WANE-TV/LIN vs. Time-Warner Cable...

[Juan Bodley]

Again a TV topic here but I think it might be the start of something...
WANE-TV is not getting through to Time Warner in Ohio...their carry contract ends Oct. 2nd.
What I'm wondering is this: is T/W just stalling them until maybe after Feb. 17th just to gain system bandwidth or just jerking LIN Broadcasting's chain?? The posting on WANE's website makes it sound like it's in the hands of T/W (natch,) but what do you great gurus of the airwaves think about this round of B.S.....

And if this is what the TV transition to HD is like, I can only imagine what would happen if Uncle Charlie would "insist" on mandatory radio HD changeover.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

It isn't just WANE -- WISH-TV and WTHI-TV are all dealing with similar issues, and I think that other LIN stations in Time-Warner markets are as well.

It appears to be the idea that broadcasters should get compensation for the right to carry their signal, which is IMO, ridiculous. Broadcast TV should be free cable operators as well as the public, over-the-air.

 

[Ann Tenna]

For some reason, I find my friends at Comcast and/or Time Warner want to charge me real actual MONEY to watch their re-feed of WISH-TV...the same feed I can watch over the air for free. With that in mind, why would the local TV's be out of line for at least asking for payment from the cable providers who are re-transmitting their product? Obviously the payment per viewer would be incredibly small, but I guess it all adds up.

On the topic of HD Radio and their possible TV-like transition to digital-only service (as brought up by Juan Bodley above), there's really no comparison. Unlike HDTV who's digital signals are being transmitted on a frequency different from the original analog signal, HD radio digital signals are embedded in the existing spectrum space allotted to each radio licensee. Thus there is no advantage to eliminating the analog signal, other than to make space for additional HD programming (HD4, HD5, HD6, etc.), plus other data services. When TV goes digital only, a huge block of spectrum space will be opened for the FCC to sell off to the highest bidder.

 

[w9wi]

It appears to be the idea that broadcasters should get compensation for the right to carry their signal, which is IMO, ridiculous. Broadcast TV should be free cable operators as well as the public, over-the-air.

What has been contentous in many markets is that stations have been asking for extra compensation for allowing carraige of their digital signals in HD. When HD cable first came along, in most cases the *only* programming available was that of local over-the-air stations. Cable operators were collecting revenue reselling these broadcast signals - without the broadcast signals there would be no HD to sell - but broadcasters weren't getting any cut of the revenue they were generating.

That's more difficult to argue today, with a growing number of non-broadcast channels now available in HD. Still, the broadcast channels are responsible for the majority of viewing (yes, even among viewers who have cable) and there's little point in subscribing to HD cable if the OTA programming most viewers are watching isn't available.

Another way of putting it: the difference between giving the OTA programming free to antenna viewers, and giving it free to the cable systems, is that the antenna viewers are *watching* the programming, not *reselling* it. The cable systems are reselling it. It's kinda like taking a job as a Pizza Hut delivery driver, delivering all the pizzas, but keeping all the money for yourself.

================================================

On the topic of HD Radio and their possible TV-like transition to digital-only service (as brought up by Juan Bodley above), there's really no comparison. Unlike HDTV who's digital signals are being transmitted on a frequency different from the original analog signal, HD radio digital signals are embedded in the existing spectrum space allotted to each radio licensee. Thus there is no advantage to eliminating the analog signal, other than to make space for additional HD programming (HD4, HD5, HD6, etc.), plus other data services. When TV goes digital only, a huge block of spectrum space will be opened for the FCC to sell off to the highest bidder.

(somehow I didn't see Juan's post) There is a *technical* advantage to eliminating the analog signal from the HD Radio broadcast -- the digital power can be increased, improving coverage considerably. But you can't free up any more spectrum that way for the government to auction & use in lieu of taxes.

In any case, assuming HD Radio succeeds (IMHO a big "if") it will take a LOT longer. There are a lot more radios out there than TVs. Adding converter boxes is, in most cases, not practical - the box would be bigger than many radios! There is no "cable radio" service to downconvert for listeners with old sets. Radio broadcasters can't switch off the analog until the vast majority of radios receive all desired stations in HD. I cannot imagine that happening in less than 25 years. Since there's no benefit to the government in going all-digital they won't be doing anything to hustle the transition along.

 

[Kent]

For some reason, I find my friends at Comcast and/or Time Warner want to charge me real actual MONEY to watch their re-feed of WISH-TV...the same feed I can watch over the air for free. With that in mind, why would the local TV's be out of line for at least asking for payment from the cable providers who are re-transmitting their product? Obviously the payment per viewer would be incredibly small, but I guess it all adds up.

Here's why the local TV stations are out of line asking for a payment from cable and satellite providers:

(1) When has it ever been a good thing to have people who want to watch your product but can't?

(2) Cable providers don't make money on basic packages. They provide local channels to keep frustrated viewers to a minimum, which is a benefit to both the provider and the local station (see reason #1).

(3) What other business can effectively go up to someone and say, "I want to reach as many viewers as possible so I can charge my advertisers higher rates, and I need your help. So, please pay me so I can accomplish this goal," and not get laughed out of the room?

 

[gr8oldies]

Same issue in Dayton with WDTN even putting crawls on the screen telling people to subscribe to DISH network? What will happen in all these markets is that the TV stations and Time warner will huff and puff, maybe even the stations will be removed for a day or two, but soon they'll all be saying "kum-ba-yah". Why in teh world would WANE, WDTN, WISH or whoever want to lose 80% of it's audience?

