SectionC3

Bingo. Are they still using that stupid cougar or panther or whatever it is at random times? That was funny about the first 75 times I heard it, but later became yet another reason to listen to Shredd & Ragan in the afternoon.

Totally agree. I think I phrased it very poorly in a prior post, but I heard that LIN wanted .01/day/sub for 4 and .01/day/sub for 23. If I'm TW, the demand for 23 is a non-starter and may have slowed the process. Your point re: fees for some of the "filler" TW carries is well-made. I could make a case for novelty programming on some nets (i.e., VS has a handful of home-market NHL games per year, Discovery has Deadliest Catch, etc.), but the point re: BET and similar nets is right on the money.

Good insight as usual; can't say I disagree with anything you're saying, although your point about TW's leverage seems to at least suggest that LIN moved more than TW ("caved" may have been excessive on my part). Any idea what TW lost (to date) in terms of its sub base? It's probably too early to tell, because the hard feelings will eat at the base for the next few months. The more I think about it, the more it seems 23 is a freebie or really, really close to it, and they just worked on a number for 4. 23's ratings (per Alan Pergament, who knows as much about ratings as do I about rocket science) were apparently worse than awful in the past month. I can't think of one show that airs on 23, aside from the 10p news with Lisa Flynn.

I have enjoyed posts on both sides of this topic. I'm responding to this one because I had a shockingly similar conversation with some far more astute than I tonight. I had heard that 4 was taking a beating financially, and that morale among the rank and file was wavering. My thought was that 4 needs TW more than TW needs 4 because without access to TW's system, 4 couldn't penetrate households during the critical sweeps periods. The conversation then turned to whether lesser networks such as HGTV, the Food Network, etc. should be paid or pay for access to cable and dish networks (I won't bore everyone with that). In any event, not like it matters anymore because the game will be seen on Sunday, but a few final thoughts: 1. One of the more recent rumors was that LIN wanted $.01/month per subscriber for BOTH 4 and 23. That request for 23 is absolutely asinine; it may be more reasonable for 4. 2. The fact this deal was finished the day before sweeps suggests that LIN caved. 3. The deal is probably (confidentiality makes this a tough one) based on advertising with a small amount of money changing hands. 4. One can wish that the folks at TW and LIN settled this one over a nice, tasty dinner at the Hamburg China King.

With the exception of number 4, that was classic. I stopped listening a long time ago. The whole "smartest guy in the room act" got old, and I exercised my right to tune in to S&R on afternoons on the Edge (as did a LOT of other listeners). Bulldog sounds like a mix between a chainsaw and a sputtering lawnmower and nearly makes my ears bleed. Message to Schopp: if you really are that smart, do something constructive, like teaching or becoming a doctor. As to the poster who mentioned the lame and stupid bits GR does in the morning and apparently still does in the afternoon, I totally agree. The only people who find that amusing are White and the afternoon crew. Finally, a funny Schopp story. I went to a Bisons game over the summer and sat behind Schopp and another GR guy as the Bisons' PR director chewed their ears off. I actually felt slightly bad for Schopp, as the PR guy spent way too much time at their seats. That stopped once one of the people I was with said something that Schopp found objectionable. Schopp turned around and did the glare and stare before shaking his head. The guy was such a toolbox - discussing "good trivia" with the PR director and sporting gray hair and a Roy Halladay jersey (the only guys who should wear pro jerseys with gray hair are baseball managers and coaches, Brett Farve and Kerry Collins) - that I didn't even feel the need to say anything to him.

You forgot George W. Bush in that list. I'll stop the politics here, but to me, peering under a banquet table in joking search of chemical weapons is not a laughing matter when that "joke" cost 4,000 American lives.

Did you see the reference to Channel 4's revenue dip in the BNews recently? I though Pergament had the numbers at 100k to 150k per week. If that's the case, LIN would have to have its proposal accepted in full (if you believe the News's numbers and extrapolate to all other affected markets) to make up for one year's worth of lost revenue if those goes on through Thanksgiving. TW's loss of 1,000 customers per week, although certainly pricey, brings it (I think) to about 1% of its subscriber base in this market. What a mess. It seems like this might go on for awhile unless the sales folks and talent with incentive-based pay (they must be a chipper bunch right now) pull a mutiny. I guess the new book could encourage LIN to back off a bit, too, but at this point, who knows . . . .

