give a little FU to the local stations.
 
#167 ·
Tom Robertson;3188131 said:
If the issue is people don't have antennas but have satellite dishes (that cost more), then get cheaper antennas. :)

I have both, yet you won't see the antenna. It's in my attic. (And still picks up signals from 40+ miles. Yet doesn't corrode or facilitate birds poopin' on my roof.)

Peace,
Tom
I am an example. I cannot get half my locals with an antenna. I live in a condo that does not have good line of sight.

I'm glad for you but you are not the norm.
 
#168 ·
FLWingNut;3188116 said:
And they are serving their communities. The transmitter is up and running which is what the law requires. It does not require them to make their signal available for resale to whatever private corporate entity wants it.

My NFL analogy was an attempt to explain why you can't use locals from another market. Territorial rights. Without those, the system that works to serve local markets breaks down.
Once again, I'm not arguing what the law is. I'm arguing the law is wrong.

And even legally, most jurisdictions require cable systems to have lifeline service, which provides locals. Hmm. Guess they understand that OTA via cable is serving the community even if you don't.
 
#169 ·
It affects channel 38, the MYTV afffiliate here in the Tampa, FL DMA. They provide no subchannel programming and I honestly don't watch it frequently.

But, be that as it may I have AM21s on three DVRs, a fourth one is an HR20 with onboard ATSC tuners. If there was someting on Channel 38 that I wanted to see or record I would manage. I already get the all the Orlando DMA broadcast channels OTA exclusively. One more is going to be pretty transparent to me.
 
#171 ·
I know a lot of you people can get locals OTA and that's fine, but a lot of people can't.

In this market, losing DirecTV will cost the two Sinclair stations a lot of viewers and I would bet the managers of the individual stations are sweating bullets about it.
 
#172 ·
RAD said:
Maybe DIRECTV needs to borrow a playbook from Dish when they lost the AMC channels, give a AM21 and indoor OTA antenna to folks effected for free that call and complain. Dish gave away free Roku's and a bill credit to help offset the cost of watching AMC shows via internet sites which made some folks happy. DIRECTV doing some similar might help keep folks happy and give a little FU to the local stations.
That could get messy. Some people would require a very large antenna and an antenna is not near as easy to install as a Roku box. It sounds good in theory but even if it was my company, I wouldn't take that approach.
 
#173 ·
paulman182 said:
I know a lot of you people can get locals OTA and that's fine, but a lot of people can't.

In this market, losing DirecTV will cost the two Sinclair stations a lot of viewers and I would bet the managers of the individual stations are sweating bullets about it.
Agreed. I mean read the thread on here about how much money AMC lost last year. I am betting they are second guessing their decision not to be on DISH for all that time. I know it sucks for the providers like Dish and DirecTV but this is why I am okay with losing channels once in awhile as I feel it is warranted to show the affiliates that they may have the power but the provider has the power to affect their pockets books. The two need to remember they need each other pretty much equally. There aught to be a law on a max wage increase these stations can impose and criteria to get to it. I guess until that happens (never) we will just have to hope that our providers are really looking out for our best interest at least as best they can anyways.
 
#174 ·
joshjr said:
That could get messy. Some people would require a very large antenna and an antenna is not near as easy to install as a Roku box. It sounds good in theory but even if it was my company, I wouldn't take that approach.
Right. The stations like to say "get an OTA antenna or another provider." But if you are in the deep fringe, or live in an apartment or condo where you'd need a rooftop antenna, OTA is a non-answer and changing providers does little good -- since the next provider will probably be in the same pissing match months down the road and many times changing providers requires breaking a contract that can cost hundreds of dollars.

If it were fairly trivial to switch to a different provider on a temporary basis, this would mostly be a non-issue. But for many folks, especially those for whom OTA isn't a practical option, their default "answer" is both impractical and flippant.
 
#175 ·
True, deep fringe area's aren't going to work with an indoor antenna. But I'd guess that most of the stations customers live closer to the transmitter then live in a deep fringe area.

It's been 30 years since I've lived in an apartment but the 5 that I did live in all had a master antenna system, have they stopped doing that now?

Not saying it's a perfect solution but I think it should be an option for customers when a local station gets deleted due to contract dispute. IMHO at least DIRECTV should mention it on their directvpromise.com web site so their customers, who don't know about it, can get an AM21 so they can keep their DVR functionality for the missing station(s).
 
#176 ·
tonyd79 said:
Once again, I'm not arguing what the law is. I'm arguing the law is wrong.

And even legally, most jurisdictions require cable systems to have lifeline service, which provides locals. Hmm. Guess they understand that OTA via cable is serving the community even if you don't.
I understand what serving the community means. It means you have a broadcast signal allocated to you. In return, you provide news, public affairs and other public service programming via your transmitter. It does not mean you have to provide to another corporation to sell to consumers, without being compensated. How consumers get the signal, other than OTA, is not part of the burden for the broadcaster.

By your logic, the government should pay for everyone to have locals via cable, so the community can be 100% "served." This is TV we're talking about, not 911 phone service. Cable is different -- they have to negotiate franchise agreements with the government entity, and the agreements are varied, I'm sure from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Cable uses government infrastructure to get their signal into homes -- utility poles, underground lines, public streets for boxes, etc, so that's why government gets involved there. Satellite does not use those, so should not be required to provide anything -- it's an optional service.

I'm not an expert at cable franchise agreements; I haven't had cable since 1998. If locals are required, do the cable companies have to pay for them? Are the broadcasters required to give them away to the cable company? I'm sure the cable company is not required to give the service to consumers for free.

As I've mentioned earlier, I don't know if Sinclair is being outrageous in its demands; I don;t live in a Sinclair market and don't have a dog in the fight. But this will come up in all markets at some point. I just find it reasonable to have the right not to have your signal resold without permission and compensation. Copyright owners have rights that need to be respected. But then again, we've become a society that thinks it's OK to steal intellectual property -- witness the number of torrent sites and other backchannel ways to get music and programming without paying for it. But that is probably too far off topic for this thread.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top