 

[PTBoardOp94]

For some reason, I find my friends at Comcast and/or Time Warner want to charge me real actual MONEY to watch their re-feed of WISH-TV...the same feed I can watch over the air for free. With that in mind, why would the local TV's be out of line for at least asking for payment from the cable providers who are re-transmitting their product? Obviously the payment per viewer would be incredibly small, but I guess it all adds up.

I don't know what Time-Warner does, but Insight used to have a package that was like $10/mo. and it offered Home Shopping, TWC, CSPAN, and the locals. I consider $10/mo a fair price to hook onto the Insight network and be "guaranteed" a clear signal, and a couple of additional channels.

(3) What other business can effectively go up to someone and say, "I want to reach as many viewers as possible so I can charge my advertisers higher rates, and I need your help. So, please pay me so I can accomplish this goal," and not get laughed out of the room?

Agreed.

 

[kirkiefan]

Again a TV topic here but I think it might be the start of something...
WANE-TV is not getting through to Time Warner in Ohio...their carry contract ends Oct. 2nd.
What I'm wondering is this: is T/W just stalling them until maybe after Feb. 17th just to gain system bandwidth or just jerking LIN Broadcasting's chain?? The posting on WANE's website makes it sound like it's in the hands of T/W (natch,) but what do you great gurus of the airwaves think about this round of B.S.....

And if this is what the TV transition to HD is like, I can only imagine what would happen if Uncle Charlie would "insist" on mandatory radio HD changeover.

Lin's Dayton station WDTN is having a similar rasslin' match with Time Warner who claims that keeping WDTN on its basic tier will continue to keep cable bills up and deleting the station will bring the bill down. My gut feelings tell me that TW wants to take Lin TV down!

 

[jo-nathan]

It isn't just WANE -- WISH-TV and WTHI-TV are all dealing with similar issues, and I think that other LIN stations in Time-Warner markets are as well.

It appears to be the idea that broadcasters should get compensation for the right to carry their signal, which is IMO, ridiculous. Broadcast TV should be free cable operators as well as the public, over-the-air.

Umm... no. Cable companies make money off of someone else's signal, therefore the stations should get a piece of the action. To not pay them is taking money out of their pockets.

 

[Kent]

Umm... no. Cable companies make money off of someone else's signal, therefore the stations should get a piece of the action. To not pay them is taking money out of their pockets.

Not really. TV stations make plenty of money off of cable carriage. They have a mutually beneficial relationship; it's called being able to easily reach people. Remember, the viewers on cable count as viewers just the same as over-the-air viewers do, and those viewers translate into money. In some TV markets (Springfield, MO comes to mind), cable and satellite penetration is almost 90%. The FCC estimated the nationwide audience getting signals from cable or satellite TV was roughly 80% five years ago, which is how they justified making this TV conversion happen next year (and before most of us have actual digital tuners). How is being able to reach at least 80% of the available audience without upsetting or frustrating them not getting "a piece of the action" as you put it?

 

[Ann Tenna]

For some reason, I find my friends at Comcast and/or Time Warner want to charge me real actual MONEY to watch their re-feed of WISH-TV...the same feed I can watch over the air for free. With that in mind, why would the local TV's be out of line for at least asking for payment from the cable providers who are re-transmitting their product? Obviously the payment per viewer would be incredibly small, but I guess it all adds up.

Here's why the local TV stations are out of line asking for a payment from cable and satellite providers:

(1) When has it ever been a good thing to have people who want to watch your product but can't?

(2) Cable providers don't make money on basic packages. They provide local channels to keep frustrated viewers to a minimum, which is a benefit to both the provider and the local station (see reason #1).

(3) What other business can effectively go up to someone and say, "I want to reach as many viewers as possible so I can charge my advertisers higher rates, and I need your help. So, please pay me so I can accomplish this goal," and not get laughed out of the room?

You just argued your own point: the cable companies need to carry the locals in order to keep their customers happy. Even if the locals don't want to be carried on a cable system for some reason, the cable companies still need them so their customers from doing something stupid like putting up an antenna or even worse, a satellite dish. The end result is the local TV signals are what people want most, both parties know it, and if the locals want to charge for the re-use of the product they own, there's no reason it shouldn't be allowed. How much they can get is another argument.

 

[Kent]

You just argued your own point: the cable companies need to carry the locals in order to keep their customers happy. Even if the locals don't want to be carried on a cable system for some reason, the cable companies still need them so their customers from doing something stupid like putting up an antenna or even worse, a satellite dish. The end result is the local TV signals are what people want most, both parties know it, and if the locals want to charge for the re-use of the product they own, there's no reason it shouldn't be allowed. How much they can get is another argument.

It goes back to that it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. To me, the local TV stations get their payment from the cable companies by being able to reach all of their customers with a clear signal and without aggravating their viewers. The cable companies, of course, also get a benefit by being able to give their customers everything, not just most things, they want.

I would disagree with the notion that the local signals are what cable subscribers want most. If that were the case, the basic package would be the most popular cable package. It's not; the "expanded basic" package, which is usually around 50 channels, used to be the most popular package before digital came into the picture. If expanded basic has lost ground, it has been to digital, not basic. In fact, most cable companies lose money on their basic package and only offer it because their franchise agreements require it. They'd much rather start their entry level at expanded basic, but that's not usually allowed.