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
 
#177 ·
RAD said:
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).
I dont disagree at all. Back in 2008 when I joined I was told that I could get another DMA's locals because I was so close to a county with locals and my DMA's were not available to me. When the installer showed up I said I am going to get Tulsa locals right and the guy said no that would be illegal. I sent him on his way and called DirecTV.

None of them told me that the HR20 had built in tuners for an antenna. I found it out on this site actually. I know at that time HR20's were not coveted and most were getting HR21's or maybe even HR22's. I requested for a HR20 and I remember most on this site told me it wouldnt happen. It did, the installer waited over an hour the morning of my install to get me the receiver I wanted.

The point of all that was that DirecTV Customer Service was not going to tell me that even though my markets locals were not available I could just put up and antenna, import the guide data and record from my antenna to the DVR anyway. Why they were willing to let me walk away I will never know but I really wanted Sunday Ticket and found out the needed information.

Years later I worked with someone who used to answer those calls and I was told that they were only allowed to push what ever DirecTV was pushing at that time and not really spell out what could work for me. I was completely blown away. Why turn away customers if you can find a way to get them what they want even if its not the exact way they want it. In this case I do feel like DirecTV could educate customers more on this being an options for areas that are challenged for any locals or short markets or just want OTA.
 
#178 ·
FLWingNut said:
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.
Once again, you are talking about the letter of the law, not the spirit or the right thing to do. That is where we are at odds.

I agree that you are right when it comes to law. But law and "right" do not go hand in hand.

BTW, I can pretty much assume that when OTA went digital, they did not do as good a job in market coverage as they could have because they assumed most customers would watch their programming via satellite or cable. I remember comments to that nature when early digital testing went horribly wrong in New York City (too much multi-path). And I can make that assumption with a couple of major stations in the Baltimore/Washington area that actually went down in power for cost and for interference reasons. In short, the digital age actually made it harder to get OTA via an antenna. Why? Because the *realities* of the situation is that antenna viewing is the minority now. So, the *reality* is that stations are not serving their community by just dumping signal into the air, no matter what the laws say.

FLWingNut said:
By your logic, the government should pay for everyone to have locals via cable, so the community can be 100% "served."
Where did I say that? I am willing to pay someone for the community antenna. For the investment in equipment and for the maintenance of that equipment and service. That is not any different than buying an antenna on time and getting it realigned once in a while (both things that would be paid for).

FLWingNut said:
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.
My government doesn't own the telephone poles. They use right of way but they do not own the poles. The electric company, etc., do.

And, guess what, satellite *is* required to provide local channels. Not by local jurisdictions, but by the feds.

FLWingNut said:
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.
Yes, they have to pay for them. They are not required to have every channel (unless the channel chooses that over payment) but they are required to have that tier of service for any channels they do carry.

FLWingNut said:
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.
Whoa. There has not been any money until recently transferred from the local stations to the true copyright holders (local stations own their own broadcasts, but they have no copyright rights for network programming in terms of ownership). Recently, Fox has been making noises (and may be doing it) in that they want a cut of the money from satellite and cable because they are the true owners of the network programming. So, local channels have been doing exactly what you say is unreasonable. They have been getting paid for programming that they do not, in turn, pay for on a viewer by viewer basis.

FLWingNut said:
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 has nothing to do with stealing anything. You put it out on the airwaves, it should be free.

BTW, thanks for a good honest conversation. We disagree but it has been a good talk from different viewpoints.
 
#179 ·
FLWingNut said:
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.
Current law provides for a "must carry" burden for cable and satellite carriers so they can't "cherry pick" certain stations in a market. However, the law also provides for station owners to be allowed to opt out of "must carry" -- because if they do not, they can't charge for retransmission rights (if I remember correctly). The net effect is that many of the smaller networks and independents are subject to must carry but most of the major network affiliates have opted out of it.

In any event, though I'm 46 miles from the antennas of the Sinclair-afflicted local Fox and NBC affiliates (according to TV Fool), a cheap set-top antenna I had in the garage seems to be enough to get them with ease. (It also picks up some Victoria stations for good measure.) So I'm ready... but it still sucks for people deeper in the fringe or who don't have the option to throw up an outdoor antenna if needed.
 
#180 ·
tonyd79 said:
...
Whoa. There has not been any money until recently transferred from the local stations to the true copyright holders (local stations own their own broadcasts, but they have no copyright rights for network programming in terms of ownership). Recently, Fox has been making noises (and may be doing it) in that they want a cut of the money from satellite and cable because they are the true owners of the network programming. So, local channels have been doing exactly what you say is unreasonable. They have been getting paid for programming that they do not, in turn, pay for on a viewer by viewer basis.

