Lincoln, NE DirecTV Subscribers Could Lose KLKN-TV April 1

[DToTheJ]

The owners of ABC affiliate KLKN-TV in Lincoln, NE are the latest broadcaster to engage in a carriage mudsligning with a cable/satellite provider, in this case, DirecTV. The Citadel-owned station is preparing to disappear from DirecTV as of April 1st.

“DirecTV customers should know that Channel 8 KLKN-TV will still be available free over-the-air, by cable or by the Dish Network. You may wish to send a message to DirecTV: ‘Lose my shows, lose my business!’” the announcement advised viewers.

This is strikingly similar to ABC's beef with Cablevision earlier this month; WABC had run similar ads toward Cablevision with the same "lose my shows, lose my business" tagline. Isn't ABC and Citadel the same corporation, effectively? Boy, talk about recycling in times of economic crisis!

Full story:
http://www.rbr.com/tv-cable/22731.html

 

[pab]

I think we need to get rid of this "retransmission consent" nonsense. If you broadcast free over the air, then you don't get to demand money from a carrier. Go back to the old must-carry rules, they worked better.

 

[SteveRichards]

Isn't ABC and Citadel the same corporation, effectively?

Citadel Communications, which owns KLKN, as well as KCAU (ABC-Sioux City), WOI (ABC-Des Moines), and WHBF (CBS-Quad Cities) is not the same company as Citadel Broadcasting, which controls the ABC Radio Network and owns many radio stations across the country. Furthermore, the ABC Television Network is owned by Disney.

 

[Iowan]

I saw the same message about WHBF-TV! Are Des Moines and Sioux City affected as well?

 

[compubit]

Here's the catch in Lincoln - there are 2 ABC stations: KLKN/8 owned by Citadel and KHGI/13 owned by Pappas. I know both are on Dish and according the the DirecTV site, both are on DirecTV, even in HD. Net effect is - other than local programs on 8, Lincoln/Hastings/Kearney/Grand Island viewers won't be without ABC...

Jim

 

[TexasTom]

I think we need to get rid of this "retransmission consent" nonsense. If you broadcast free over the air, then you don't get to demand money from a carrier. Go back to the old must-carry rules, they worked better.

No.

Cable and satellite companies are profiting from retransmitting the signals of broadcast stations, and it's not unreasonable that they pay for the privilege.

For those who don't think that retransmission consent is the way to ensure fair compensation to broadcasters, how about suggesting alternatives.

 

[Markxxx]

I think we need to get rid of this "retransmission consent" nonsense. If you broadcast free over the air, then you don't get to demand money from a carrier. Go back to the old must-carry rules, they worked better.

No.

Cable and satellite companies are profiting from retransmitting the signals of broadcast stations, and it's not unreasonable that they pay for the privilege.

For those who don't think that retransmission consent is the way to ensure fair compensation to broadcasters, how about suggesting alternatives.

While I don't totally disagree, you must realize that the TV stations are already getting more money. The more viewers the higher the ad rates. So they are indirectly being compensated.

Of course it's not a slam dunk argument it does make sense.

 

[mjlarochelle]

Cable and satellite companies are profiting from retransmitting the signals of broadcast stations, and it's not unreasonable that they pay for the privilege.

For those who don't think that retransmission consent is the way to ensure fair compensation to broadcasters, how about suggesting alternatives.

The only alternative out there I can think of is advertising, which is how conventional broadcasters have made money for the past 70 years. Advertising revenues are down for conventional TV everywhere, and although that is in part due to the economic downturn, these revenues have been flat for some time while operating expenses have been increasing.

I was originally against the idea of retransmission consent, but I've begun to think it is the only way for conventional broadcasters to supplement advertising revenues. Even though there is increasing competition from cable channels and the Internet, local newscasts still produce high ratings. Viewers obviously want this programming, so it is not unreasonable for broadcasters to seek out other revenue streams to remain profitable as expenses increase and ad revenues either remain flat or decrease. Of course, more viewers mean higher ad rates, but how much are advertisers willing to pay? A company like McDonald's with franchises in virtually every American TV market can afford to buy ad time on individual stations nationwide, but Bob's Auto Shop in Houston is only willing to pay so much to get an ad on KTRK.

Now, as a Canadian I am not as familiar with the situation in the United States as I am with the ongoing controversy north of the border, but how much have companies such as Time Warner, Comcast, DirectTV, and Cox passed station retransmission fees on to consumers? Have they passed the full cost on to subscribers or just part of it?

 

[philosofy]

Our monthly rates for Directv seemed to jump at least a couple dollars each time we got a rate increase notice with our bill. I have no doubt that the cable/sat companies are passing along the full price to their subs. Why would they want to take the financial hit when the can just bump the price for their service up instead?

 

[SteveRichards]

I often hear TV stations complaining that the cable/satellite companies are paying X amount of dollars in order to carry ESPN, CNN, USA, or any other cable network, and the local stations think they are due the same kind of compensation for carriage. What rarely, if ever, gets brought up, is that the cable companies get local avails within the cable programming to sell advertising. The cable companies get no such avails on the local stations.

 

[mjlarochelle]

I often hear TV stations complaining that the cable/satellite companies are paying X amount of dollars in order to carry ESPN, CNN, USA, or any other cable network, and the local stations think they are due the same kind of compensation for carriage. What rarely, if ever, gets brought up, is that the cable companies get local avails within the cable programming to sell advertising. The cable companies get no such avails on the local stations.

The cable and satellite companies certainly do advertise on local TV stations though.

 

[Iowan]

April Fool's?

Looks like we might've been had. I stayed up all night to watch WHBF-TV on DirecTV to the end, except for one thing: IT'S STILL ON THE AIR!

 

[DToTheJ]

Good theory. However, talks were extended until... well, a couple of hours ago Central time:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/450923-UPDATED_Citadel_DirecTV_Extend_Retrans_Talks.php

Is WHBF on the air now?

 

[Iowan]

Yes as of 9 P.M. April Fool's night....

 

[DToTheJ]

And it appears it will be for good: Citadel and DirecTV have reached an agreement:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/450955-Citadel_DirecTV_Strike_Retrans_Deal.php

 

[Kent]

No.

Cable and satellite companies are profiting from retransmitting the signals of broadcast stations, and it's not unreasonable that they pay for the privilege.

For those who don't think that retransmission consent is the way to ensure fair compensation to broadcasters, how about suggesting alternatives.

I have mixed opinions about retransmission consent. I've never thought it was a good thing to have viewers who want to watch your product but can't. For pretty much every station, more than half (usually substantially more than half) of its audience comes from viewers watching cable or satellite. So, the audience the station sells is mostly cable and satellite viewers, and that's profiting from being carried on cable and satellite. It seems like must carry provided a mutually beneficial relationship.

However, if I owned a station and could get extra money from cable and satellite companies, you'd better believe I'd do it. So, I can't blame operators who pull stunts like this.

 

[BRNout]

No.

Cable and satellite companies are profiting from retransmitting the signals of broadcast stations, and it's not unreasonable that they pay for the privilege.

For those who don't think that retransmission consent is the way to ensure fair compensation to broadcasters, how about suggesting alternatives.

I have mixed opinions about retransmission consent. I've never thought it was a good thing to have viewers who want to watch your product but can't. For pretty much every station, more than half (usually substantially more than half) of its audience comes from viewers watching cable or satellite. So, the audience the station sells is mostly cable and satellite viewers, and that's profiting from being carried on cable and satellite. It seems like must carry provided a mutually beneficial relationship.

However, if I owned a station and could get extra money from cable and satellite companies, you'd better believe I'd do it. So, I can't blame operators who pull stunts like this.

Well, my opinion on the whole retransmission consent thing is this: if we're going to make this into a free-market capitalism issue (i.e. paying for product), then let's go all the way and let cable companies make deals with neighboring markets when the local guy is asking too much. Or, let subscribers pay extra for the option of receiving out of market network signals. Yeah, I know, that other arguments would arise from such a system but it would certainly prevent one station from holding their network hostage for more money. Either that or go back to the old "if it comes in via antenna, carry it" system. The way it's being done now basically stinks.

Right now, we have a regulatory hybrid that has seemingly resulted in cost increases for cable that have been far higher than the rate of inflation. Thanks Congress.