Sinclair says negotiations with Time Warner Cable have ended-Sinclair television

[Mark Giardina]

This story came from CNBC. So does that mean that the only way to view Channel 31 is OTA or satellite?

 

[therealjm12]

I have mixed feelings about all this. Sinclair (owners of WUHF) is basically evil and I have no sympathy for them. However, WUHF is operated by Nexstar and the news is handled by WROC -which I have respect for. To add to all this, it looks like 13 WHAM will be starting a 10:00 news on their CW 13. 2 & cable 16. So that will probably put an end to FOX's Ten O'Clock News if they go off cable for even a short time.
WKTV in Utica has been off parts of Time Warner since 12/16. I know it must be hurting them and their revenue. The owners of WKTV point is (briefly) is that Time Warner pays ESPN, MTV, ETC, all sponsored supported channels why not pay WKTV? Utica is a small market and they can use all the $$ they can get to help pay for HD upgrades. Sinclair-they're just greedy. This all goes back to my constant rant about let us pick & choose the channels we want. No more socialism in cable/satellite TV. Let the strong survive.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Sinclair is not only evil but run by a bunch of idiots.

With that said I could care less if Time Warner pulls the plug on carrying Channel 31. TW has been running ads indicating the cable network still plans to carry FOX programs ( I would assume network versus local and syndicated shows). Well good for them! No big loss if Judge Judy and those other judge programs disappear along with most of the syndicated crap 31 carries.

As for the 10:00 news on 31, I'm sure the folks at Channel 8 won't mind if that disappears. That way they can concentrate on their 11pm newscast on WROC.

It was Sinclair that destroyed Channel 31's local news operation and replaced it with some god-awful so-called national newscast, of which I can't even remember what that program was called.

 

[W2JUV_AL]

WKTV in Utica has been off parts of Time Warner since 12/16. I know it must be hurting them and their revenue. The owners of WKTV point is (briefly) is that Time Warner pays ESPN, MTV, ETC, all sponsored supported channels why not pay WKTV? Utica is a small market and they can use all the $$ they can get to help pay for HD upgrades. Sinclair-they're just greedy. This all goes back to my constant rant about let us pick & choose the channels we want. No more socialism in cable/satellite TV. Let the strong survive.

Cable companies pay for ESPN because it is a "cable-only, pay network" and has been since inception.
Why should TWC customers pay for WKTV when over-the-air viewers don't? Smith Media is trying to extort money from TWC because they realize their future is uncertain. Were it not for antiquated FCC rules/regs protecting local affiliates, many of them woud be out of business. Free over-the-air TV will gradually disappear. The FCC is seeking 500mhz of spectrum for broadband and broadcast TV is a target. Buyouts of station licenses will happen at some point in time. And networks are slowly transitioning prime programming over to pay-only channels, i.e. Monday Nite Football from ABC to ESPN. This eventually spells doom for the Smith Medias of the world

 

[therealjm12]

Yes, ESPN is a cable only, paid network. And yes, they make a lot of money from commercials that I have to sit thru, just like the local affiliates. Maybe more. So again I ask, why do the cable companies pay them but not local stations?
A couple years ago Time Warner raised my rates. Their excuse was that A & E had bought the rights to The Soprano's. Programing like that is expensive they said. Well, at the time I had HBO. I never watched the Soprano's once. Why would I want to watch them on basic cable, heavily edited, and commercial filled and pay for it? I already paid for them on HBO and didn't watch them (my choice BTW). And by the way, The Soprano's were a complete flop on A & E. Delegated to Sunday mornings. But we're still paying for it. If the ESPN etc. would like to take advantage of the free over the air subchannels they certainly have my permission. I'm sure the local ABC affiliates would be more than happy to put ESPN on their subchannels.

ESPN is not like HBO, Showtime, Encore, etc. Premium channels have no commercials and if I want them I pay for them. I support them if I want to. ESPN and the like are cash cows and forced down our throats if we want the upper tiers. If I could pick & choose the channels I want, ESPN would probably not be one of my choices. However, the local affiliates would be. According to the system now, I do not have a right to my opinion. And please don't tell me if I don't want it stop getting cable. Where I live, off air is pretty tough to get and there are cable channels I enjoy.

It will be a sad, sad day when free over the air (if) disappears. Once again the big corporations will have won and will be picking our pockets. They'll do so using both the sleaziest form of capitalism by basically bribing our representatives, and socialism, by supporting channels that are supported by them that we never watch or in most cases don't even know they exist.