... This has nothing to do with stealing anything. You put it out on the airwaves, it should be free.
This is my "chief beef" with the local stations. :mad:

They act like they are the real copyright holders of the network programming they merely act as a local market outlet for, but they are not :nono:. I can accept it if the networks want to charge the MSOs fees for this programming since they really own it, but not the local stations or their greedy ownership groups who don't own a thing beyond their local originated programs (and how many subs really want that? :rolleyes:).

DIRECTV and the other MSOs should have the right to import network shows from alternative sources if they can't come to terms with the local outlet station provider or their groups.
 
#181 ·
HoTat2;3188380 said:
This is my "chief beef" with the local stations. :mad:

They act like they are the real copyright holders of the network programming they merely act as a local market outlet for, but they are not :nono:. I can accept it if the networks want to charge the MSOs fees for this programming since they really own it, but not the local stations or their greedy ownership groups who don't own a thing beyond their local originated programs (and how many subs really want that? :rolleyes:).

DIRECTV and the other MSOs should have the right to import network shows from alternative sources if they can't come to terms with the local outlet station provider or their groups.
It is a bit of a delicate walk. I understand the news for local stations and can see that network programming is the best way for them to stay viable.

As you can tell from my posts, I understand the need for local programming and how they serve the community.

I'd rather see them regulated better. The government grants them a monopoly and then just lets them do whatever they want.
 
#184 ·
#186 ·
Stuart Sweet said:
Well obviously that PDF is a bit less relevant now :lol:
I saw the Solid Signal blog. These carriers LOVE to strike fear. Thing is they suggest like Dish. But then when Dish and that carrier have an issue they say go to DirecTV.
 
#187 ·
I checked my local channels site, still had the warning up. Their twitter feed said they've gotten word of a deal, with details to follow. That was a half hour ago. I just responded saying it is done, and to take the warning down, providing the link to the Sinclair press release.

And Sinclair also just purchased 18 more stations, from Barrington Broadcasting.
 
#190 ·
I like how Sinclair makes an attempt at justifying their price increase for them while suggesting DIRECTV reduce the profits they make. I'm not saying either is right but who ever put out this communication for Sinclair really didn't put a lot of forethought in to it.
Q: Isn't this just about greed?
A: No. It's about us being a publicly traded company that has a fiduciary responsibility
to operate the company profitably. Given that we spend millions of dollars each year to
buy and produce high-quality programming, it is only right and fair that satellite
companies compensate us fairly for a portion of our cost, especially since they are reselling our content to their subscribers. In addition, the inability to reach agreement with
DirecTV is related to other material matters besides the amount we are to be paid.

Q: Won't this cost get passed on to the consumer?
A: That is a question for DirecTV to answer. They may pass these costs on to their
subscribers or they could choose just to reduce the profits they make. Alternatively, they
could negotiate to reduce the fees they pay for programming which is far less popular
than the programming provided by the Sinclair stations and for which, we believe they
pay disproportionately high prices as compared to the amount being requested by
Sinclair.
 
#193 ·
Banner on guide is updated.

"As expected, there will be no disruption to your [FOX] station."
 
#194 ·
TheRatPatrol said:
SS@SolidSignal - Today, 07:12 PM Reply
Update: A source at DIRECTV says, "I have heard we have a one week extension, not a done deal."
Technically true, it's a one week extension, but I think it's more to give time to sign the agreements and such. Even Sinclair makes it sound like its a done deal and just a formality at this point.
 
#195 ·
HoTat2;3188380 said:
This is my "chief beef" with the local stations. :mad:

They act like they are the real copyright holders of the network programming they merely act as a local market outlet for, but they are not :nono:. I can accept it if the networks want to charge the MSOs fees for this programming since they really own it, but not the local stations or their greedy ownership groups who don't own a thing beyond their local originated programs (and how many subs really want that? :rolleyes:).

DIRECTV and the other MSOs should have the right to import network shows from alternative sources if they can't come to terms with the local outlet station provider or their groups.
They don't own the program but they own the rights to the program for their specific market.
 
#197 ·
ziggy29;3188476 said:
The local San Antonio Sinclair stations have said for a while that they "didn't expect" to be carried on D* as of March 1.

Gotta love spin.
Directv did state yesterday that they thought the deal was close enough to predict it would get done.
 
#201 ·
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.
 
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