• 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

The Programming Disputes Thread

CTListener said:
NHL Network also was dumped by YouTube TV a couple of years ago. Guess they must not consider MLB and NHL fans as valuable to the YTTV business model as NFL and NBA fans.
Click to expand...
Must have been before I signed with them. I get my hockey fix on ESPN+ anyway.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Why?
Click to expand...
I know you have avoided watching ESPN for as long as it's been on the air, but surely you must comprehend its importance to the fans of the sports it telecasts. Not having ESPN available in a bar when NFL, MLB, NBA and (in hockey hotbeds) NHL games, along with big time college sports ticks sports fans off, and ticks off the owners of those bars where fans gather to watch them even more, because not having the games the customers want costs them business. It might not be sophisticated -- or have an equivalent in the Latin American cultures you're more familiar live -- but an "FU" to the cable company isn't a bad idea for a bar operator looking to show sympathy for the customers' frustration and tell them "Hey, we hate Spectrum too!"

Do these conflicts between programming sources and cable companies happen in Ecuador, Mexico, etc., or is this a purely American phenomenon?
 
Don CT said:
Nobody has mentioned how much of a price increase is involved.
Click to expand...
in retransmission disputes, there are no winners, only losers.

the media companies that pulled the content: they lose money over the dispute to demand for more money.

The paid tv providers: the loss of costumers who leave the provider for another over said dispute.

both: caving to end the disputed as soon as possible with a resolution, giving in to one another's side.

the customers: they will be paying for the rate hikes that comes with a resolved disputed.

so nobody wins here.
 
tvanswerman.com

Editorial: FCC Proposal to End TV Blackouts Is Full of Favoritism & Fecklessness

EDITORIAL FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel yesterday announced two rule proposals designed to “empower” consumers during channel blackouts caused by carriage disputes between TV provi…
tvanswerman.com tvanswerman.com

www.fcc.gov

Chairwoman Shares Proposals to Empower Consumers During TV Blackouts

Proposals Would Seek Comment on Rebates for Consumers and Commission Notifications of Blackouts
www.fcc.gov www.fcc.gov

There is a proposal to reduce TV blackouts at the FCC but thats subject to change.
 
WBNS Channel 10 Columbus, Ohio ran a scrolling message during a football game this afternoon announcing that Direct TV and AT&T Uverse may no longer carry WBNS after 8:00 P.M. on November 30 if an agreement cannot be reached to carry WBNS.

And since WBNS is owned by Tegna, the dispute between Direct TV and AT&T Uverse may also affect other Tegna owned television stations nationwide.
 
CTListener said:
I know you have avoided watching ESPN for as long as it's been on the air, but surely you must comprehend its importance to the fans of the sports it telecasts.
Click to expand...
I get that, but did not get the issue in that particular post as it lacked context.
CTListener said:
Not having ESPN available in a bar when NFL, MLB, NBA and (in hockey hotbeds) NHL games, along with big time college sports ticks sports fans off, and ticks off the owners of those bars where fans gather to watch them even more, because not having the games the customers want costs them business. It might not be sophisticated -- or have an equivalent in the Latin American cultures you're more familiar live -- but an "FU" to the cable company isn't a bad idea for a bar operator looking to show sympathy for the customers' frustration and tell them "Hey, we hate Spectrum too!"

Do these conflicts between programming sources and cable companies happen in Ecuador, Mexico, etc., or is this a purely American phenomenon?
Click to expand...
It depends on the country. And, of course, most countries only have one significant spot, soccer. While there is limited and declining local interest in baseball in the Greater Antilles, Northern Mexico, Nicaragua and parts of Venezuela and rugby in Argentina.

In Mexico, the major TV group even owns the largest stadium and one of the teams. In other nations, the pro teams are far less commercialized and some even have volunteer management. In general, due to society and due to economy, sports is not as totally profit driven.

Part of this is the economy and consumer income. The minimum daily wage in Mexico is just over $9 or less than 10% of the minimum wage in U.S. states like California. This means less money for tickets, less for rights payments, less for players. This is why the best players from Latin America join European teams... and the best player in the world plays in the US now.
 
ohdxer said:
And since WBNS is owned by Tegna, the dispute between Direct TV and AT&T Uverse may also affect other Tegna owned television stations nationwide.
Click to expand...
KPNX Phoenix is displaying the same message on its website. I have to ass-u-me that all Tegna stations would be shut off.
 


Back
Top Bottom