I suppose you listen to Rush for unbiased, unfiltered midday talk. Reaganomics has really done a bang up job for this country. We beat the Soviets, and now we're socialists. No growth in the past 8 years. Good thing Social Security wasn't privatized, or we'd really be in trouble. To top it all off, the GOP nominates a VP candidate who has had no success in the private sector, been the mayor of the equivalent of Springville for a handful of years and now runs a state rich in oil money that has half the population of Erie County. Chris Collins is far more qualified for the second spot on the ticket. I bet Palin would have the job even if she looked like Candy Crowley. She might still be on the ticket if she looked like Mitt Romney (oops, says the McCain camp). I'm not the brightest light on the tree, but I deal with sharp tacks every day, and I can say this: Harvard Law Review is just a different breed of cat. There are no dummies there. It doesn't make Obama an economist, but it does make him smart enough to realize his own limitations and surround himself with those qualified to steer the economy in the right direction. In my humble opinion, Palin falls outside that category. Sadly, this all relates to football because we can't buy tickets if we're unemployed.

Any idea where Lawrence Tynes's brother is these days?

Liberal sickness? Oberfuhrer buttboy? That's precious. First of all, my reference was a play on words. There's more than one dumb Palin out there, and the stupidity of the "second" Palin is akin to the Henry incident I alluded to. It might be that the reference was too hip for the room, or that you're not sharp enough to pick it up. Probably both. Second, not that arguing with someone on the Internet gets you anywhere, but I'll stoop to it anyhow because it is relevant to just about everyone who reads this post (actually, everyone, in light of the fact that the current economic crisis seems to have enveloped the world and, sadly, might impact the fate of the football team that we all love once new ownership is needed). It's sad that the people who voted for the worst president in the history of the United States of America might get sucked into voting for a ticket containing someone who is certainly one of the worst candidates in the modern era and quite possibly the most unqualified candidate for federal office in the history of this country. Not only is she unqualified, she is a moron of the first order. (Unless you believe she reads ALL the newspapers, of course. Or that the "liberal media" tripped her up when she stammered her way through the Katie Couric interview. Or that she flubbed the Bush Doctrine question because that theory is taught only at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and she's just a "Jane six-pack" whose travels to six colleges in five years didn't take her to Harvard.) The Bush presidency was a national and global tragedy, and if we are stupid enough to place Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency with a 72-year-old health risk at the top of the ticket, shame on us. Our economy is premised upon confidence, and if you think this current state of affairs is bad, just wait until, heaven forbid, President Palin is our leader.

We didn't know it. Maybe someone else can add a little more to the incident with the two runaways than can I. Henry was Palin-esque in his stupidity.

One penny a day is indeed the number. Conflicting reports on what the deal b/w TW and Channel 29 was; I believe the BNews had the arrangement as barter - TW buys time on Channel 29 and whatever the sister station is (UPN? 49?); other report had a smaller amount of money per subscriber changing hands. After watching the game today, I'm starting to lean toward Channel 4 needing TW more than TW needs Channel 4. LIN is going to take a hit on canceled ads if they haven't already and has no way of adequately reaching TW homes. Moreover, FIOS can't keep up with those who want to jump ship on TW. The wait for FIOS is apparently six months right now; the dish is obviously a separate deal, but it still seems like TW has an advantage from the standpoint that the other providers can't handle an exodus right now.

That's an excellent point - pyhrric (sp) victory may be the phrase of the day by the time this mess is resolved.

Per subscriber per 15 markets per one affiliate only. Check out the math above. The numbers easily reach $50 million per year on a national level.

I don't like either TW or LIN. Your statement that I quote is an entirely inaccurate characterization of what I have said. First, the issue is not over "a penny to carry a major broadcast affiliate." It's slightly less than a penny per subscriber PER DAY, which amounts to a vast sum of money per subscriber base PER YEAR as discussed in my prior post and will be referenced below. Anyone who can't comprehend how that money adds up is likely to blame for the national economic crisis in which we're now mired. Second, this is a national question involving tens of millions of dollars and future negotiations with other local broadcast affiliates in other markets. In other words, the question isn't about today's Bills/Cardinals game, it's about whether TW is forced to pay for programming that is broadcast over the air by these affiliates. I'm not taking sides; just pointing out the facts. The way for consumers to deal with this problem is to ditch Time Warner and, for those of you who meter, ignore Channel 4. Enough canceled ad buys will surely soften LIN's position (remember, LIN pulled its programming from TW). Likewise, although it will probably take a little while longer, enough new FIOS and DISH users should cause TW to think about its approach to this negotiation.

I'd say the losses started already. TW has invested man hours and probably about 2 cents per unit in those TV antennas they're giving away. The subscriber base here will surely shrink, as evinced by what I hear are solid phone banks at FIOS and the local dish outlet. Will the base shrink enough to significantly damage TW stock? Beats me. Channel 4 and the LIN affiliates are going to get killed if this drags on. If I was an advertiser and had the contractual right, I'd cancel everything on that station after today's game until this gets resolved. They may have even lost buys for the game. We as a society are too lazy to deal with the pain in the *ss that the ears are, and too spoiled to put up with the cr*ppy picture when another show of equal quality is on the 100+ channel options at our disposal. I don't blame TW for pushing this issue, but from LIN's perspective . . . there has to be a smarter way to do this.

