• 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

Time Warner To Disney: Roll Over Or Get Tough!

Thanks for the website. I can't believe that that poor company is only making 6¢ on the dollar. Why it's UNFAIR is what it is ::)
 
Geez, who DOESN'T Time Warner Cable get a contract dispute with? I'm sick of them doing this kind of stuff...
 
ESPN has to pay for their rights to broadcasts somehow!
I would understand paying a higher price for the Disney networks because their content has
value compared to lets say...Fuse
 
When Cablevision had their tiff with ABC/Disney, it was over carriage fees that Disney commanded, not so much for its cable channels, but for WABC, the broadcast station owned and operated by ABC. I'm sure WABC will be the pawn in the latest battle, as well.
 
MarcB said:
They pulled this sh** last time. I remember the article in the NY Post several (and I mean several) years ago about New Yorkers flocking to Radio Shack to buy antennas so they could continue watching Channel 7. Too bad antennas won't help you get Channel 7 now.
Click to expand...

Why would antennas not work for New York's channel 7? I can understand for those who live in Manhatten, but in the outlyin areas, an outdoor antenna will definitely work for channel 7. I know because an outdoor antenna is what I use to get Chicago's channel 7 on 7. WABC broadcasts at higher wattage than WLS-TV does. WLS-TV was only allowed 4.75kw of power for their channel 7 (they did have an STA for 9.5kw) in order to protect WOOD-TV, which decided to stay on their pre-transitional channel, channel 7. WOOD-TV transmits at 30kw at 288m while WLS-TV is 4.75 at 515m (based on old info when it was the main channel, & not a low power digital station now). As for getting a VHF station, people should never rely solely on 4 or 8 bay UHF only antennas, as those antennas ARE NOT guaranteed to work on VHF, and some antenna manufacturers don't guarantee VHF capability on 4 or 8 bay UHF only antennas. Those cheap omni-directional antennas don't always work for VHF either (especially for channels 2-6). VHF needs the long elements that are found on old-fashioned VHF/UHF combo antennas (though not as long as long as you don't need channels 2-6).

While a bit off-topic, but the same antenna I'm using now helped me get WBBM-TV when they were on channel 3 with no trouble at all.
 
I think broadcast stations should get paid for their programming by cable companies just like cable networks do. If twc doesn't want to pay what disney is asking, they shouldn't be allowed to carry the networks.
 
The issue is "must carry" rules. Cable companies are required to carry local stations. And they can't insert their local commercials in the affiliate feeds. So carrying local channels is a forced money loser.
 
I just saw the "I have choices" ad on ABC 7 earlier, also heard the same ad on the radio. Doesn't Time Warner HAVE to carry ABC since majority of their affiliates are full-power stations? TWC did the same with Fox last year and with Viacom in late '08.
 
TheBigA said:
The issue is "must carry" rules. Cable companies are required to carry local stations. And they can't insert their local commercials in the affiliate feeds. So carrying local channels is a forced money loser.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. Stations have the option of either telling the cable companies they "must carry" them or get retransmission consent (work out a financial deal to carry the station)

Low rated stations that are not in demand usually do "must carry" (think religious stations or shopping channels)
Big network affiliates can do that, but usually opt for retransmission consent. That can mean a lot of things. Could be free ads for the station on the cable system. Could be getting the cable system to pay them just like a regular cable network. Sometimes its the cable system agreeing to carry the station's weather channel or something.

Bottom line, most big network affiliates are not "must carry"
 
TheBigA said:
The issue is "must carry" rules. Cable companies are required to carry local stations. And they can't insert their local commercials in the affiliate feeds. So carrying local channels is a forced money loser.
Click to expand...

As already noted, the big network channels aren't "must carry" -- that status is generally limited to low rated channels, with the big stations opting for retransmission consent.

To say that carrying these stations is a "forced money loser" is ridiculous. Because if that were really true, the retransmission consent negotiations for these stations would be over instantly. ABC (or whoever) would go to the cable companies asking money for their stations, and the cable companies would simply say "no thanks" and drop those "money losing" broadcast stations.

So why doesn't that happen? Because cable companies know that their local ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC affiliates are part of the service that their subscribers are paying for -- and if those stations are gone from cable, they know that many of their subscribes will follow.

Just because the cable companies don't sell advertising on these channels doesn't mean that there isn't a profit in carrying them.
 
TexasTom said:
As already noted, the big network channels aren't "must carry"
Click to expand...

Whoops...missed that change from 1994.

OK...so I guess all this flies in the face that the TV networks are dead, and cable is strong because of channel diversity?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom