# Raycom Media - No Contract after 12/31



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

From KOLD.COM

Important notice for DirecTV subscribers
There is a possibility this station could cease being carried by DirecTV at midnight on Dec. 31 if ongoing negotiations fail.

These are the affected stations...mainly on the South East Quadrant of the US but a few stretch a bit west...

http://www.raycommedia.com/stations/

Good to have the antenna installed....


----------



## ChuckZ (Aug 17, 2009)

The local NBC affiliate here in Huntsville Alabama, WAFF, last night (21 Dec.) started running a crawl stating that they were in negotiations with DTV to stay on the air after 31 Dec. 

On the WAFF website one of their statements says:

"6. Doesn't this come down to money?

No. It is about our commitment to providing the quality news, weather, sports and entertainment, programming our viewers have come to expect from us over the years.

This station invests millions in this community to produce the kind of local programming and news coverage that makes a difference in people's lives. DirecTV — who is using that content and charging you for it — should agree to fair compensation for the right to retransmit our signal."

I say, whenever I hear an athlete that is holding out from performing because of a contract dispute, or a TV station says "it's not about the money"...trust me it's about the money.

I really don't watch anything on NBC at this time, except the local news. However, with all three local stations pretty much running the same news, it wouldn't be too much for me to switch channels for my local news. I could care less if they were to be pulled from DTV unless WAFF and Raycom retracts their foolish demands.

ChuckZ


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Wait, it's not about the money but they want "fair compensation"? How, exactly, would they like to be compensated?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> Wait, it's not about the money but they want "fair compensation"? How, exactly, would they like to be compensated?


But it's not about the money .. 

Seriously, though .. It's always about the money. They'll figure it out at some point.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> Wait, it's not about the money but they want "fair compensation"? How, exactly, would they like to be compensated?


Turtles.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Turtles.


Then the company must be owned by this kid.


----------



## xmetalx (Jun 3, 2009)

hilmar2k said:


> Then the company must be owned by this kid.
> 
> View attachment 24241


!rolling!rolling!rolling


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

I saw the message tonight on our local NBC station. I really couldn't care less. I can pick it up OTA using the antenna that comes with a Directv RF remote if I need to watch it.


----------



## bgothard72 (Oct 25, 2007)

Birmingham, AL Fox 6 is running the message now. Our Fox is on channel 6 and they just added a 6-1 alert channel.


----------



## Vinny* (May 18, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> But it's not about the money ..
> 
> Seriously, though .. It's always about the money. They'll figure it out at some point.


I cannot pick up my local WWBT in Richmond with my indoor OTA antenna. All other channels come in fine. Any chance I can get a waiver for the DNS NY feed on NBC? Or should I not even bother.


----------



## ChuckZ (Aug 17, 2009)

Vinny* et-al,

I wouldn't bother because as stated in the WAFF message:

"2. If DirecTV drops this station, won't DirecTV simply make network programming available from another station?

No. There are rules in place to prevent DirecTV from showing network broadcasts without the local broadcasters' programming. However, we are doing everything we can to ensure that we don't get to that point. If we do, viewers should remember that they can always get our programming over the Web or by using an over-the-air TV antenna."

For WAFF's (and I'm pretty sure all of the Raycom stations) whole message and if ya wanna laugh, go here:

http://www.waff.com/global/story.asp?s=13659842


----------



## vroten (Mar 8, 2010)

Well WBTV in Charlotte(CBS) is scrolling the message about Directv as well.

http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=13659842

Not too worried as I receive WBTV OTA with about 96% signal strength. As a matter of fact I wish Directv would credit my bill and cut off my locals as I receive all the Charlotte locals OTA.


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

Vinny* said:


> I cannot pick up my local WWBT in Richmond with my indoor OTA antenna. All other channels come in fine. Any chance I can get a waiver for the DNS NY feed on NBC? Or should I not even bother.


Hopefully it doesn't come to that but I doublt being in Chesterfield you'd get one unless your far Southwest corner than maybe but I doublt it. They would just tell you to get an outdoor antenna. Hopefully I won't have to drag out my AM21 for the living room though on the first.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Not to worry. There'll be a settlement at about 55 cents a sub, going up to 1 dollar by the fifth year of the contract, per the terms of the Fox NYC contract that now serves as the benchmark.

