# WSVN Fox Channel 7 Miami saying bye to Directv?



## gteach26 (May 15, 2007)

A scrolling message indicates its lights out for our Miami Fox affiliate on directv if a new carriage agreement is not reached by January 13th.
Never seen TV negotiations get so ugly and public as they've been these past few months.... can't they all just get along? My monthly bill indicates they should all be very, VERY happy.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Almost always FOX too.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Looks like NBC in Boston is affected as well.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

It sucks when it's "my channel", but this crap does need to get fought over as the program providers are asking ridiculous prices from DirecTV for what they're sending out over the air [in this case] "for free" to the same customers.
DirecTV has the clout to fight or push back.
If nobody did, lord knows what our bills would be.


----------



## tulanejosh (May 23, 2008)

This happens. They'll get a deal done. Happened to me twice recently with both my ABC and my Fox o&o station. Just look at the cities involved. There's no way they let Miami or Boston go without local networks. Puts them at competitive disadvantage in market. Expect a last minute deal.


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

Looks like Sunbeam Television channels (2 in MA & 1 in FL):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunbeam_Television


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Here we go again. Another greedy station owner trying to extract more money. And folks wonder why everyone's rates go up every year?!?

The good news is that DirecTV has an excellent track record of settling these disputes before the stations pull the plug.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

yes, we are going to see more and more of these. here's the latest one with Dish http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2939194#post2939194


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

IMHO, DirecTV should ask for payment from the stations for the privilege of having their station carried.


----------



## gilviv (Sep 18, 2007)

This blows! We watch lots of stuff on WSVN, and now with new shows coming.......ahh crap!!!!
These stations/companies are becoming more and more greedy, they also think they are entitled to have the bigger piece of the pie. Their customers will take notice, IMO, this will come back to hurt them. I agree w/ previous post: "Why can't they all get along?":nono2:


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> It sucks when it's "my channel", but this crap does need to get fought over as the program providers are asking ridiculous prices from DirecTV for what they're sending out over the air [in this case] "for free" to the same customers.
> DirecTV has the clout to fight or push back.
> If nobody did, lord knows what our bills would be.


DirecTV is fueling the beast of high programming costs by paying companies like ESPN, TNT, TBS, etc. incredible $ per subscriber. The big 4 have to compete somehow. If DirecTV is charging their monthly fee for local channels, the the broadcasters have a right to a piece of the action. Frankly, I'd like to see D* do away with charging for "free" locals.... but then there's this nice bill our friends in Congress mandated...

It's not like DirecTV is making crumbs and is exactly a consumer advocate with the annual price increases higher than the rate of inflation in many cases.

A-LA-CARTE is the way to control these skyrocketing increases from the satellite networks. ESPN would be getting half of what it does now for their poker and dog shows. There'd be many channels just falling off into bankruptcy because their bad programming is no longer subsidized like a welfare handout.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

I'm in a completely different market, and Sacramento has been very lucky not to have a carriage dispute on either cable or satellite carriers. Still, I'm expecting on, and that's why I'm working on getting an outdoor antenna installed.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I have a real problem with local stations doing this.
There are basically two types of program suppliers:
"Cable only" channels who's only outlet is to cable/SAT providers. They charge for their programing [or not depending on the viewer share]. This makes sense in the "free market". Now a danger that has shown up lately is too many are being owned by one company and fee negotiations are getting harder as these companies threaten to withhold ALL their channels if they don't get their demands.

The other type are OTA locals. Now these get licensed by the FCC and "used to" operate in "the public interest" for the right to use our public airwaves. Their business model was to sell airtime to support them. They have "pretty much" total control over who gets to receive them and who doesn't, or who can't get "their network" from another station, though the FCC waiver process for DNS. This too makes sense in the "free market". I wouldn't want to invest in a business that had to be licensed if it didn't give me some control [protection] over my market.

Now where I do have serious problems is when these stations want to extort "retransmission fees" out of cable or SAT providers. A moderate fee seems reasonable to recover any of their costs to supply their signal to these providers, but they've gone well beyond that lately.
The networks are squeezing the local affiliates and they are squeezing anyone they can.
"Well guys" you can't have it both ways.
You are either a cable only channel, or you are licensed to use the public airwaves. Pick one, but not both. If you can't stay in business, then either fix it or get out of it, "in the free market".


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Mark Holtz said:


> I'm in a completely different market, and Sacramento has been very lucky not to have a carriage dispute on either cable or satellite carriers. Still, I'm expecting on, and that's why I'm working on getting an outdoor antenna installed.


Maybe you didn't see this did happen last fall, but there were scrolling across KCRA about losing their channel "if" it didn't get resolved [which it did].


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

aa9vi said:


> DirecTV is fueling the beast of high programming costs by paying companies like ESPN, TNT, TBS, etc. incredible $ per subscriber. The big 4 have to compete somehow. If DirecTV is charging their monthly fee for local channels, the the broadcasters have a right to a piece of the action. Frankly, I'd like to see D* do away with charging for "free" locals.... but then there's this nice bill our friends in Congress mandated...
> 
> It's not like DirecTV is making crumbs and is exactly a consumer advocate with the annual price increases higher than the rate of inflation in many cases.
> 
> A-LA-CARTE is the way to control these skyrocketing increases from the satellite networks. ESPN would be getting half of what it does now for their poker and dog shows. There'd be many channels just falling off into bankruptcy because their bad programming is no longer subsidized like a welfare handout.


Don't get me wrong here, DirecTV isn't some benevolent customer advocate. They are simply the 800 lbs gorilla here who can have some effect.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I'm not in the DirecTV defined Miami market, they have me in WPB. Thus, I put up an antenna to grab Miami (and WPB for that matter). 7 has a great OTA signal, you should get an antenna up.



gteach26 said:


> A scrolling message indicates its lights out for our Miami Fox affiliate on directv if a new carriage agreement is not reached by January 13th.
> Never seen TV negotiations get so ugly and public as they've been these past few months.... can't they all just get along? My monthly bill indicates they should all be very, VERY happy.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> Maybe you didn't see this did happen last fall, but there were scrolling across KCRA about losing their channel "if" it didn't get resolved [which it did].


I didn't. It has never gone down to station removal.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Mark Holtz said:


> I didn't. It has never gone down to station removal.


Correct it didn't get dropped, but had a few weeks of the scrolling notice that it would, and suggesting to either shift to an antenna, or change providers.


----------



## AquiringSat (Jan 7, 2012)

Jeez, the whole LIL situation is just a mess! They take up so much bandwidth, they cost a fortune, and they basically run all the same shows in every market, with the exception of local news. 

Is it illegal for DirecTV to replace a local affiliate with a NY/LA substitute is they can't reach an agreement?


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

Will put up an antenna, watch the game then do the same for the rest of the games, after the season you can get rid of WSVN, I don't care.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

This was just posted on WSVN's Facebook page: _WSVN-TV
Notice to DirecTV subscribers: Sunbeam Television Corporation, the parent company of WSVN-TV Channel 7, could not come to an agreement regarding a renewal of its carriage agreement with DirecTV. As of now,, you will not be able to view WSVN-TV Channel 7 on DirecTV, but you can receive Channel 7 over the air and from other cable and satellite providers. If you would like to voice your concerns to DirecTV, here's the number to call. 1-800-531 5000._

Looks like they pulled it. Ed Ansin the owner of Sunbeam is no stranger to pushing the carriers or the Networks. Back when Leno was on @ 10pm Ansin led the call to preempt Leno in Boston and there was a big brew ha ha. In fact WSVN in Miami used to be NBC but the station kept preempting NBC programing so much so That NBC tried to buy WSVN and when ansin wouldn't sell NBC bought Channel 4 and CBS bought Channel six, So on Jan first of 89 or 90 WSVN became FOX Channel 4 was CBS they became NBC and Channel 6 went from Independent to CBS.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

cj9788 said:


> This was just posted on WSVN's Facebook page: _WSVN-TV
> Notice to DirecTV subscribers: Sunbeam Television Corporation, the parent company of WSVN-TV Channel 7, could not come to an agreement regarding a renewal of its carriage agreement with DirecTV. As of now,, you will not be able to view WSVN-TV Channel 7 on DirecTV, but you can receive Channel 7 over the air and from other cable and satellite providers. If you would like to voice your concerns to DirecTV, here's the number to call. 1-800-531 5000._
> 
> Looks like they pulled it. Ed Ansin the owner of Sunbeam is no stranger to pushing the carriers or the Networks. Back when Leno was on @ 10pm Ansin led the call to preempt Leno in Boston and there was a big brew ha ha. In fact WSVN in Miami used to be NBC but the station kept preempting NBC programing so much so That NBC tried to buy WSVN and when ansin wouldn't sell NBC bought Channel 4 and CBS bought Channel six, So on Jan first of 89 or 90 WSVN became FOX Channel 4 was CBS they became NBC and Channel 6 went from Independent to CBS.


But has DirecTV actually pulled it yet?

These disputes almost always get settled at the last minute. DirecTV actually has one of the better track records in settling these stupid negotiations.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

One of our local channels just started showing a scroll about their retrans agreement with dish running out in about a week. My inlaws have dish so I hope they get it straightened out before they loose the channel but dishes history isn't as good as directv's in that regard.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

litzdog911 said:


> But has DirecTV actually pulled it yet?
> 
> These disputes almost always get settled at the last minute. DirecTV actually has one of the better track records in settling these stupid negotiations.


Yep, I have become numb to these viewer panic tactics between the providers and local stations. 
In the end they will work it out and nothing the public writes or calls in has any affect. 
It is all a huge monetary childish game and they need to quit involving the public in it.
We don't care how much you pay to provide us your paid commercial television services on our local providers. You ain't free and they ain't free, we get it.
Stop acting like we are getting free tv from you and you are victims. You bombard us with advertising 18 minutes of every hour of programming.

(snap snap snap) "moving my hand back and forth and wiggling my white head in a mocking fashion in a poor imitation of an angry black woman"


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

With playoffs/superbowl right now though the local station holds the upper hand so if DIRECTV does take the stand they will have to drop the channel. I would say right now there's a higher chance of losing it because the stakes are higher if one calls a bluff.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> It sucks when it's "my channel", but this crap does need to get fought over as the program providers are asking ridiculous prices from DirecTV for what they're sending out over the air [in this case] "for free" to the same customers.
> DirecTV has the clout to fight or push back.
> If nobody did, lord knows what our bills would be.


It all started when the distributors caved into ESPN/Disney's demands. One month ago, even History Channel argued that it should get ESPN-like subscription fees. During every negotiation, ESPN is the benchmark - all programming is priced off it.

You want this to end. Fine.

Let's have DirecTV tell ESPN, will give you 2 dollars a subscriber, take it or leave it.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Remember the exorbitant increase that Discovery Networks was demanding for carrying the new Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN)? Bet DirecTV is glad they pushed back on that one given the huge ratings success OWN has proven to be .... not 

If Congress can pass laws that will supposedly limit the volume of annoying commercials, then why can't they do something about this continual contractual "carriage fee" mess? It's not like we really have a choice since all service providers must constantly renegotiate these contracts. It's just crazy.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

litzdog911 said:


> If Congress can pass laws that will supposedly limit the volume of annoying commercials, then why can't they do something about this continual contractual "carriage fee" mess? It's not like we really have a choice since all service providers must constantly renegotiate these contracts. It's just crazy.


I'm not sure Congress can do anything about "cable channels". I think it simply comes down to the "free market" regulating itself.

Now Congress, or maybe the FCC should be able to do something about local carriage fees since they licensed to use "our" public airwaves.

As I posted above, this comes down to mere "blackmail/extortion" to charge re-transmission fees for what these stations are transmitting. I can see the the SAT or cable companies must carry/air the programing unaltered, but anything over their costs to supply the signal to these providers is unwarranted, with maybe the exception if their program actually went to customers outside the DMA/reception area. An example of this are the DNS channels, since their ads and these customers aren't going to give the returns as those in the DMA.


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

As of right now, the station is still live and well. D* added a 7-1 channel below it in the guide that says go to some website but its cutoff and you can't see it.


----------



## mhking (Oct 28, 2002)

It wouldn't surprise me if DirecTV pulled WSVN and replaced it with WNYW -- at least for the weekend (playoffs ET.al.)


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

mhking said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if DirecTV pulled WSVN and replaced it with WNYW -- at least for the weekend (playoffs ET.al.)


That would be nice of them


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/12/2586940/directv-viewers-might-miss-nfl.html


----------



## tulanejosh (May 23, 2008)

mhking said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if DirecTV pulled WSVN and replaced it with WNYW -- at least for the weekend (playoffs ET.al.)


don't believe the FCC will allow that. They typically prohibit retrans when you are capable of receiving OTA signals.


----------



## BeerPimp (Jan 13, 2012)

I have seen this happen several times in my city with Time Warner. Almost every time they come to an agreement before the deadline. However in 2010 Time Warner actually pulled programming for a station. That station is a CBS affiliate in Lincoln which is about 45 minutes from Omaha and Time Warner cable carries a CBS affiliate from Omaha also. So it did not interrupt normal CBS shows.


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

They can't really pull a local Fox channel, can they? Personally I'd love to see WSVN the all-hype channel go, but only AFTER the NFL season is over


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

The latest...

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/2012/01/6-p-m-update-nothing-changes-between-wsvn-and-directv.html


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Now Congress, or maybe the FCC should be able to do something about local carriage fees since they licensed to use "our" public airwaves.
> 
> As I posted above, this comes down to mere "blackmail/extortion" to charge re-transmission fees for what these stations are transmitting. I can see the the SAT or cable companies must carry/air the programing unaltered, but anything over their costs to supply the signal to these providers is unwarranted, with maybe the exception if their program actually went to customers outside the DMA/reception area. An example of this are the DNS channels, since their ads and these customers aren't going to give the returns as those in the DMA.


Yeah, they are basically charging us for something that they where given the airwaves for to send us that signal for free. The only thing they should be able to require is for cable and sat companies to actually install and keep up any equipment directly related to receiving their transmissions. Other than that, they shouldn't be able to ask a dime for it.


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/2012/01/10-p-m-update-no-wsvn-directv-deal.html


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

"aa9vi" said:


> If DirecTV is charging their monthly fee for local channels, the the broadcasters have a right to a piece of the action. Frankly, I'd like to see D* do away with charging for "free" locals.... but then there's this nice bill our friends in Congress mandated...
> 
> A-LA-CARTE is the way to control these skyrocketing increases from the satellite networks. ESPN would be getting half of what it does now for their poker and dog shows. There'd be many channels just falling off into bankruptcy because their bad programming is no longer subsidized like a welfare handout.


1. You have a local channels charge on your residential bill?

2. A la carte as it stands with the current market would cost you more per month.


----------



## gregftlaud (Nov 20, 2005)

BjaMin82:

I got tricked too by 7-1 when i went to it manually on my remote.... and DTV has their logo on there (dtv also added their own 7-1 via satellite). What u have to do is go into your favorites list and add in WSVN 7-1(off air) then it will show up in ur guide. There are two 7-1's right now the DTV info one (via sat) and the off air one that if u have an antenna u will still be able to watch with ur dtv equipment (that is ...if u have an ota input).


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

And where off the air


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

WE ARE AT DEFON 1 PEOPLE!

I don't give a dam about WSVN I just want my football. Going to best buy right now as I bet they sell out of antennas.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

saleen351 said:


> WE ARE AT DEFON 1 PEOPLE!
> 
> I don't give a dam about WSVN I just want my football. Going to best buy right now as I bet they sell out of antennas.


Radio Shack sells antenna's too. So do most satellite shops, and I believe Lowes also carries several.


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

WE ARE BACK AT DEFON 5 PEOPLE! 

Took the wire out of my modem and plugged it into my tv, got me some WSVN, sure it's not HD, but I don't care. Most people who have comcrap have the basic cable then they lower your internet bill thus making it a wash. I put a splitter on it and now I"m set. 

Try that first before you head out to the store.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

saleen351 said:


> WE ARE BACK AT DEFON 5 PEOPLE!


Other than there not being a DEFON 5 [four is the lowest] glad you've got a work-a-round.


----------



## bearcat250 (Feb 19, 2004)

I am in NH and have lost my local NBC & CW affiliates due to contract negotiations. I am on hold with DTV now and am requesting channels 392 & 394, the east feeds for NBC & CW as a temporary replacement. I'm not that upset that I do not have these channels, but I think it's only fair that they give me what I am paying for. I'm sure my bill will not go down due to this dispute.


----------



## bearcat250 (Feb 19, 2004)

bearcat250 said:


> I am in NH and have lost my local NBC & CW affiliates due to contract negotiations. I am on hold with DTV now and am requesting channels 392 & 394, the east feeds for NBC & CW as a temporary replacement. I'm not that upset that I do not have these channels, but I think it's only fair that they give me what I am paying for. I'm sure my bill will not go down due to this dispute.


Denied, but got a $5 reduction on my next bill


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Other than there not being a DEFON 5 [four is the lowest] glad you've got a work-a-round.


Wikipedia has a Defon 5....


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

saleen351 said:


> Wikipedia has a Defon 5....


Are you sure? Maybe there's a DEF*C*ON .... C .... C .... C


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

saleen351 said:


> Wikipedia has a Defon 5....


DEFCON 5 seems to have been added after the end of the cold war.
Having been on DEFCON 2 [for real], at that time there was no "5".

BTW there are errors on the Wiki page too.


----------



## miro (Jan 14, 2012)

not to defend the whole ordeal, but most viewers are not aware that WSVN doesn't really have the option anymore to forgo retrans fees.

I don't know the details but the FOX network now requires all affiliates in markets 1 to 125 to pay them $0.25 per pay tv subsriber per month, going up to $0.50 within 3 years, then re-negotiated again and they've said $1 per month per subscriber is a fair and it's the goal for the future. The stations that refused the offer were not renewed, tho it was mostly in smaller cities.

In South Florida that means WSVN have to pay about $14,000,000 to FOX by the 3rd year. That's just for the priviledge to carry 2 hours a day of FOX and they get to keep maybe 2 minutes of advertising total in prime time.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

miro said:


> not to defend the whole ordeal, but most viewers are not aware that WSVN doesn't really have the option anymore to forgo retrans fees.
> 
> I don't know the details but the FOX network now requires all affiliates in markets 1 to 125 to pay them $0.25 per pay tv subsriber per month, going up to $0.50 within 3 years, then re-negotiated again and they've said $1 per month per subscriber is a fair and it's the goal for the future.
> 
> In South Florida that means WSVN have to pay about $14,000,000 to FOX by the 3rd year. That's just for the priviledge to carry 2 hours a day of FOX and they get to keep maybe 2 minutes of advertising total in prime time


Clearly *FOX *is the problem here, and Rupert Murdoch's greed.

OTA broadcasters shouldn't be charging "pay tv subscribers" any more than their OTA subscribers, for THE SAME PROGRAMING.

I sympathize with the Affiliates, but Fox needs to decide if their going to be a cable channel, or offer their programing to broadcasters, but they can't have it both ways.
If the affiliates can't be profitable paying Fox for their programing, then they need to find another source for their programing.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Clearly *FOX *is the problem here, and Rupert Murdoch's greed.
> 
> OTA broadcasters shouldn't be charging "pay tv subscribers" any more than their OTA subscribers, for THE SAME PROGRAMING.
> 
> ...


+1
It's extortion, pure & simple greed.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

litzdog911 said:


> +1
> It's extortion, pure & simple greed.


Agree
As I've posted before in the other threads regarding the same situation, as an OTA subscriber, turn off my SAT Local feeds, give me a reduction on my bill and then don't pay the broadcaster for service to my home.

If the four networks charge Directv $.25/month for me, I won't get rich saving the dollar but the broadcasters won't get my money for what I already get for free.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

On the other hand, if D is using the signal to make money, why shouldn't the broadcaster get a piece? D uses the signal to be competitive with cable. Just because it's free to viewers doesn't mean anyone can use it to make money. Just like you're not allowed to charge people to watch the free signal without paying for it.


----------



## gregftlaud (Nov 20, 2005)

Ha Ha sitting here watching Fox NFL pregame show on WSVN down here in ft lauderdale/miami via my HR20-700 and it's OTA input. Screw you greedy Sunbeam!! Cant stop me! I wonder if Sunbeam knows a great number of DTV subscribers own receivers with OTA inputs and can just watch their channels OTA?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

FLWingNut said:


> On the other hand, if D is using the signal to make money, why shouldn't the broadcaster get a piece? D uses the signal to be competitive with cable. Just because it's free to viewers doesn't mean anyone can use it to make money. Just like you're not allowed to charge people to watch the free signal without paying for it.


I am fine with paying the stations *IF* they agree to competition from neighboring markets. They have a LOCK on a DMA. We do not have a CHOICE of what station to watch. Why should DirecTv be forced to pay $1 per subscriber per month for a station that preempts network programming to show infomercials as they do in our market? If DirecTv refuses, and the station demands removal, DirecTv is unable to swap in another station from the same network because of the protectionalist law in place.

I would much prefer to receive the ABC affiliate from my neighboring market (any of the 6) than the one I am forced to pay for. Their spot beams all cover me fine (one is actually stronger than my own).

Or WABC from New York. I would be happy with that one too.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

NR4P said:


> Agree
> As I've posted before in the other threads regarding the same situation, as an OTA subscriber, turn off my SAT Local feeds, give me a reduction on my bill and then don't pay the broadcaster for service to my home.
> 
> If the four networks charge Directv $.25/month for me, I won't get rich saving the dollar but the broadcasters won't get my money for what I already get for free.


And I am very surprised DirecTv does not do this. I never subscribed to locals until they were "included" in the package (i.e. we are forced to pay for them).


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> And I am very surprised DirecTv does not do this. I never subscribed to locals until they were "included" in the package (i.e. we are forced to pay for them).


You CAN opt out of locals, $3.00 per month savings.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Fox is the problem???!!!!

ESPN gets 4.70 a month, average, from every subscriber. Why not argue that Disney/ESPN is the problem, as it is. 

In NYC, Cablevision is paying the local Fox affiliate 55 cents a month this year, going to 1 dollar a month by 2016, at which point the contract will be renegotiated.

If you ask me, what's more valuable to a NYC resident, Fox Broadcasting at 55 cents, or ESPN at 4.70, it's a no-brainer.

Furthermore, why shouldn't Fox Broadcasting get AT LEAST 55 cents a month, when the extortionists at ESPN are getting 4.70?

You want to solve the problem?

Have all the distributors, as their contract with Disney lapses, that they will not pay more than 2 dollars a month for ESPN.

I guarantee you that action will lower PayTV rates.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Fox is the problem???!!!!


Yes...



Gloria_Chavez said:


> Have all the distributors, as their contract with Disney lapses, that they will not pay more than 2 dollars a month for ESPN.
> 
> I guarantee you that action will lower PayTV rates.


Yes, but paying FOX more, which you clearly think should happen, won't lower anything.

And let's not forget ESPN offers far more than FOX does.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

davring said:


> You CAN opt out of locals, $3.00 per month savings.


Mixed messages on that.
I tried last month since I have a grandfathered package and they wouldn't let me. It will be moot anyway since the grandfathered packages go away in Feb.

But even if Directv saved me the $, they will still pay my local network stations. That's the part they need to take care of in the local agreements. Only pay for folks that have the service turned on.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Have all the distributors, as their contract with Disney lapses, that they will not pay more than 2 dollars a month for ESPN.
> 
> I guarantee you that action will lower PayTV rates.


It's illegal for the services (sat and cable and telco) to agree to do anything up front. Big time Federal go to jail illegal.

Now if one puts out a press release and makes a statement and others follow, that's legal. But none have the nerve.

Imagine if Directv did such a press release. I don't expect Dish or Comcast to follow suit. I do expect them to advertise that they have service Directv does not, offer a new sub a $19/month rate and go for the subscriber. Its about subscribers, not protecting customers from annual cost increases.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Looks like we have DIRECTV's side of it, along with the stations this effects.

WHDH (NBC) Boston
WLVI (CW) Boston
WSVN (FOX) Miami

300% increase? Cannot say I blame them.

http://news.directv.com/2012/01/14/sunbeam-television


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Draconis said:


> Looks like we have DIRECTV's side of it, along with the stations this effects.
> 
> WHDH (NBC) Boston
> WLVI (CW) Boston
> ...


Even if it were only a 100% increase I can't blame them either.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

But all they want is the going rate. Either they were way under the going rate before, or they have a different definition.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> But all they want is the going rate. Either they were way under the going rate before, or they have a different definition.


That may be so but I don't see Sunbeam getting the same rate as, a previous example, ESPN.


----------



## hookemfins (Jul 3, 2007)

"gregftlaud" said:


> Ha Ha sitting here watching Fox NFL pregame show on WSVN down here in ft lauderdale/miami via my HR20-700 and OTA. Screw you greedy Sunbeam!! Cant stop me! I wonder if Sunbeam knows the a big number of DTV subscribers own receivers with OTA inputs and can just watch their channels OTA?


They don't care how you watch just as long as you watch.

From their crappy web page:



> Direct TV Notice
> Notice to DirecTV subscribers: Sunbeam Television Corporation, the parent company of WSVN-TV Channel 7, could not come to an agreement regarding a renewal of its carriage agreement with DirecTV. As of now,, you will not be able to view WSVN-TV Channel 7 on DirecTV, but you can receive Channel 7 over the air and from other cable and satellite providers. If you would like to voice your concerns to DirecTV, here's the number to call. 1-800-531 5000.


I read in the miami herald that sunbeam pulled the plug and DTV hasn't heard from them since.

I hate wsvn just because they constantly cut away as soon as a game or race ends for their stupid precious news. They can't wait a few minutes longer?


----------



## miro (Jan 14, 2012)

RunnerFL said:


> That may be so but I don't see Sunbeam getting the same rate as, a previous example, ESPN.


I don't think the goal is ESPN's rates, that's not even realistic.

Other local stations have re-negotiated their retrans fees, some very recently, and the results have been allegedly as high as $1 or more per pay tv customer in some cases.

Since WSVN needs to come up with at least $0.25 per subscriber if/when their new FOX affiliation agreement kicks in naturally they want as much as they can get.

If they're one of the top rated FOX stations in the country, and other FOX stations are getting $0.55+, no reason WSVN they can't cover at least what the FOX network will be demanding of them for the next 3 years.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

miro said:


> I don't think the goal is ESPN's rates, that's not even realistic.
> 
> Other local stations have re-negotiated their retrans fees, some very recently, and the results have been allegedly as high as $1 or more per pay tv customer in some cases.
> 
> ...


FOX network needs to get their heads out of the clouds.
Thank God, I'm not in your market.
If my locals from DirecTV cost me $3/month, that comes down to 0.27/HD channel currently being offered, without counting any SD channels.
DirecTV is the one who has the equipment [a SAT transponder] sending me the signal, so $3/month to cover their costs, seems reasonable.
Should the retrans fee increase to $0.55/channel, + DirecTV's costs to supply them, this could triple the cost of my "free over the air" channels.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> FOX network needs to get their heads out of the clouds.
> Thank God, I'm not in your market.
> If my locals from DirecTV cost me $3/month, that comes down to 0.27/HD channel currently being offered, without counting any SD channels.
> DirecTV is the one who has the equipment [a SAT transponder] sending me the signal, so $3/month to cover their costs, seems reasonable.
> Should the retrans fee increase to $0.55/channel, + DirecTV's costs to supply them, this could triple the cost of my "free over the air" channels.


Well, you're in the Bay Area (Beat Cal!!!!), so your Fox affiliate is owned by Cox Media Group..

And Cox Enterprises (which owns Cox Cable and Cox Media Group) was the first PayTV distributor to acquiesce to retransmission rates.

--------------------------
http://flowtv.org/2011/10/retransmission/

In 2005, the Nexstar Television demanded higher retransmission consent rates from Cox Cable. When Cox refused, Nexstar pulled its stations from Cox for ten months, but ultimately it succeeded in becoming the first local station group to receive direct compensation for signal retransmission
--------------------------

I don't know how much KTVU pays DirecTv, but given that Fox Broadcasting in NYC will get 1 dollar a subscriber by 2016 (it's getting 55 cents this year), I'd bet that by 2016 KTVU will be paying DirecTv at least 90 cents a subscriber.

And I blame ESPN. The CFOs at the affiliates must be thinking, "if ESPN gets close to 5 dollars a subscriber, we, at the very least, deserve 25% of that."

And they'd be right.

As in any other market, if you want to lower valuations, you target the benchmark (ESPN).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Well, you're in the Bay Area (Beat Cal!!!!), so your Fox affiliate is owned by Cox Media Group..
> 
> And Cox Enterprises (which owns Cox Cable and Cox Media Group) was the first PayTV distributor to acquiesce to retransmission rates.
> 
> ...


Here's "the flaw": 
ESPN doesn't broadcast. They don't have a DMA that their licensed for.
Their only outlet is through other providers. In a sense they can be looked at like HBO, SHO, etc.
If a provider wants to carry/offer their programing, it comes with a fee per subscriber.
The difference comes with local broadcasters who are licensed for a market and also have control over whether the network can be offered to customers in this market from another source, through the DNS waivers.
This makes them a monopoly in their market.
The "free market" isn't free. The customer has the choice over ESPN, HBO, etc., but not over the locals.
Sure I have an antenna and would and do use it, so should DirecTV change me say $10/month for my locals, I wouldn't pay.

If all of these retransmission fees go back to "Cox Enterprises (which owns Cox Cable and Cox Media Group) was the first PayTV distributor to acquiesce to retransmission rates", then this is where the FCC, Congress, or the courts need to step in an invalidate these unreasonable charges.
There is no justification for gouging customers who use cable or SAT service for programing that is broadcast over the public airwaves in their area. This programing shouldn't be altered by the Cable or other providers and must be carried exactly as it is over the air.
"A reasonable fee" charged to these providers to offset the cost of supplying their signal to these providers is one thing, but a fee "per subscriber" is unreasonable and unjust, and should be if it's not already "illegal".


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Here is the kicker.... the NFL is the only sport left which most of the regular season games broadcast OTA. In contrast, most of the games for MLB, NBA, and NHL are broadcast on the Regional $ports Networks.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

davring said:


> You CAN opt out of locals, $3.00 per month savings.


No you cannot with one exception. If you had a package without local channels and then you got them later. If you don't have a secondary line item on your bill for $3 or $6 then you cannot remove them.

Removing them if you can will cause you to have to pay $6 to add them back on rather than the $3.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

> DirecTV is suggesting that WSVN serve its viewers by lifting the blackout for Saturday's high interest New Orleans-San Francisco NFL playoff game, which kicks off at 4:30 p.m.
> 
> Leider rejected that. "What they are doing is trying to leverage the game. If we do that, where is our leverage?"


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...-dig-in-hurl-charges-20120114,0,1208378.story


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Some of you are missing the point here. What Fox charges a local station is not a retransmission fee, it's a franchise fee. It gives the station the monopoly right to distribute Fox programming in that DMA. It's a cost of doing business. The business model of local stations is based on getting enough ad revenue to pay for the costs of running the station, including paying Fox. What's happening is that the business model is broken. The station is having problems covering its costs, with the decrease in ad revenue resulting from the recession, and other forms of advertising, and with its costs going up, including what it pays to Fox. The station has choices - it can increase its prices for commercials (probably not a good option), it can cut its costs, or it can decide to become an independent station and stop delivering Fox network programming. Or it can start hitting its own distribution networks (DirecTV, Dish, cable etc) for retransmission fees. The only reason it can do this is because it has a local monopoly on Fox, the distribution networks can't get Fox from anyone else. 
The station is already getting its bandwidth free of charge - no-one else does, the phone companies pay millions of dollars for the bandwidth. IMHO the stations should not be allowed retransmission fees at all. Or if they are to be allowed retransmission fees, the sat and cable companies should be free to negotiate with anyone - other stations, including the NYC ones, and even Fox itself. That means any retransmission fee would be based on the value of the station's local and other programming, not on its monopoly on the network programming. That would soon correct this problem.
At the heart of this, though, is that the current network affiliate model is broken, and even if the recession goes away will not fix itself.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

texasbrit said:


> At the heart of this, though, is that the current network affiliate model is broken, and even if the recession goes away will not fix itself.


I'm not sure it's "broken", but can see it's harder for the affiliates to show a profit, with the increases in programing charges.
This model has worked for well over fifty years.
What may have changed though is the deregulation of restrictions owning media outlets/sources.
This has caused the corporation owners to have a great leverage as seen in this thread. WSVN [FOX] is what's in question, but this owner is threatening to pull WHDH (7) - NBC & WLVI (56) - CW in Boston too.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

I guess the stations could just quit airing anything but crappy infomercial programming and "My Mother The Car" reruns.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12006428502796/directv-and-sunbeam-fail-to-reach-renewal/

A lot of people are extremely ticked off with Sunbeam up here


----------



## noahproblem (Aug 20, 2009)

oldschoolecw said:


> http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12006428502796/directv-and-sunbeam-fail-to-reach-renewal/
> 
> A lot of people are extremely ticked off with Sunbeam up here


If you think they're mad now, just wait a couple weeks if this is not resolved with the Super Bowl looming (about 10X more so if the Patriots win next week and are in the SB).


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

noahproblem said:


> If you think they're mad now, just wait a couple weeks if this is not resolved with the Super Bowl looming (about 10X more so if the Patriots win next week and are in the SB).


I switched to dish a year ago, and know from reading things here, that Dish has lost channels at time. I am thankful it hasn't happened since I've been with them


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

May I suggest contacting your local congresscritter about this situation? Some resources to find out who represents you is Project Vote Smart and Congress.org. In addition, isn't there some sort of FCC rule which requires that the stations keep certain correspondence and make them available for public inspection during normal business hours?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

oldschoolecw said:


> http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12006428502796/directv-and-sunbeam-fail-to-reach-renewal/
> 
> A lot of people are extremely ticked off with Sunbeam up here


This was the best quote on the channel 7 website...and should be mandatory information for all these disputes:


> southpaw1978
> The "market rate"? I don't like this kind of talk. Show us numbers, Sunbeam this is YOUR platform to come out and prove to DTV customers that you are in the right here. Show us what Comcast, DTV, Dish, and Verizon pay you in order to keep your network going. Until I see solid hard number I am still going with 300% being an ABSURD number!!
> 
> Read more: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/...-sunbeam-fail-to-reach-renewal/#ixzz1jYS3yT00


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> This was the best quote on the channel 7 website...and should be mandatory information for all these disputes:


And I totally agree with that quote


----------



## john262 (Oct 26, 2011)

Mark Holtz said:


> May I suggest contacting your local congresscritter about this situation? Some resources to find out who represents you is Project Vote Smart and Congress.org. In addition, isn't there some sort of FCC rule which requires that the stations keep certain correspondence and make them available for public inspection during normal business hours?


So you really think that Congress should be spending time on what TV channels are available considering all of the other urgent problems that they have to address? Get a clue. Change the channel.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

NR4P said:


> Mixed messages on that.
> I tried last month since I have a grandfathered package and they wouldn't let me. *It will be moot anyway since the grandfathered packages go away in Feb.*
> 
> But even if Directv saved me the $, they will still pay my local network stations. That's the part they need to take care of in the local agreements. Only pay for folks that have the service turned on.


Where did you read that at?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

john262 said:


> So you really think that Congress should be spending time on what TV channels are available considering all of the other urgent problems that they have to address? Get a clue. Change the channel.


It might be more productive than what their spending their time now on. :lol:


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

john262 said:


> So you really think that Congress should be spending time on what TV channels are available considering all of the other urgent problems that they have to address?


It is Congress that set up the rules for retransmission of local channels over satellite and cable systems, and has set up the exclusivity of local stations.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

This is the reason that DIRECTV forced FOX's hand earlier as FOX wanted to grant an extension until now.

I feel bad for people who get caught up in these issues. With how many agreements get done monthly it's sad that a select few companies always try to inflate their worth.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

joshjr said:


> Where did you read that at?


Thread here:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=200129

My package mentioned in post 29. Yours may be different.


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

I spoke to a buddy of mine in the business, basically he says WSNV holds all the cards. The lack of DTV won't have any affect on their bottom line as the numbers are not significant enough plus many will still pick up wsvn on cable/antenna. 

He said for DTV to have not caved in meant WSVN has be asking for something absurd.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Directv is going about this the wrong way. They need to just name a price they will pay for each local, and if the local doesnt want to accept that offer, that local is gone.

While it might mean a few ship jumpers initially, if the other carriers adopted the same policy, eventually the locals would be the ones to cave.
Directv could even actively install AM21's for each customer requesting one for a one time fee in those markets that lose a station.

Cable companies have relatively no overhead for carrying locals, while directv's expenses are immense (satellite space, receiver site, fiber to colorado) that the cableco's dont have to deal with.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

NR4P said:


> Thread here:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=200129
> 
> My package mentioned in post 29. Yours may be different.


Yeah mine is listed. + HD DVR for $86.99.


----------



## miro (Jan 14, 2012)

Davenlr said:


> Directv is going about this the wrong way. They need to just name a price they will pay for each local, and if the local doesnt want to accept that offer, that local is gone.


can't

Most of the time retrans fees for TV stations owned by larger media companies are bargained for together with the rest of the channels the group owns. Ie local NBC station + all channels its parent company owns. Sunbeam is negotiating all 3 stations it owns at once- WHDH and WLVI in Boston are off the air on DirecTV as well

Up in New York Newscorporation and a cable operator had a smiliar fallout and they were bargaining the fees for their local stations, plus some cable channels at once


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

Has anyone else noticed that if you put in your address in the Local Availability tool that WSVN is missing a channel number and DNS eligibility now states yes? Do you think they would actually grant a waiver? I live way north in Broward... almost in palm beach county which would is a different market... I don't think I could even get the signal with OTA.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I pick up 7-1 from Boca just fine, and I'm on the Delray line.



bjamin82 said:


> Has anyone else noticed that if you put in your address in the Local Availability tool that WSVN is missing a channel number and DNS eligibility now states yes? Do you think they would actually grant a waiver? I live way north in Broward... almost in palm beach county which would is a different market... I don't think I could even get the signal with OTA.


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> I pick up 7-1 from Boca just fine, and I'm on the Delray line.


Good to know.

What type of antenna do you have?


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

I can get 29-1 but not 7-1 with an older Samsung Axxesion (or something like that) antenna. Problem is for me get 29-1 it makes 4 and 6 flaky.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

I left the antenna mast slightly loose in the brackets so I can easily rotate it 180 degrees as needed


----------



## tulanejosh (May 23, 2008)

Davenlr said:


> Directv is going about this the wrong way. They need to just name a price they will pay for each local, and if the local doesnt want to accept that offer, that local is gone.
> 
> While it might mean a few ship jumpers initially, if the other carriers adopted the same policy, eventually the locals would be the ones to cave.
> Directv could even actively install AM21's for each customer requesting one for a one time fee in those markets that lose a station.
> ...


while i don't disagree - its reeks of collusion and price fixing.... pretty sure that's not allowed.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

One of these: http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.as...ystem-(GS2200)&c=TV Antennas&sku=615798396121

on my roof.



bjamin82 said:


> Good to know.
> 
> What type of antenna do you have?


----------



## Brunotheboxer (Apr 28, 2007)

If I have a 

HR 22/100 how do I connect my ota. 

My tv has an input but not the receiver as far as I can tell.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Brunotheboxer said:


> If I have a
> 
> HR 22/100 how do I connect my ota.
> 
> My tv has an input but not the receiver as far as I can tell.


You can only connect it to your TV, unless you buy an OTA tuner for the HR22, called an AM21, and available on DirecTvs website for $50.


----------



## Brunotheboxer (Apr 28, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> You can only connect it to your TV, unless you buy an OTA tuner for the HR22, called an AM21, and available on DirecTvs website for $50.


Thanks.

Do you think they would send me one for free?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Brunotheboxer said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Do you think they would send me one for free?


If you lost one of your locals, it would not hurt to ask them. At worst they say no. At best they send you one or give you a credit for the loss.


----------



## Brunotheboxer (Apr 28, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> If you lost one of your locals, it would not hurt to ask them. At worst they say no. At best they send you one or give you a credit for the loss.


Just got off the phone. Will have one free of charge in three business days. 
D tv is a decent company and I have been with them nine years.

Kiss my ass sunbeam.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Brunotheboxer said:


> Just got off the phone. Will have one free of charge in three business days.
> D tv is a decent company and I have been with them nine years.
> 
> Kiss my a** Sunbeam.


Congrats. That is great news.


----------



## Brunotheboxer (Apr 28, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> Congrats. That is great news.


And they gave me $5 off per month for three months on top. I didn't even ask for it.

Go pats. I will be able to see the Super Bowl if this isn't resolved.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Brunotheboxer said:


> And they gave me $5 off per month for three months on top. I didn't even ask for it.
> 
> Go pats. I will be able to see the Super Bowl if this isn't resolved.


If you dont have an outdoor antenna, and plan to get one, check the site http://www.tvfool.com and enter your address. It will show you the channels available, and if you need an outdoor antenna to get them. Handy to have available in case you want to pick up some "extra" market nearby on your AM21.


----------



## Brunotheboxer (Apr 28, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> If you dont have an outdoor antenna, and plan to get one, check the site http://www.tvfool.com and enter your address. It will show you the channels available, and if you need an outdoor antenna to get them. Handy to have available in case you want to pick up some "extra" market nearby on your AM21.


Thanks.

I picked up the locals pretty nicely with my set top antenna before but I'll keep this in mind.


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

Brunotheboxer said:


> And they gave me $5 off per month for three months on top. I didn't even ask for it.
> 
> Go pats. I will be able to see the Super Bowl if this isn't resolved.


called them and got nothing. It is really annoying when a company has no standards on customer services. It's always the same, depends who answers the phone. Paid 45 bucks for an AM21N from Amazon, thanks once again Directv !


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Brunotheboxer said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Do you think they would send me one for free?


They do for alot of people that ask. Wont hurt to call. Just let them know that you wouldnt need one if they came to an agreement with the affiliate.


----------



## Gocanes (Jul 15, 2007)

I live just barely south of 595 off Flamingo and have an HR-20 with built in tuner. I had the old HDTivo before DirecTV had HD locals. I just threw an antenna up inside my attic in the southeast corner of my house angled to face southeast and it picks up all the HD locals OTA. I'll get sporadic glitches on Channel 33 but the others are pretty solid.


----------



## NewForceFiveFan (Apr 23, 2010)

I don't get why people worry about losing a local channel when digital OTA works fine. Until I resubbed with D* after leaving a decade of E* I never watched my locals off the bird. I only do it now out of convenience and still have to switch back to OTA for the subchannels, which aren't on the bird in my market.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

NewForceFiveFan said:


> I don't get why people worry about losing a local channel when digital OTA works fine.


"Sometimes", a customer can't get the OTA signal due to things like terrain. I know that was my problem before I moved.


----------



## cnmurray8 (Jun 19, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> "Sometimes", a customer can't get the OTA signal due to things like terrain. I know that was my problem before I moved.


Yes that is very true. Where I live in the Lakes Region in NH on the wrong side of the mountains I get nothing from Boston or Portland since the change to HD only. Before that I could get a few stations snowy.


----------



## Blurayfan (Nov 16, 2005)

According to the comments on the WHDH channel 7 website DirecTV is unblocking 392 for some viewers who are impacted by ths. DirecTV may do so for the other channels as well.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

NewForceFiveFan said:


> I don't get why people worry about losing a local channel when digital OTA works fine. Until I resubbed with D* after leaving a decade of E* I never watched my locals off the bird. I only do it now out of convenience and still have to switch back to OTA for the subchannels, which aren't on the bird in my market.


Here's a reason for ya.

Where we used to live (suburbs of Memphis) I was able to get all OTA stations as I ran an additional coax line to each room off of a multiswitch where the antenna was plugged into. We watched everything OTA. We moved down to South Florida and the house we are renting only has 1 coax going to each room, and the crawl space to each room isn't worth it, plus we are renting. Because of this and the direction of the house, I can get a decent OTA signal on CBS, NBC, nothing on ABC and sporadic FOX out of WPB in our living room. If I move my antenna to get WPB FOX good, the others become sporadic. So other than the WPB FOX, I am relying in the D* local feeds. If It was my choice, I would rather use OTA for all local stations, but this house isn't setup for it.

That being said, I just got a 3DTV and called and am getting a free upgraded HR2x model, and I mentioned losing OTA in the living room as well as FOX in Miami going dark and I am getting a free AM-21.


----------



## rrdirectsr (Jan 30, 2011)

Blurayfan said:


> According to the comments on the WHDH channel 7 website DirecTV is unblocking 392 for some viewers who are impacted by ths. DirecTV may do so for the other channels as well.


Very true. If you are outside OTA range, D** can legally allow DNS access. If you are inside OTA range they can not.


----------



## ThePhantom (Sep 22, 2007)

rrdirectsr said:


> Very true. If you are outside OTA range, D** can legally allow DNS access. If you are inside OTA range they can not.


As I indicated in a WHDH thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2942874&postcount=45, the FCC also permits retransmission of Significantly Viewed (SV) channels of neighboring markets, depending on the county you live in.

http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations031011.pdf

D* seems to take a lukewarm approach to delivering "Neighboring Locals" to those that qualify. It would be nice to see the issue with Sunbeam prompt better support for those customers that qualify.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

"rrdirectsr" said:


> Very true. If you are outside OTA range, D** can legally allow DNS access. If you are inside OTA range they can not.


Not true. Just means you probably need a waiver.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"veryoldschool" said:


> "Sometimes", a customer can't get the OTA signal due to things like terrain. I know that was my problem before I moved.


Although in Florida, I don't think mountainous terrain can be an issue? . Maybe buildings.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Although in Florida, I don't think mountainous terrain can be an issue? . Maybe buildings.


Hey now, we have mounds of dirt down here that can be around 10ft tall.


----------



## bossfan50 (Apr 28, 2007)

These transmission fee fights are getting tiresome. Last year it was Versus, now it is Sunbeam. Who's next?

Thankfully OTA is an alternative in case this hits the Super Bowl. I can't believe that advertisers who paid a million and more per minute will be happy with a major city like Boston being affected especially if the Patriots are in the Super Bowl.


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

Now I missed my HR20-700 and its built in OTA tuner... guess I'll be getting an AM21 soon. This weekend I plugged my OTA into my TV and its fine, but I'd rather use DTV's user interface, ability to pause/record, plus my surround sound is hooked up to the HR24-500. I like keeping my OTA around during hurricane season, since rain fade kills your signal just when your glued to the TV trying to get the best local storm info.

I can't wait for the day when we can finally get ala-carte pricing and these greedy stations realize nobody is paying for their crappy programming. I only watch WSVN for football and the Sunday night block of cartoons, their "it bleeds it leads" news coverage is the WORST! Thus technically any FOX station will do, and I live far enough north in Broward to get WPB stuff OTA. The neat trick about that is WPB is its a different market as far as the NFL goes so I sometimes get extra games during the regular by switching between FOX stations.


----------



## Brunotheboxer (Apr 28, 2007)

What Sunbeam does and my dog poops I put on the same pile.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

JMII said:


> Now I missed my HR20-700 and its built in OTA tuner... guess I'll be getting an AM21 soon. This weekend I plugged my OTA into my TV and its fine, but I'd rather use DTV's user interface, ability to pause/record, plus my surround sound is hooked up to the HR24-500. I like keeping my OTA around during hurricane season, since rain fade kills your signal just when your glued to the TV trying to get the best local storm info.
> 
> I can't wait for the day when we can finally get ala-carte pricing and these greedy stations realize nobody is paying for their crappy programming. I only watch WSVN for football and the Sunday night block of cartoons, their "it bleeds it leads" news coverage is the WORST! Thus technically any FOX station will do, and I live far enough north in Broward to get WPB stuff OTA. The neat trick about that is WPB is its a different market as far as the NFL goes so I sometimes get extra games during the regular by switching between FOX stations.


And I am in the WPB market near Runner and get the Miami market with my antenna, and I am quite far from you. One nuance you may notice with the HR24-500 is when the AM21 is connected and you use the GUIDE or LIST, the small live picture may break up a bit, briefly. Don't worry your HR24-500 or AM21 isn't bad. That's normal.

Have had two 500's and tried this with AM21's and AM21N's and its just what it is. At least for me. A very minor annoyance.

Good luck!


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

JMII said:


> I can't wait for the day when we can finally get ala-carte pricing and these greedy stations realize nobody is paying for their crappy programming.


Don't hold your breath, ala carte won't happen. There are a couple of threads on here explaining the financial reasons why ala carte has been refused by providers.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

> WSVN-Ch. 7 presented a new proposal, which DirecTV has taken under consideration, according to a source with the satellite program provider. Further discussions are expected to take place on Wednesday, according to the DirecTV source.


http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/2012/01/wsvn-directv-talking-for-first-time-since-blackout.html


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 26, 2009)

I live in a condo. With the antenna, surrounded by concrete and rebar, I get channels 4 and 6 and nothing else no matter what I do. Since our building is under Mdu contract I cannot even switch away. So I hope nobody assumes that its so easy to get 7 via alternate means. My guess this will finally be the last straw that will move the building back to Comcast after the contract is over ... Sad.


NewForceFiveFan said:


> I don't get why people worry about losing a local channel when digital OTA works fine. Until I resubbed with D* after leaving a decade of E* I never watched my locals off the bird. I only do it now out of convenience and still have to switch back to OTA for the subchannels, which aren't on the bird in my market.


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

Will the AFC/NFC Championship game be on any other channel other than my local channel? Right now Channel 7 (WNDH a NBC affiliate) is gone!!


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

-Draino- said:


> Will the AFC/NFC Championship game be on any other channel other than my local channel? Right now Channel 7 (WNDH a NBC affiliate) is gone!!


Well, the AFC Championship is on CBS and the NFC Championship is on Fox, so no worries there for you.

If you meant the Super Bowl, no, that's going to be on NBC. However, you can check Channel 392 to see if DirecTV has activated that for you (it's possible, with you in Manchester). I also note that it's two and a half weeks until the Super Bowl, and DirecTV may well come to terms with WHDH's ownership before then.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

This is exactly why bills go up. Cost of programming is the highest line item by far from an operating cost. If channels come down, customers are rightfully upset and want them back up immediately. To do that, typically a deal has to be reached which most certainly is more costly than the deal that just ended. What DTV and every other distributor are trying to do is contain those cost increases as much as possible and that sometimes leads to these events. 300% increase is a huge increase and these types of increases set the market for other retrans deals where other stations say "look at what XYZ got, we want the same for our new contract".

I know, I used to negotiate these types of contracts in the industry. DTV is stuck between a rock and a hard place. *The same customers screaming here (or elsewhere) for their local channels to come back on at any cost are the exact same ones that will scream when their bill goes up. *


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

ChicagoBlue said:


> *The same customers screaming here (or elsewhere) for their local channels to come back on at any cost are the exact same ones that will scream when their bill goes up. *


At any cost? I haven't seen that mentioned here.

I expect my D* bill to go up, I don't expect a local channel to go dark because D* isn't paying them an insane increase. Sorry but I blame WSVN on this one.

I've already voiced my opinion to them, told them they gave me a great reason to setup my antenna and start watching FOX from WPB now.


----------



## miro (Jan 14, 2012)

mx6bfast said:


> I've already voiced my opinion to them, told them they gave me a great reason to setup my antenna and start watching FOX from WPB now.


actually WFLX in West Palm has the same dispute but with U-Verse, they averted a shutdown by Dec 31st, and stretched the negotiation until early February but they too almost removed their station from U-Verse. Their costs have increased due to FOX's demands, and being 3rd or 4th in ratings probably doesn't help them much since they can't charge for advertising like a #1 station can. Incdently in the last year they've sold their offices off, and sold their newscast rights to WPTV for $1mil+ last year and moved into their studios.

The fees themselves can be considered a license to carry a particular channel, since DirecTV charges people to get those channels, makes profit and probably like Comcast sells commercials and inserts those within a station's newscast ad time.

You can bet more disputes like WSVN/Directv are coming, NBC and CBS want to get $1+ for their stations. FOX has also removed stations for not getting the fees they want.

Plus, if you want sports the cost to license NFL etc is steep, in the billions, and someone has to pay for it. The fact that ad dollars have increasingly been moving to the web and mobile doesn't help either.


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

trainman said:


> Well, the AFC Championship is on CBS and the NFC Championship is on Fox, so no worries there for you.
> 
> If you meant the Super Bowl, no, that's going to be on NBC. However, you can check Channel 392 to see if DirecTV has activated that for you (it's possible, with you in Manchester). I also note that it's two and a half weeks until the Super Bowl, and DirecTV may well come to terms with WHDH's ownership before then.


Yes I meant all of that!!!!

Channel 392 is not activated for me. It says I have to have a subscription. I wonder if I can get them to activate it so I can get NBC nationally and not have to deal with a local affialiate???


----------



## bearcat250 (Feb 19, 2004)

-Draino- said:


> Yes I meant all of that!!!!
> 
> Channel 392 is not activated for me. It says I have to have a subscription. I wonder if I can get them to activate it so I can get NBC nationally and not have to deal with a local affialiate???


I have already called DTV to try and get the NBC & CW east coast feed during this negotiation but was told that because of federal regulation it was not possible. I did get a one time $5 discount.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

WSVN, DirecTV still slugging it out
No deal between WSVN and DirecTV
DirecTV, Sunbeam Locked In Retrans Standoff, WSVN GM: Station Owner Asking for Same Rates Other Pay-TV Providers Pay

(And I'm not even close to that market.)


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

How often does one get to really have an impact? Here's a stroke of luck in timing.
Hope this makes the Broward-Dade folks feels a little bit better.

My home is a Nielsen home, well very shortly. Even though I can get WSVN OTA and occasionally do tune it, during the Nielsen period, I won't let any TV in the home go to WSVN.


----------



## BLMN (Sep 6, 2011)

bearcat250 said:


> I have already called DTV to try and get the NBC & CW east coast feed during this negotiation but was told that because of federal regulation it was not possible. I did get a one time $5 discount.


i wonder why directv dont give us in new hampshire WCSH instead of WHDH.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

BLMN said:


> i wonder why directv dont give us in new hampshire WCSH instead of WHDH.


Likely due to the "luck of the draw," literally as to how the DMA boundary lines were drawn that is.

The DMA boundaries for the Boston DMA cover southern N.H. where you are while the northern part of N.H. falls into the Portland-Auburn, ME. DMA where WCSH has it's broadcast rights.


----------



## ThePhantom (Sep 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Likely due to the "luck of the draw," literally as to how the DMA boundary lines were drawn that is.
> 
> The DMA boundaries for the Boston DMA cover southern N.H. where you are while the northern part of N.H. falls into the Portland-Auburn, ME. DMA where WCSH has it's broadcast rights.


However, D* can absolutely provide Significantly Viewed Neighboring Locals to the lion's share of their customers.

http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations031011.pdf

The cable companies readily do it. D* has chosen not to (for the most part). Providing these legally available feeds would address quite a number of their customer base currently affected without involving any DNS waivers. They already carry these locals on their system, and the customers are covered by the spot beams. There's no technical reason why they haven't taken a run at this.

Doing this would strike at the heart of Sunbeam's alleged "leverage".


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

ThePhantom said:


> However, D* can absolutely provide Significantly Viewed Neighboring Locals to the lion's share of their customers.
> 
> http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations031011.pdf
> 
> ...


I wish D* would just do this normally... Anyone in Broward Country who has uverse gets miami and west palm locals... while on D* you only get Miami... since its spot beams that are already existing... shouldn't take extra bandwidth right?


----------



## ThePhantom (Sep 22, 2007)

bjamin82 said:


> I wish D* would just do this normally... Anyone in Broward Country who has uverse gets miami and west palm locals... while on D* you only get Miami... since its spot beams that are already existing... shouldn't take extra bandwidth right?


As you can see on page 53 of the FCC doc, Broward County cable/sat operators are allowed to carry multiple stations from both DMAs:

Broward
WFOR-TV, 4, Miami, FL (formerly WTVJ)
WSVN, 7, Miami, FL (formerly WCKT)
WPLG, 10, Miami, FL
WLTV, 23, Miami, FL (formerly WAJA)
+WBFS-TV, 33, Miami, FL
+WBZL, 39, Miami, FL (formerly WDZL)
WPTV, 5, West Palm Beach, FL
WPEC, 12, West Palm Beach, FL (formerly WEAT)
+WFLX, 29, West Palm Beach, FL

Retransmission contracts with a station may block the competing SV channel. In my area, Fox in Boston prevents Comcast from retransmitting Fox in Providence, even though the FCC permits it in the SV list for my county.

As exhibited here, Sunbeam has no retransmission contract with D*, so I'd say that the SV locals are fair game.

The only potential complication is that some of the smaller DMAs SD feeds are carried at 119, which means any non-HD customers that don't have a 3 LNB dish would need an upgrade to receive some of the neighboring locals. I suspect this type of customer is rare...

You can check out D*'s Neighboring Local support here:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/packProg/svLocalChannels.jsp?assetId=1200076

You'll see that it's lame -- certainly is not at the potential that it could be, and certainly not competitive with cable in many areas.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

ThePhantom said:



> As you can see on page 53 of the FCC doc, Broward County cable/sat operators are allowed to carry multiple stations from both DMAs:


Maybe Broward but the Miami stations are in Dade county. Broward is the county in between Dade and Palm Beach counties.