That is more than likely the case for just about every channel we get on TW. Some of the big boys get a couple of bucks a month or close to it - ESPN is in the $3/month range, CNN is probably up there too. Point is, Musial put the figure at less than a penny a day. $2.50 per year per subscriber is therefore a very, very reasonable estimate (approx. .7 cents a day per subscriber). Check my next post for the some of the downside for both of the big boys in this dispute.

I just hooked up the rabbit ears TW handed out yesterday. This is a memo to Chris Musial and the folks at Time Warner: 1. TW: if you're going to give away rabbit ears to help your customers receive today's game, try giving away a device that ACTUALLY WORKS. The picture with the piece of cr*p you gave me is awful. 2. Chris Musial: Bad news there, buddy. What stinks for you is that the picture of your station is HORRIBLE. Odds are pretty good that unless this mess gets resolved, I'll watch your station for a total of roughly six hours between now and November 23. Sure, I can go somewhere else and see the Bills/Dolphins and Bills/Pats games in HD - such as a sports bar, or the home of a friend with a dish. But, I'm not going to do that to watch Don Postles, CSI Miami, 60 Minutes, your wake-up program or any other show on your station. So, the gist of it is, when your ratings book starts (I believe it's soon, if you're not there already), you're out of luck, my friend. (You didn't even think about the issue of whether I might watch your soon to be formerly highly rated wake up show on my bedroom TV, for which I do not have rabbit ears, because I put that set on the living room TV!) Basically, then, as soon as I settle in a house in the Southtowns, I'm getting FIOS (TW, you lose). Between now and then, and probably for a good while after once my new viewing habits are hardened, I won't watch Channel 4 outside of 1p to 4p on Bills Sundays (Channel 4, you lose too). Big risk, no reward for either side. I know you're reading this, too.

That brings us to the crux of this dispute. We're talking major dollars here, as evinced by the willingness of TW to give away rabbit ears that retail in the $10-ish neighborhood. Assume for the sake of argument that Chris Musial is accurately stating that LIN wants about $.01 per day per subscriber for Channel 4. Call it $2.50 per year per subscriber. Now, assume that there are about 100,000 cable subscribers in this market. The figure might be a little low, but it makes it easier to run the numbers. We're talking about $250,000 per year for Channel 4. Again, probably a low figure, but it's round. Next, multiply that figure by 4 (Channel 4 plus Channels 2, 7 and 29 [sorry, UPN and other lesser networks]). All of a sudden, you're at $1,000,000 per year for Buffalo, which is probably not even a top-50 market anymore. (52 or 53, if memory serves). The additional local network signals are added to the analysis because those stations will more likely than not want treatment equal to that afforded Channel 4. Finally, multiply that $1,000,000 figure by, say, 100, for the top 100 markets in the country. Again, the numbers a probably low, but that local $250,000 dispute with Channel 4 easily morphs into a national $100,000,000 dispute with local over-the-air providers. This is about big dollars and might not get solved until external pressures (i.e., 4's ratings plummet b/c customers are too lazy or not loyal enough to use the ears, or LIN/CBS/other network parents get skittish about going into a ratings period off of a dominant cable provider). This analysis assumes that TW is in all of the top 100 markets. Even if TW is in only 50 of those markets, $50,000,000 is still a lot of jack and worth the giveaway of a few rabbit ears.

That's more in line with the story I heard. Something about wearing headphones at halftime, Meathead asked him to take them off and get his act together, Moulds called Meathead an MFer or some variation thereof, Meathead wanted to suspend Moulds for four games, Ralph said no, etc.

My understanding is that it's on for today.

Your post reminded me of 51-3. That must have been a long day. Seriously, far be it for any fan of the Oakland Raiders to taunt another city about possibly losing its team. Why wish the pain you went through on others?

He whacked Garrard today like Garrard was his girlfriend. The kid had a lot working against him in the offseason. It looks like he turned a lot of it around, and if he did, good for him and congratulations.

You're entitled to your opinion. There are people who go through a lot more than Tom Brady - believe me, I'm mindful of that. Still, though, to wish suffering upon another just isn't the right thing to do.

I hate to see someone, anyone get hurt. It's not that it's Tom Brady; it's that it's a human being who probably has several months of grueling physical therapy ahead of him that certainly cannot be fun. That said, football season just got a lot more interesting. Your remark about "HERO Pollard number 49" was really, really funny.