Of course, look for 10% annual rate hikes over the next five years.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

"MikeW" said:


> From KOLD.COM
> 
> Important notice for DirecTV subscribers
> There is a possibility this station could cease being carried by DirecTV at midnight on Dec. 31 if ongoing negotiations fail.
> ...


Same deal with WOIO (CBS Cleveland) and WUAB (Mtn Cleveland)


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> "6. Doesn't this come down to money?
> 
> No.


Yeah, right, whatever.......

One of our stations is now running the crawl OTA. Why? Can't they limit the crawl to the signal provided to Direct instead of annoying OTA viewers?

On another note, where's all the outrage on this thread and folks yelling about how they're going to cancel and go elsewhere?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

ChuckZ said:


> No. There are rules in place to prevent DirecTV from showing network broadcasts without the local broadcasters' programming. However, we are doing everything we can to ensure that we don't get to that point. If we do, viewers should remember that they can always get our programming over the Web or by using an over-the-air TV antenna."


Are they sure about that? This is in reference to the Time Warner/Sinclair dispute, but they seem to say they can do it.

"Earlier this year, Time Warner Cable signed a deal with Fox and as part of that deal, the network agreed to provide the cable operator its programming should one of its affiliates -- stations that carry the network's programming but are independently owned -- pull their signal."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ent...able-fight-with-sinclair-broadcast-group.html


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

First our CBS/CW affiliate (now back on) and now our Fox affiliate.
http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=16876


----------



## hanz_erichson (Jan 19, 2007)

bgothard72 said:


> Birmingham, AL Fox 6 is running the message now. Our Fox is on channel 6 and they just added a 6-1 alert channel.


In Charleston, SC, they are running the alert channel too on channel 5-1. Unfortunately, the web page it tells people to go to does not currently work. It tells you to go to www.directv.com/alert for more information. Not a good thing for DIRECTV to have a broken web page to tell their side of the story to combat those crawls from Raycom.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Locals shouldn't be allowed to charge any provider to re transmit their signal inside their dma. Period.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> Locals shouldn't be allowed to charge any provider to re transmit their signal inside their dma. Period.


Why?


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

kenglish said:


> Why?


Because they are kept in business by the advertising they sell. If a medium is offered to broadcast this to more people, then the advertisers who pay them get a better deal and they can raise costs on that end.
I cannot get OTA in my area because I fall in the middle of the Orlando and West Palm Beach markets. But I also will be blacked out if a deal is not reached.
I do not care if my NBC,CBS,ABC or Fox comes out of Lima,OH or any BFE town at this point. But it will cut me out of some network programming if this deal is not made.
My HOA prevents me from constructing a 40' tower to get these channels.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

kenglish said:


> Why?


Similar to the above post, let's play with some fictional round numbers. Let's say a local station can get 10,000 viewers OTA, but far more residents live in distant areas or behind hilly terrain. Cable comes in and can get to many of those viewers who can't get a good OTA signal and adds another 5,000 viewers to the station's viewership. Now add in satellite who for the same reasons can add another 2,500 viewers for the station.

We all know that advertising rates are based on numbers of viewers. Without cable and satellite, that station would only be able to charge rates based on 10,000 OTA viewers. With cable and satellite, they can set their rates based on 17,500 viewers. That's more attractive to the advertisers even if the rates are a bit higher.

If anything, local stations should be PAYING cable and satellite providers to carry their signal to more viewers instead of charging them.


----------



## BenJF3 (Sep 12, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Are they sure about that? This is in reference to the Time Warner/Sinclair dispute, but they seem to say they can do it.
> 
> "Earlier this year, Time Warner Cable signed a deal with Fox and as part of that deal, the network agreed to provide the cable operator its programming should one of its affiliates -- stations that carry the network's programming but are independently owned -- pull their signal."
> 
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ent...able-fight-with-sinclair-broadcast-group.html


This is going on in Utica, NY right now. WKTV, the local NBC affiliate pulled it's programming on 12/15 thinking they would have the upper hand because they are the only local station doing a newscast. Time Warner apparently had an agreement with Nexstar that allowed them to import NBC programming via a distant station and that's what they did. WKTV gets 70% of its viewers via cable in that market and it's showing. The biggest advertiser pulled ALL his ads off WKTV and many others followed suit. The station is available on Dish and they have become Dish Network spokes people to try and get people to switch. Most people don't care because they are getting NBC programming and using the web for news. The station further shat on the community by pulling it's streaming feed of the news.



inkahauts said:


> Locals shouldn't be allowed to charge any provider to re transmit their signal inside their dma. Period.


People ask why and I refer to my above statement. Carriage on a cable or satellite lineup is more than enough compensation because the station derives revenue from ad sales. In my example, WKTV LOST about 60,000 viewers and many major advertisers pulled their ads off and went to the cable news outlet. WKTV is now losing money and they banked on the viewers sticking by them and they are not.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Yeah, right, whatever.......
> 
> One of our stations is now running the crawl OTA. Why? Can't they limit the crawl to the signal provided to Direct instead of annoying OTA viewers?
> 
> On another note, where's all the outrage on this thread and folks yelling about how they're going to cancel and go elsewhere?


Directv normally gets each station's signal via OTA.

For instance, in Huntsville, Directv has antennas installed at their Call Center, and uplinked from their also.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

taz291819 said:


> Directv normally gets each station's signal via OTA.


That isn't the case here with my Raycom channel. I setup SL's to record via OTA, AM21, just in case we lose the signal. Just for the heck of it I watched one of the OTA recordings from my FOX affiliate that is Raycom owned. The OTA recording didn't have their annoying crawl about DirecTV contract ending, but the Satellite feed did. They are definitely separate feeds.


----------



## dduensing (Oct 5, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> They are definitely separate feeds.


I repeat taz291819's position....NO, NOT ALWAYS. Using google maps street view you can see DirecTV's OTA "antenna farm" and the satellite uplink dish for the New Orleans DMA.

WDSU is on the same renegotiation tactic of the message crawl (it's owned by Hearst - NBC affiliate).


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dduensing said:


> I repeat taz291819's position....NO, NOT ALWAYS. Using google maps street view you can see DirecTV's OTA "antenna farm" and the satellite uplink dish for the New Orleans DMA.
> 
> WDSU is on the same renegotiation tactic of the message crawl (it's owned by Hearst - NBC affiliate).


Where did I say always? I said in my case they are different feeds.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> That isn't the case here with my Raycom channel. I setup SL's to record via OTA, AM21, just in case we lose the signal. Just for the heck of it I watched one of the OTA recordings from my FOX affiliate that is Raycom owned. The OTA recording didn't have their annoying crawl about DirecTV contract ending, but the Satellite feed did. They are definitely separate feeds.


Directv use to use of the Huntsville affiliates as their uplink facility. While they picked everyone else up on antenna, they took a direct ASI feed from that particular affiliate.

Now, running a crawl on a separate feed takes additional, expensive equipment. If I were the GM of that station, I don't think I'd spend the money for something that'll get used once every 5 years or so. But hey, to each their own.


----------



## skatingrocker17 (Jun 24, 2010)

DCSholtis said:


> Same deal with WOIO (CBS Cleveland) and WUAB (Mtn Cleveland)


I used to get WUAB on cable but I don't get it with DirecTV.

Great I might be loosing WTOL (CBS Toledo).
Same situation with Time Warner Cable and Fox Toledo a few years ago. We actually did end up loosing Fox for about a month or so.

On a side note, it's kind of funny they're still showing a countdown to the Digital Transition on their website. Link


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Two local HD Honolulu stations are affected: the NBC affiliate KHNL and the CBS affililiate KGMB. I've been very irritated for 3 years that D* refuses to carry our NBC station in HD, and if they also lose our HD CBS station, I'm going to be unhappy to the point of going back to TW cable, which has carried our ABC, CBS, and NBC stations in HD for as long as they have broadcast in HD.


----------



## mpaquette (Sep 25, 2007)

Our local NBC is affected and they've been running the crawl message for the last couple of weeks. Guess I need to dust off my AM21 and hope it still works.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

Ok folks, here is an update regarding Raycom and Directv. There seems to be confusion on Raycom's part. According to Directv, Raycom's contract automatically renews for another year on December 31st, since Raycom did not give Directv notice of cancellation.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/12/directv_says_it_has_no_plans_t.html


----------



## ChuckZ (Aug 17, 2009)

Yeah, I just read that piece on the Huntsville Times website. What I like is the following:

WAFF: "DirecTV earns hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from WAFF programming but gives the station only a "tiny percentage" of that money", the website says.

"The current arrangement isn't fair "given the amount of time our station invests in producing and securing that programming," WAFF says.

DTV:, "Gringeri said the current contract was automatically renewed for another year because Raycom did not notify DirecTV of its intent to terminate".

"Since Raycom did not provide this notice, the contract is extended (until Dec. 31, 2011) and the channels will stay on," he said.

I say, I find it very hard to believe that DTV makes "hundreds of thousands of dollars from WAFF. It may be somewhat closer to what DTV makes from Raycom stations in total, but not because of a single Raycom station. Seems as though someone from Raycom was into the seasonal sauce too early when they wrote up the propaganda piece for their stations to put on their websites.

If the quote from the DTV rep is correct that since Raycom didn't notify DTV of termination, the contract is automatically renewed, I wonder what kind of happy face Raycom is going to put on it. I betcha they'll say that after a lengthy discussion period, Raycom and DTV have come to a mutual agreement and all is well...there will be no disruption of service.

As I stated in my original post, I could care less if WAFF goes off of DTV because I don't watch any of their programming and only their local newscasts...which I can get the same news from competing local channels.

ChuckZ
Harvest, AL


----------



## Grydlok (Mar 31, 2007)

Rakul said:


> Hopefully it doesn't come to that but I doublt being in Chesterfield you'd get one unless your far Southwest corner than maybe but I doublt it. They would just tell you to get an outdoor antenna. Hopefully I won't have to drag out my AM21 for the living room though on the first.


LOL he said a waiver and live in Chesterfield. 
I could see that request being looked over now as the fall over from laughter.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> .... Let's say a local station can get 10,000 viewers OTA, but far more residents live in distant areas or behind hilly terrain. Cable comes in and can get to many of those viewers who can't get a good OTA signal and adds another 5,000 viewers to the station's viewership. Now add in satellite who for the same reasons can add another 2,500 viewers for the station.
> 
> We all know that advertising rates are based on numbers of viewers. Without cable and satellite, that station would only be able to charge rates based on 10,000 OTA viewers. With cable and satellite, they can set their rates based on 17,500 viewers. That's more attractive to the advertisers even if the rates are a bit higher.......


I always thought of it that way, too...and I'm a Broadcast Engineer. I suggested that, concerning translator stations. But, according to the ad agencies and buyers, the ads are really only paid based on the "local" audience, and don't care if there are a few tens of thousands of additional viewers in outlying areas. The "core" audience is what everything is based on, not the periphery. Engineering people still assist, as much as we can, with those translator systems, but there's no real financial assistance available to them.

Weird, huh?!


----------



## shy007 (Apr 11, 2003)

My local station says there is a possibility we could lose their signal and it also says they invest millions producing news and other programming. It is about greed.

http://www.wistv.com/global/story.asp?s=13659842


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

shy007 said:


> It is about greed.[/URL]


It always is.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

My local Raycom-operated Fox station (WFXG Augusta GA) has been running a crawl re negations with DIRECTV and possible loss of carriage after 12/31.

Have sent the following to the station's General Manager:


> Subject: DIRECTV Contract Negotiations
> 
> I realize this may be a Raycom corporate thing and not necessarily under local station control, but ...
> 
> Advertising rates are determined, in part, by the number of households reached. It is in WFXG's best interest to be carried by as many delivery systems as possible. If WXFG and DIRECTV cannot come to a carriage agreement, I will consider this a failure on WXFG's part, not DIRECTV's.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

I encourage everyone who takes the time to write here on dbstalk, to go to the station's website and drop them a note on how you feel. Complaining here may make you feel better but won't affect the outcome.

