The Dean Posted October 26, 2008 Author Share Posted October 26, 2008 I do not know where YOU are getting your information from. The old agreement between TW and Lin was the "free" agreement. Lin would not charge a cent, but intern, TW had no choice but to carry WIVB and had no choice but to put them on a lower tier, basic cable available station. By Lin opting for the "pay" choice, TW does not have to carry them, does not have to put them on a lower tier channel, and does not have to make them available to basic cable subscribers. That's not the info I have. I will check into it (not today, obviously). You do realize that geting a fee does not = getting a bad spot in the lineup. Every negotiation I was involved with resulted in a fee for the station, yet the station remained in the lower channels (usually their OTA channel number) on the cable systems. i trust you arent' inferring that, because WIVB is on Ch 4 that they aren't getting a fee...because that isn't the way it usually works. Still, it makes little difference, in the situation. Lin has every right to ask for, and get, a small fee to carry their channel from TW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 That's not the info I have. I will check into it (not today, obviously). You do realize that geting a fee does not = getting a bad spot in the lineup. Every negotiation I was involved with resulted in a fee for the station, yet the station remained in the lower channels (usually their OTA channel number) on the cable systems. i trust you arent' inferring that, because WIVB is on Ch 4 that they aren't getting a fee...because that isn't the way it usually works. Still, it makes little difference, in the situation. Lin has every right to ask for, and get, a small fee to carry their channel from TW. Well, Lin has every right to ask for it. It only has a "right" to get what it can get. Sad as it may be, this is about cash, not principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 26, 2008 Author Share Posted October 26, 2008 Well, Lin has every right to ask for it. It only has a "right" to get what it can get. Sad as it may be, this is about cash, not principles. It is definitely about cash (for both sides). There are also many principles involved, and they are steeped in history. Can't really explain it all here. Suffice it to say that, without local broadcast stations, cable tv wouldn't have had a business, for many years, and they managed to build a business without paying one dime to their main content providers. But, it's game day, friends. i need to get Dad set up on the computer, and get myself to a bar. Go Bills! I hope you all find a way to watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I do not know where you recieved your information from, but any agreements that were reached in the past, with those providers, were before Lin-TV wanted all this money per subscriber. Now that Lin-TV wants money paid to them, they will have the same problem in the future with these providers. Like I said in my original post, they ALREADY MADE AN AGREEMENT with DirecTV - therefore, no risk of pulling the plug for years. See, here's a link and everything: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6568348.html So, more investments in more equipment. Just what the average person wants do do. Just because you don't LIKE the choice doesn't mean you don't have one. As Rush says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Like I said in my original post, they ALREADY MADE AN AGREEMENT with DirecTV - therefore, no risk of pulling the plug for years. See, here's a link and everything: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6568348.html Just because you don't LIKE the choice doesn't mean you don't have one. As Rush says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Just out of curiousity, is that the sh------- political commentator or the sh------- Canadian band? (trying to add some levity here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Just out of curiousity, is that the sh------- political commentator or the sh------- Canadian band? (trying to add some levity here) Levity by insulting a band that most people on the board (probably) love...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Interesting thing was Times Warner advertising heavily during radio broadcast of Bills when they can not carry the Bills due to contract dispute. I think the advertising hurts more than helps for it reminds people Warner is not carrying the Bills and many were listening to radio because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonInBuffalo Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I may have gotten off on the wrong foot with The Dean in a previous thread on this subject, possibly in part because one or both of us didn't include the sort of "it's just my opinion" disclaimer such as he did in the initial post in this thread. As best I understand the business argument at this point, of course simplifying it to a great degree, here is what the two sides are arguing: TW: It's costs you nothing to provide this service to us, as we're just pulling in your signal and retransmitting it. In fact, we make you money by providing your signal to a larger viewing audience. So we don't want to pay a fee. Lin: All of that is true, but you also make more money because you're carrying our channel, and we feel we're entitled to compensation for that, because it costs us money to produce that signal, even if there are no additional costs associated with transmitting it to you. As a consumer, I feel caught in the middle. I'll repeat a question I posed in a previous thread, but clarify it to avoid misunderstanding this time. Let's assume the only thing I watch on cable is ESPN and Sabres games. (not far from the truth) If Lin charges TW a fee, that fee will no doubt get passed along to me. Why should I essentially pay a fee to Lin so I can watch ESPN and Sabres games? From my perspective, it's just corporations colluding to find yet another way to charge me money for providing absolutely nothing. At the very least, I should have the option of opting out of this service/fee, if I prefer to get the channel OTA or not watch it at all. IMO the arrival of HDTV has added a big new wrinkle to this whole issue. Previously, cable subscribers were virtually certain to receive a much higher quality signal for analog local channels via cable vs. OTA. Since the consumer is receiving a tangible value-added, he doesn't mind paying a small fee for that value. Now with HD, many consumers can receive essentially the identical signal for free that they now are being asked to pay a (indirect) fee for. I'm not sure if this is just coincidence, but from my experience WIVB has probably the weakest signal of all the local stations. For example, watching the game today, on my TV with a cheap pair of rabbit ears I bought at Target, the signal was repeatedly dropping out. Fortunately, I had a convenient alternative. I also have a capture card on my computer, and a nicer Terk antenna hooked up