----------



## ThePhantom (Sep 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Maybe Broward but the Miami stations are in Dade county. Broward is the county in between Dade and Palm Beach counties.


Dade residents are indeed out of luck, as there are no SV locals defined by the FCC. Like my friends that are closer to metro Boston, Neighboring Locals are not an option. However, the geographic proximity should make OTA reception stupid-simple.


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

ThePhantom said:


> As you can see on page 53 of the FCC doc, Broward County cable/sat operators are allowed to carry multiple stations from both DMAs:
> 
> Broward
> WFOR-TV, 4, Miami, FL (formerly WTVJ)
> ...


Yeah it would be nice if they could just turn it on


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

ThePhantom said:


> WSVN, 7, Miami, FL (formerly WCKT)
> WPEC, 12, West Palm Beach, FL (formerly WEAT)


Nice to see the FCC has such a long memory -- I happen to know those two call letter changes were _decades_ ago.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

trainman said:


> Nice to see the FCC has such a long memory -- I happen to know those two call letter changes were _decades_ ago.


I remember them as well from when I was a kid. I even remember when WPB got some locals from Miami because not all 3 networks were carried in the WPB area.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I don't have much respect for Tom Jicha. Among other things, he's a grown man who gets giddy over American Idol, and TV in general. Nonetheless, this is funny: http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/2012/01/directv-denies-rebates-i-have-proof.html - I'd sure love to know the details of how things were phrased exactly on either side. Über-liberal wanker versus Stuffed Corporate Suits, I bet that was a good conversation.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

If Directv were to begin offering these other SV channels into a market, wouldn't it either have to pay those stations at their contract rate or negotiate an agreement to deliver them to these new areas? 

Remember, by FCC rules, Directv can't just retransmit a local broadcast signal. D* has to negotiate rights to that station. If an SV clause or flexible language isn't in the agreement with the other station, D* may not have rights. Figuring out the legal issues and the cost of providing the other neighboring network affiliate could get complicated and expensive.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Latest news is WSVN will open the signal for the football game, regardless of negotiations.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

JeffBowser said:


> Latest news is WSVN will open the signal for the football game, regardless of negotiations.





> Great news for football fans.
> WSVN-Ch. 7 has decided to allow Sunday's NFC championship game between the New York Giants and San Francisco 49ers to be seen in DiecTV homes, even if there is no settlement in its impasse with DirecTV.
> Robert Leider, general manager of WSVN, said he is doing this as a service to viewers, who have been caught in the middle of the retransmission dispute.


http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/2012/01/wsvn-will-allow-nfc-title-game-no-matter-what.html

They got blasted on their website when they admitted to using the NFL games as leverage.


----------



## hatchet (May 29, 2006)

I just called and inquired about a waiver and was told the same thing regarding the game(s). The CSR also said they would air American Idol and the news.

Retention did give me a one time credit. I was not pushy but inquisitive and got the credit. I don't feel DirecTV is to blame here. I am also a "new" subscriber so that may have affected the incentive I got. I was initially offered a $10 credit for 6 months but that would have raised my bill by $2 each month :eek2:.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Shades228" said:


> http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/2012/01/wsvn-will-allow-nfc-title-game-no-matter-what.html
> 
> They got blasted on their website when they admitted to using the NFL games as leverage.


Good. And the channel can't afford to loose that much in the ratings and expect to get hi dollars from advertisers, where as DirecTV can easily afford it.


----------



## BLMN (Sep 6, 2011)

they need to open up NBC (whdh) for the superbowl too. it will be really bad if the pats make it to the bowl and us new england customer's won't be able to watch it :nono2:


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Good. And the channel can't afford to loose that much in the ratings and expect to get hi dollars from advertisers, where as DirecTV can easily afford it.


Those ads are already sold. The dispute is impacting future ad sales.


----------



## Taintedahab (Oct 2, 2011)

Shades228 said:


> They got blasted on their website when they admitted to using the NFL games as leverage.


I'm surprised that they openly admitted that. I'd bet a nickel that whoever publicly admitted that got sacked faster than a bag of potatoes.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Shades228" said:


> Those ads are already sold. The dispute is impacting future ad sales.


Yes and no. Generally speaking, rates are set in advance based on certain factors, ratings being the biggest, as you say. However, it's also not uncommon for these contracts to have stipulations in them that if they don't meet certain viewing numbers, then the value is lowered and they will get paid less. This could easily be the case here.


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

The silly part is WSVN is available for FREE OTA, so why would DTV give them an inch? They don't have a leg to stand on! They should be thrilled DTV even carries their stupid channel. I would love for DTV to announce that all of use in Broward are getting the WPB FOX stations, that would be all kinds of awesome.


----------



## gemery (Apr 10, 2007)

"JMII" said:


> The silly part is WSVN is available for FREE OTA, so why would DTV give them an inch? They don't have a leg to stand on! They should be thrilled DTV even carries their stupid channel. I would love for DTV to announce that all of use in Broward are getting the WPB FOX stations, that would be all kinds of awesome.


See that the part of this I never understand. Sure DTV is making money on reselling their product, but without DTV or cable their product would never make it into my, or many others, houses...


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

gemery said:


> See that the part of this I never understand. Sure DTV is making money on reselling their product, but without DTV or cable their product would never make it into my, or many others, houses...


OTA should be free, the station makes more money with the commercials if more people watch it. Without Directv they will have to charge less for the adds and lose money.

BTW, my AM21N is working flawlessly and for 45 bucks it's a nice weather insurance as well.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

slimoli said:


> OTA should be free, the station makes more money with the commercials if more people watch it. Without Directv they will have to charge less for the adds and lose money.
> 
> BTW, my AM21N is working flawlessly and for 45 bucks it's a nice weather insurance as well.


OTA IS FREE, and these bandits should learn cable and SAT providers are only increasing the viewers of their stations.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> OTA IS FREE, and these bandits should learn cable and SAT providers are only increasing the viewers of their stations.


Yea, Id like to jack slap the first person that agreed to PAY them for it.


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

JMII said:


> The silly part is WSVN is available for FREE OTA, so why would DTV give them an inch? They don't have a leg to stand on! They should be thrilled DTV even carries their stupid channel. I would love for DTV to announce that all of use in Broward are getting the WPB FOX stations, that would be all kinds of awesome.


AGREED!!!!


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

Is there an e-mail address that we can send mail to protest the loss of WHDH and CW??


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

> (WSVN's) Leider is going to take advantage of the huge audience anticipated for the football game. He has taped a 20-second message, which will be played during one of the local commercial pods during the game and the special edition of "American Idol," which follows the game. WSVN will clear that, too, as well as its late newscast and "Sports Extra."


http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/2012/01/quiet-weekend-expected-in-wsvn-directv-impasse.html


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

I FF thru the commercials anyways, don't care what his pompous ass has to say.


----------



## hatchet (May 29, 2006)

No comments on the mysterious "loss" of signal in literally the last minutes of the game? WTF???

My sanity was saved because I have a backup feed on my basic cable I am forced to subscribe to through my HOA. Ironically, this feed is DirecPath, a subsidiary of DirecTV. I don't understand how WSVN was still coming through on it.

What's more is that all of my local networks were out on D*. I checked and ABC, NBC, CBS as well as FOX (WSVN) were all out. AFAIK, they never came back through AI and the local news because WSVN never did.

Something is afoot ...


----------



## gilviv (Sep 18, 2007)

I'm watching locals off my AM21, so noticed nothing last night, however my brother-in-law(a Giants fan watching the D* signal)called to ask if my signal had died. I pawned it off as maybe being an WSVN/Sunbeam thing...tactic..., after all, they did hold hostage the previous week's NFL games.
But all locals, I wasn't aware of that. I checked earlier and all but WSVN w/ the static message are up, anybody know anything else or what happened?


----------



## hatchet (May 29, 2006)

Yeah, I thought the same thing about it being a Sunbeam ploy that they (or D* for that matter) could turn around and begin pointing fingers. I mean, it was like the setting for a commercial with everyone sitting around watching the final minutes of a close game and then the screen goes blank.

The odd part is that it affected all the locals, which tells me the fault may be on D* but I don't claim to know the technical aspects of how and why that would have happened. It's rather suspect that this would happen amidst the ongoing "negotiations".


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Anecdotal evidence from SunSentinel article comments was it affected Dish, too. Not sure if this is true, though.


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

hatchet said:


> The odd part is that it affected all the locals, which tells me the fault may be on D* but I don't claim to know the technical aspects


I too was ready to blast Sunbeam, but we lost all local HD signals and DTV put up a message saying it was SNAFU on their side. Once again having OTA just a click away was a godsend. Tell me again why DTV removed the OTA inputs on their newer boxes... seems like a huge mistake. Or maybe it was brilliant since it pretty much guarantees them sales of the AM21.

The irony of it all - WSVN lets us have the feed for the game then something breaks at DTV so we getting nothing but blank screen late in the 4th quarter. Unreal :nono2:


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

slimoli said:


> OTA should be free, the station makes more money with the commercials if more people watch it. Without Directv they will have to charge less for the adds and lose money.
> 
> BTW, my AM21N is working flawlessly and for 45 bucks it's a nice weather insurance as well.


This is not true.

My buddy is in the business, he broke it down for me, we are talking a few percentage points, nothing that can't be made up elsewhere thus WSVN holds all the cards. Remember WSVN could care less about any of it's ratings except their cash cow local news. They make almost nothing on Fox shows and during the day they air Matt Lock to save money.

Thus any notion that WSVN is better served by giving it's feed away for free to DTV is absurd.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

saleen351 said:


> This is not true.
> 
> My buddy is in the business, he broke it down for me, we are talking a few percentage points, nothing that can't be made up elsewhere thus WSVN holds all the cards. Remember WSVN could care less about any of it's ratings except their cash cow local news. They make almost nothing on Fox shows and during the day they air Matt Lock to save money.
> 
> Thus any notion that WSVN is better served by giving it's feed away for free to DTV is absurd.


Well, "your buddy" should be doing the number crunching then. Maybe the cable and SAT providers aren't adding significant viewers to his station, but maybe they are adding "some", which help for ad revenue.

As to "absurd": 
If their business plan is to be a broadcaster licensed to use the public airwaves, then it's "absurd" to charge a "retransmission fee" to cable and SAT providers, who are only providing the same signal to the same market that they're "serving". It isn't unreasonable to charge for the costs to maintain this feed [lease of fiber, etc.], but these wouldn't be per subscriber, but a flat/fixed fee.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"hatchet" said:


> No comments on the mysterious "loss" of signal in literally the last minutes of the game? WTF???
> 
> My sanity was saved because I have a backup feed on my basic cable I am forced to subscribe to through my HOA. Ironically, this feed is DirecPath, a subsidiary of DirecTV. I don't understand how WSVN was still coming through on it.
> 
> ...


Just a side note, it's illegal to have to pay for basic cable though your hoas. Illegal! You don't have to, and there is nothing they can do about it. Get in touch with the FCC and send the hoa the new rules that have been in affect for a couple years now. If they say they signed a contract and they have to till a certain point, they are wrong abut that too. When the FCC passed the new rules, they also made all contracts of that type null and void effective immediately. There is no way on earth I'd pay for any cable because an hoa said I had too.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Just a side note, it's illegal to have to pay for basic cable though your hoas. Illegal! You don't have to, and there is nothing they can do about it. Get in touch with the FCC and send the hoa the new rules that have been in affect for a couple years now. If they say they signed a contract and they have to till a certain point, they are wrong abut that too. When the FCC passed the new rules, they also made all contracts of that type null and void effective immediately. There is no way on earth I'd pay for any cable because an hoa said I had too.


Interesting - I don't recall hearing of a change on this.

I've been paying for Cablevision for years as part of my common charges, even though I've had DIRECTV on my own. I inquired years ago (> 8) about dropping the cable charge from my individual bill and was told as a community we pay a bulk rate for all 500+ units, so there's no individual billing or way to shut off any one unit.

I then also found out that we get a tremendous discount, where we pay about $35 per unit for the full non-premium package, lower than 505 of the cost of a private residence.

We still get steep discounts, and now I take advantage of having cable as a backup (and Cablevision has BBCA in HD) so I want to keep it, but good to know that in the future I can fight (and I know it will be a fight) if I want to drop it.


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

I could care less about my local feed from WHDH (Ch7) They off no original programming and no value whatsoever. I don't watch their news so they have nothing for me. I do however want NBC. I see no reason why DTV can't give my the national feed for NBC.

Furthermore as it's been stated already, anybody can get WHDH for free and in HD, I just need an antenna. It's absurd that WHDH would hold NBC hostage and there is nothing that NBC or DTV can do about it.

If I were NBC I would pull the plug on WHDH and find another affiliate!!!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

-Draino- said:


> I could care less about my local feed from WHDH (Ch7) They off no original programming and no value whatsoever. I don't watch their news so they have nothing for me. I do however want NBC. *I see no reason why DTV can't give my the national feed for NBC.*
> 
> Furthermore as it's been stated already, anybody can get WHDH for free and in HD, I just need an antenna. It's absurd that WHDH would hold NBC hostage and there is nothing that NBC or DTV can do about it.
> 
> If I were NBC I would pull the plug on WHDH and find another affiliate!!!


It takes a waiver from the same WHDH, so they're holding everyone hostage.


----------



## ThePhantom (Sep 22, 2007)

-Draino- said:


> If I were NBC I would pull the plug on WHDH and find another affiliate!!!


NBC postured to do just that when Darth Ansin threatened to pre-empt Leno at 10PM with the local news. NBC was prepared to clear off ShopNBC (ch 66?) out of Worcester in anticipation. I think they registered nbcboston.com as well. Darth Ansin backed down, but it's interesting to imagine what could have been...


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> It takes a waiver from the same WHDH, so they're holding everyone hostage.


Well it seems that I don't understand how this stuff works. But if there is no longer a contract between the two why can't NBC shop for another affiliate or DTV give us the national feed?

If the contract is between NBC and WHDH then NBC needs to put pressure on WHDH to stop messing around. NBC is the loser here, nobody cares about WHDH.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

-Draino- said:


> Well it seems that I don't understand how this stuff works. But if there is no longer a contract between the two why can't NBC shop for another affiliate or DTV give us the national feed?


What you don't get is the FCC along with issuing a license to broadcast using the public airwaves, also gives them "authority" [control] over who can receive the network they carry from other stations.
If you're within acceptable reception range, they have to issue a waiver for you to receive NBC from another station not within your area.

"Without the abuse", it makes sense, as they've been licensed to operate in your area and get some "protection" in this market, to "give their programing away".
Now when one starts charging fees for what they are licensed to "give away", and then abuse the wavier process, they've become a tyrannical monopoly, which none of these rules/laws were intended to support.


----------



## Blurayfan (Nov 16, 2005)

"veryoldschool" said:


> What you don't get is the FCC along with issuing a license to broadcast using the public airwaves, also gives them "authority" [control] over who can receive the network they carry from other stations.
> If you're within acceptable reception range, they have to issue a waiver for you to receive NBC from another station not within your area.
> 
> "Without the abuse", it makes sense, as they've been licensed to operate in your area and get some "protection" in this market, to "give their programing away".
> Now when one starts charging fees for what they are licensed to "give away", and then abuse the wavier process, they've become a tyrannical monopoly, which none of these rules/laws were intended to support.


VOS

What it appears was being questioned is how would WHDH be able to restrict the access if NBC revoked their affiliate rights.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Blurayfan said:


> VOS
> 
> What it appears was being questioned is how would WHDH be able to restrict the access if NBC revoked their affiliate rights.


If they drop being an NBC affiliate, then there goes their control over the waiver [for NBC DNS], but this thread started with a retransmission fee negotiation with DirecTV, so it sounds like WHDH is holding on to NBC.


----------



## Blurayfan (Nov 16, 2005)

"veryoldschool" said:


> If they drop being an NBC affiliate, then there goes their control over the waiver [for NBC DNS], but this thread started with a retransmission fee negotiation with DirecTV, so it sounds like WHDH is holding on to NBC.


WHDH is holding on but the post in question was stated as If NBC on their own could decide to drop WHDH and give the affiliation to a different station. The same way they threatened to do to correct the Jay Leno pre-empt issue.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Blurayfan said:


> WHDH is holding on but the post in question was stated as If NBC on their own could decide to drop WHDH and give the affiliation to a different station. The same way they threatened to do to correct the Jay Leno pre-empt issue.


NBC was for almost 50 years KRON 4 in the SFO area, but one day [about 10 years ago] they changed to KTVU 11 [which had been a second ABC station].
Networks contract with affiliates and when these go south, the networks can/will find other affiliates, or leave the market open [which I think Fox has done], which means DNS becomes easier for DirecTV to offer.


----------



## hatchet (May 29, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Just a side note, it's illegal to have to pay for basic cable though your hoas. Illegal! You don't have to, and there is nothing they can do about it. Get in touch with the FCC and send the hoa the new rules that have been in affect for a couple years now. If they say they signed a contract and they have to till a certain point, they are wrong abut that too. When the FCC passed the new rules, they also made all contracts of that type null and void effective immediately. There is no way on earth I'd pay for any cable because an hoa said I had too.





Drew2k said:


> Interesting - I don't recall hearing of a change on this.
> 
> I've been paying for Cablevision for years as part of my common charges, even though I've had DIRECTV on my own. I inquired years ago (> 8) about dropping the cable charge from my individual bill and was told as a community we pay a bulk rate for all 500+ units, so there's no individual billing or way to shut off any one unit.
> 
> ...


I just saw your post(s) so I wanted to respond, but without sidetracking this thread. I've tried to do some research as well as ask around about the HOA bulk contract. I've even posted some old threads on here. But, what I've come away with is that there is no "opting" out of the contract. I think there is a clause (at least in Florida law) to allow for condominiums to opt out but not an HOA. Why the discrepancy, I don't know and there should be some amendment to the law to allow HOA's to opt out as well. I own my home in a community of about 750 single family homes.

Ironically, in all of this WSVN mess I called D* to see what bone they would toss me. I ended up with a credit on my bill, kudos to D* customer service as it is more than WSVN has done (IMHO) in all of this. I have electronic billing so I decided to check my statement online to verify the credit. Much to my surprise, what I ended up noticing was the recent removal of the monthly $10 credit I had been receiving for the Free HD Access for Life. SO, I called D* for an explanation.

Apparently, roughly four months ago, someone (I was told by the CSR it was my HOA) reviewed my bill and saw that I was receiving the $10 credit which apparently I should have never been given. I was told I was already receiving a discount on my bill due to the bulk contract that my HOA had.

What I tried to explain was that my bill and D* service were setup independently by me and billed to and controlled by me exclusively with no involvement or influence by my HOA. The CSR was adamant that this was the way it was and no amount of escalation would change that.

I could honestly care less about the $10, it will not make or break things for me. The rub is that the whole reason I went to D* in the first place almost two years ago was because the situation with the bulk cable contract was absolutely horrible. I have been double paying for D* for almost two years now, the feed through the bulk HOA contract and my own account with the programming I choose and pay for on my own.

The situation is obviously unacceptable but through all my research and frustration, I've asked really, what else can I do. And FWIW, the scenario is exactly the same for my internet service!


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

Agreement reached


----------