 

[W2JUV_AL]

ESPN is not like HBO, Showtime, Encore, etc. Premium channels have no commercials and if I want them I pay for them. I support them if I want to. ESPN and the like are cash cows and forced down our throats if we want the upper tiers. If I could pick & choose the channels I want, ESPN would probably not be one of my choices. However, the local affiliates would be. According to the system now, I do not have a right to my opinion. And please don't tell me if I don't want it stop getting cable. Where I live, off air is pretty tough to get and there are cable channels I enjoy.

Therealjm12.......well we do have some common ground here. Cable subscribers should definetely have some form of a-la-carte choice, because everyone's viewing preferences are different. But I will never agree on cable customers indirectly paying to support local affiliates. It just perpetuates the problem caused by "retransmission fee" negotiations (or should I say wars), definetely not good for the consumer. And I'm not saying free OTA TV is going away soon, however there are consumers willing to pay big $ for that spectrum for their techy wireless devices.

 

[Sammi Brie]

I have mixed feelings about all this. Sinclair (owners of WUHF) is basically evil and I have no sympathy for them. However, WUHF is operated by Nexstar and the news is handled by WROC -which I have respect for.

You have respect for Nexstar? I lost all mine with their virtual duopolies (have you ever noticed Mission Broadcasting's ownership of stations in many Nexstar markets? They're a SHELL company!) and their cutting of WYOU's news (swap WYOU and WBRE affiliations?).

 

[Bob1370]

WROC is really caught in the middle on this one, running a station on an LMA and taking on all the responsibility, but having no power over its reach and carriage because Sinclair is calling the tune. There are a couple interesting issues which COULD come into play here. First, how solid is the commitment Nexstar owes to Sinclair--can it bow out if it finds itself stuck with the bill for operating a station that can no longer deliver the reach to generate the needed revenue? Second, can Fox look for another affiliation deal since Sinclair is shafting it in market after market? They could seek to persuade someone else to sign up--or even build a new station, if need be, since the channel allocation table is in flux and the digital age makes a lot of new channels possible even if the total OTA television band is squeezed to make room for more broadband data service on the UHF band. Rochester's an attractive enough, economically stable enough market that it could support one more station if it had a decent network franchise to go along with it.

 

[Sammi Brie]

WROC is really caught in the middle on this one, running a station on an LMA and taking on all the responsibility, but having no power over its reach and carriage because Sinclair is calling the tune. There are a couple interesting issues which COULD come into play here. First, how solid is the commitment Nexstar owes to Sinclair--can it bow out if it finds itself stuck with the bill for operating a station that can no longer deliver the reach to generate the needed revenue? Second, can Fox look for another affiliation deal since Sinclair is shafting it in market after market? They could seek to persuade someone else to sign up--or even build a new station, if need be, since the channel allocation table is in flux and the digital age makes a lot of new channels possible even if the total OTA television band is squeezed to make room for more broadband data service on the UHF band. Rochester's an attractive enough, economically stable enough market that it could support one more station if it had a decent network franchise to go along with it.

Who affiliates the station with the network in this case and in the case of WYZZ: Nexstar or Sinclair? If it's Sinclair, it's not losing Fox until 2012. Sinclair has 19 Fox outlets, which sure sounds like a lot to me.

 

[therealjm12]

Nexstar may be in this game more than a lot of you realize. Nexstar owns all the TV stations in Utica except WKTV. Time Warner is shipping in WBRE in PA. to replace WKTV on cable. WBRE is, also, owned by Nexstar. So all the TV other stations in the market are owned by Nexstar or their shell company. And, Time Warner is bringing in Utica's WUTR & WFXV to replace Smith's stations in Vermont.
Nexstar has filed suit against Time Warner to cease & desist of using their stations as replacements.
What a mess. Once again, thank you deregulation.

 

[Sammi Brie]

Nexstar may be in this game more than a lot of you realize. Nexstar owns all the TV stations in Utica except WKTV. Time Warner is shipping in WBRE in PA. to replace WKTV on cable. WBRE is, also, owned by Nexstar. So all the TV other stations in the market are owned by Nexstar or their shell company. And, Time Warner is bringing in Utica's WUTR & WFXV to replace Smith's stations in Vermont.
Nexstar has filed suit against Time Warner to cease & desist of using their stations as replacements.
What a mess. Once again, thank you deregulation.

And for owning two out of three in Utica, Nexstar should face an antitrust lawsuit. Mission Broadcasting is an illegal business.