there, and got the game without any problems. From a logic/business perspective, I'm guessing WIVB has nothing to gain during this standoff by improving the quality/strength of their OTA transmission, in fact probably quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 I do not know where YOU are getting your information from. The old agreement between TW and Lin was the "free" agreement. Lin would not charge a cent, but intern, TW had no choice but to carry WIVB and had no choice but to put them on a lower tier, basic cable available station. By Lin opting for the "pay" choice, TW does not have to carry them, does not have to put them on a lower tier channel, and does not have to make them available to basic cable subscribers. Lin choosing this option is a set up to fail. Lin has the most to lose, and are foolish for going this route. I wanted to let you know that I didn't forget about this. I have yet to hear from any of my sources, it may actually take a little time. The info that I have (that I probably shouldn't have) does not include a copy of the agreement between TW and Lin. A spreadsheet (cheatsheet) of various agreements indicates that the old Lin/TW agreement was not "must carry", but was a negotiated retransmission consent agreement. There have been some minor issues with this sheet before, so I can't rely on it 100%. I can tell you (I suppose) that Lin was a client of mine, at one time, and I did some early work on their agreements, that definitely involved compensation. I left well before the agreements were reached, though. With that said, it should be noted, as Time Warner remains the lone holdout among carriers of Lin Broadcasting stations. That usually tells you SOMETHING about who is being unreasonable. And, just to be sure we all understand this is not comparing cable carriage to satellite carriage, Lin reached agreement with Comcast (often the hardest negotiator) in all their markets, many months ago: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6569974.html Why is it that only Time Warner can't seem to make a deal with Lin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6569974.html Why is it that only Time Warner can't seem to make a deal with Lin? Could be taking the role of the bad guys of the industry for future negotiations. You sure that the fight is only about the retrans fee, and doesn't involve must carry provisions of multi-cast? As more broadcast viewers are turning to TiVOs & Internet bypass, cable guys are saying that the fees are a bit excessive since they're providing more of the value. Plus, the locals are simply airing stuff that's provided by the networks. What's the chance the broadcasters survive without government backing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Levity by insulting a band that most people on the board (probably) love...? The outrage is deafening. And I still don't know which one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 Could be taking the role of the bad guys of the industry for future negotiations. You sure that the fight is only about the retrans fee, and doesn't involve must carry provisions of multi-cast? No, I'm not sure, but I have yet to see that brought up as the issue. I remained, mostly, on the fence about this, for a long time, because I thought there might be more to this than meets the eye. Nothing has been offered, so far, to suggest it is about anything other than the retrans fees. Even TW spokespeople have pointed to the fee, as the sticking point in the situation. They reverted to the worst of arguments (but one that sounds good to those with no background in the area) that they shouldn't have to pay for what is free. While I don't expect the Buffalo Snooze to get the facts straight in this one, I do expect Variety to understand the issues, and that article linked earlier didn't mention multicast as an issue, at all. Even this cable-centric article cites the retrans fees as the issue, and suggests that TW simply does not want to pay retrans fees: http://cable.tmcnet.com/topics/cable/artic...pute-with-l.htm Based on what I know (and I understand that you may have info that has not been made public), TW is most definitely playing the role of the "bad guy". If you think that they are the bad guy, but that the Bills' fans should not hold them responsible for not being able to see the games on the only cable system available to them, then I would love to hear another side to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarkLessWagMore Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 LIN and TWC settled as of this morning. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 Beautiful. Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 LIN and TWC settled as of this morning. link Yes, I was watching the early show this morning and took a minute to realize it was WIVB. I called TW last week and asked what they would do to retain my service and they gave me a new customer deal. Something like $89.99 for cable, phone, and Internet. With some additions, such as DVR and Showtime, it was a bit more, but still a lot less then I was paying previously. I had to sign a two year price lock contract, but DTV couldn't install at my houst due to tree's and FIOS is not available yet, so I really have no alternatives anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 LIN and TWC settled as of this morning. link It only took a month. I suppose TW will throw this in our faces the next time they feel the need to raise the rates. Except for key sporting events, wivb is dead to me and FIOS will still be going in as soon as it is available in my area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 It only took a month. I suppose TW will throw this in our faces the next time they feel the need to raise the rates. Except for key sporting events, wivb is dead to me and FIOS will still be going in as soon as it is available in my area. Pretty much same here. The only reason I'm still with TW is because I don't want DSL for internet access. But very glad to learn that I can watch the game at home on Sunday. I'm very curious as to the terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Pretty much same here. The only reason I'm still with TW is because I don't want DSL for internet access. But very glad to learn that I can watch the game at home on Sunday. I'm very curious as to the terms. You can get DirecTV or Dish for television and keep TW for cable internet. That's what I do (except I have Comcast). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 It only took a month. I suppose TW will throw this in our faces the next time they feel the need to raise the rates. Except for key sporting events, wivb is dead to me and FIOS will still be going in as soon as it is available in my area. Your welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 Your welcome. I take it barged into the meetings (with my posts in hand, of course) and demanded they get their s#it together and give you back your Bills! Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts