Considering they just launched OSN 2 weeks ago.COX and WJAR are at odds on carriage fees.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Almost not even news anymore.COX threatening to Yank WJAR on 6/1
- Thread starter Kenny Atkinson
- Start date
They are a pain, but what's the alternative - letting the cable and satellite companies dictate the terms under which stations are carried on their systems? The networks aren't paying the stations anymore to carry their programming (reverse compensation is the name of the game these days.) FOX affiliates in many smaller markets are giving up their affiliations because the reverse compensation is more than the stations' revenues. The current system of must carry/retransmission consent instituted in 1993, while imperfect, is the best system we have, and the alternatives invariably involve giving MVPDs (which already control up to 90% of the distribution of broadcast television to the home) the upper hand. If you can find a better business model that takes into account today's economic realities, I'd love to hear about it.
Business model my ass. The cable subscribers end up paying WJAR et al to watch something on cable that WJAR et al pumps over the air for free.
The constant and urgent appeals to the people that WJAR et al will be removed from cable, constant screen crawls alerting the masses that big bad XYZ cable is going to deprive them of their local station... Just one great, big PITA of a publicity stunt.
WJAR et al needs the cable much more than vice versa. Yet the cable has to pay THEM for the privilege of carrying a signal that is not only broadcast free, but also mandated for them to carry!
It really stresses out the elderly people most of all by involving them in a business to business dispute that holds them hostage by threatening their viewing enjoyment.
-
The constant and urgent appeals to the people that WJAR et al will be removed from cable, constant screen crawls alerting the masses that big bad XYZ cable is going to deprive them of their local station... Just one great, big PITA of a publicity stunt.
WJAR et al needs the cable much more than vice versa. Yet the cable has to pay THEM for the privilege of carrying a signal that is not only broadcast free, but also mandated for them to carry!
It really stresses out the elderly people most of all by involving them in a business to business dispute that holds them hostage by threatening their viewing enjoyment.
-
iyiyi said:
Do note that if WJAR elects must-carry, they cannot negotiate for payment.
I have a hard time feeling sympathy for a cable operator who uses popular OTA programming to build a subscriber base but pleads poverty when those OTA programmers demand a fraction of the price the cable operator is paying for far less popular channels.
The WJAR signals are broadcast free **for the private viewing enjoyment of the audience**. (I'm betting you've heard that wording before, if you've ever watched a major sporting event) They are not broadcast for the purpose of giving away something another business can use to compete against WJAR.
OK. Then let the cable people give us the option to elect not to receive local channels. Of course they would cut the monthly bill for those choosing to do so. Why should I pay extra for something I dont need or want? Cable has the ability to tier signals. FWIW, I subscribed to cable to receive out of town signals, which is no longer carried. Also, when I watch local channels, I always watch them OTA. The picture quality is superior to cable. Give the people the option to drop the local channels and knock $5 off their monthly bill. Watch how fast the public will embrace it!
The reason cable systems generally don't carry out-of-market network affiliates anymore (even if, like in Providence, Boston signals come in pretty good at many locations) is that the local affiliates don't want another station of the same network.
Were the Boston NBC station, WHDH-7, still on cable in Rhode Island, WJAR would "scream bloody murder" because many cable viewers in the Ocean State might prefer WHDH to WJAR.
Were the Boston NBC station, WHDH-7, still on cable in Rhode Island, WJAR would "scream bloody murder" because many cable viewers in the Ocean State might prefer WHDH to WJAR.
newsbot said:
In which markets has this happened?
Paul
Two things will probably fix this chicanery very quickly.
1) Inform the public exactly how much these local stations' "carriage agreements" impact their monthly cable bill. What extra % do the subscribers pay for these "free" channels?
2) Giving the cable subscribers opportunity to "opt out" of this fiasco. The cable companies and TV broadcasters have the right to wheel and deal at the subscribers' expense. Allowing the public to express themselves by dropping this whole "local carriage issue" and concomitant price increases for "free" TV on their cable.
I believe these two things will go a long, long way to putting an end to this monkey business. It helps to make these activities less profitable. Otherwise, this will continue to accelerate and increase as others turn to this "business model" as a "right" to augment their revenues.
PS. PaulRAnderson;
Excellent question!
-
-
1) Inform the public exactly how much these local stations' "carriage agreements" impact their monthly cable bill. What extra % do the subscribers pay for these "free" channels?
