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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
DIRECTV and Sinclair Broadcast Group today extended their current retransmission consent agreement to allow DIRECTV to continue providing Sinclair's local broadcast stations without interruption as the companies continue working toward a new agreement.
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?
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?
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
DBSTalk Forum
3.6M posts
112K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to digital bit streaming enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about programming, content, and reception, home theaters, displays, models, styles, satellites, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!