2) Giving the cable subscribers opportunity to "opt out" of this fiasco. The cable companies and TV broadcasters have the right to wheel and deal at the subscribers' expense. Allowing the public to express themselves by dropping this whole "local carriage issue" and concomitant price increases for "free" TV on their cable.
I believe these two things will go a long, long way to putting an end to this monkey business. It helps to make these activities less profitable. Otherwise, this will continue to accelerate and increase as others turn to this "business model" as a "right" to augment their revenues.
PS. PaulRAnderson;
Excellent question!
-
-
iyiyi said:
On this basis, cable subscribers should be able to opt out of any channel that they don't want or need, if it is one that has hefty fees associated with it. Needless to say, if this came to pass, cable subscribers who aren't sports fans would be able to save a great deal of money by dumping ESPN and the regional sports nets -- a lot more money than they would save by dumping the big four broadcast networks, I might add. Similarly, viewers who don't care for reality trash and celebrity gossip could opt out of A&E, Bravo, E!, MTV, etc.
But as long as basic cable networks are able to get away with charging rapacious fees, I don't see why broadcast stations should get any different treatment when it comes to their ability to collect those fees.
TexasTom said:
COX now offers an Economy package.NO Sports networks no MTV,No Spike, No TNT for only 35 a month you do get all locals
TexasTom said:
I infer that you say (paraphrase) "Well, the cable folk get away with gouging, why can't the OTAs gouge their fair share too?". Who pays for all of this?
Dish Satellite charges $5.99/month extra for their tier of local stations. If cable were to give the people the same option of dumping the local stations and saving $5.99 +tax each month; I believe cable and the OTAs would quickly realize that the people strongly disagree with the price/value that OTAs think they are worth...
-
iyiyi said:
Of course, it's the cable subscriber who pays, but since when is that the broadcasters' fault? Neither the law, nor the retrans agreements, require the cable operators to pass along those fees to the subscribers. The cable operators aren't losing money, there's no reason they can't absorb the retrans fees.
_________________________________________________
Yes, I understand that in order to maintain their return on investment, the cable operators have to pass along those fees.
You are of course fully aware that the broadcasters are being "gouged" too. By the energy companies which are charging them more for the fuel to run their news vehicles, heat & cool their buildings, and power their equipment. By the drug companies, which are charging more for the medications their employees need to stay healthy -- resulting in higher charges for health insurance. By the sports leagues, which are paying more to their star players, and in turn gouging the broadcasters for rights fees.
I note the cable operators scream up a storm when they're not able to buy the popular network programming for the (low) rates they want to pay. If they didn't think their viewers wanted that programming, they wouldn't care -- they'd drive their hard bargain & if they couldn't get it at the rates they wanted, they'd just let the retrans agreement expire & do without WJAR/whoever. Stations waive their must-carry rights when they elect to ask for retransmission compensation payments.
But they know WJAR is one of the ten most popular channels on the system. They wouldn't dream of operating a cable system without ESPN, or Fox News, or Disney Channel, or TNT. Subscribers would flee for Dish, Direct, or UVerse/FIOS. Likewise with WJAR, WLNE, WPRI, and WNAC.
Cox wouldn't exist without local channels.
tripinva said:
Oh, yes, I've heard of most of those. I didn't realize that was the issue.
Didn't Fox wind up on someone else's sub-channel in some of those places? I guess Fox doesn't care about viewers in those markets except those who would get the sub-channels over-the-air. Unless there's must-carry for them, there's nothing to stop the cable companies from putting an out-of-town Fox station on their lineup, right?
Paul
Sure there is - the "parent" station negotiates subchannel carriage in its retrans deal with the cable company. I know the subchannels are on cable (and pretty sure on satellite, too) in all the affected Indiana markets.
What's more, I'm pretty sure that Fox's deals with affiliates prevent them from granting a cable company permission to import their signals into an adjacent market...so if, let's say, WISE couldn't come to terms with Comcast about carriage for the 33.2 Fox signal, Comcast can't just grab WSJV or WUPW without permission that those stations probably can't legally give.
What's more, I'm pretty sure that Fox's deals with affiliates prevent them from granting a cable company permission to import their signals into an adjacent market...so if, let's say, WISE couldn't come to terms with Comcast about carriage for the 33.2 Fox signal, Comcast can't just grab WSJV or WUPW without permission that those stations probably can't legally give.
- Status