I wrote my local station a short polite note asking them to be reasonable in that Directv and other companies actually extend their viewership. Its a win-win if both companies continue to work together, neither has the upper hand. Directv can market the local channel and the local station gains tens of thousands of viewers. They did note the email and here's the response from WFLX.

They did get it wrong in that there isn't a charge for local service on my bill. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It is about money but it is also about fairness. Please allow me to explain. TV stations have seen the satellite companies grow for over a decade. How big do you think they would be today if they did not carry the local TV stations? Look on your monthly bill from DIRECTV and you will see that you are charged for the local service. The stations that are responsible for their growth currently receive none or a very small percentage of the rate you are paying.

Our advertising business alone cannot sustain the TV stations that you are watching and enjoying. We have to have a fair revenue stream or broadcast television will begin to slip in quality. So it is about quality, survival and yes, unfortunately a fair share of the money DIRECTV already collects from you.

Please feel free to keep the dialogue open. The last thing we need to have happen is for us to lose your loyalty. Please understand.

Sincerely,
(name deleted)
WFLX"


----------



## hidefman (Dec 16, 2006)

When I go to 48-1 on my AM21 tuner, I get a Directv message and not the OTA signal of WAFF. How is that possible? I know it's not going to happen, but if Raycom stations get pulled, I will be ticked if my AM21 tuner is blocked from getting 48-1. Again, how is that possible? Is it in the STB software that 48-1 can be blocked like that? I am already getting ticked wondering how that is possible.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

kenglish said:


> But, according to the ad agencies and buyers, the ads are really only paid based on the "local" audience, and don't care if there are a few tens of thousands of additional viewers in outlying areas. The "core" audience is what everything is based on, not the periphery.


I'm talking about the local core audience, not those on distant translators. We're in a hilly area with lots of trees that is sparsely populated beyond about 15 miles from the local towers I'm about 40 miles from one station and about 70 miles from the other two, but still within the primary DMA bullseye. I'm on a hill about 40' above everything else around me and I have a 30' tower with a long range booster. I can get the three primary stations (ABC, NBC, CBS) OTA, but most of my neighbors can't. No cable here, so it's satellite or nothing for many within the DMA. If the stations didn't count the cable and sat viewers, they would have very low numbers to base ad rates on.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

hidefman said:


> When I go to 48-1 on my AM21 tuner, I get a Directv message and not the OTA signal of WAFF. How is that possible? I know it's not going to happen, but if Raycom stations get pulled, I will be ticked if my AM21 tuner is blocked from getting 48-1. Again, how is that possible? Is it in the STB software that 48-1 can be blocked like that? I am already getting ticked wondering how that is possible.


Use your up/down channel button. There's probably two 48-1's now. They did that here with 29-1.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

hidefman said:


> When I go to 48-1 on my AM21 tuner, I get a Directv message and not the OTA signal of WAFF. How is that possible? I know it's not going to happen, but if Raycom stations get pulled, I will be ticked if my AM21 tuner is blocked from getting 48-1. Again, how is that possible? Is it in the STB software that 48-1 can be blocked like that? I am already getting ticked wondering how that is possible.


Check your guide listing . . . you probably have 2 listings for 48-1 -- one from Directv and one from OTA.

I have the same on 3-1 (and 58-2 -totally unrelated local PBS sub-channel). The only way to get to the OTA is through the guide. I've filed a report in the issues thread.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

NR4P said:


> They did get it wrong in that there isn't a charge for local service on my bill.


Did you reply letting them know that?


----------



## Montezuma58 (May 24, 2004)

hidefman said:


> When I go to 48-1 on my AM21 tuner, I get a Directv message and not the OTA signal of WAFF. How is that possible? I know it's not going to happen, but if Raycom stations get pulled, I will be ticked if my AM21 tuner is blocked from getting 48-1. Again, how is that possible? Is it in the STB software that 48-1 can be blocked like that? I am already getting ticked wondering how that is possible.


I get the 48-1 on "alert" channel on my receivers that are not equipped with an AM-21


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

NR4P said:


> ...
> They did get it wrong in that there isn't a charge for local service on my bill. ...


Actually, the charge for local delivery is in your bill. It's part of the subscription package price. My package is listed as Choice Xtra - no locals for $60.99. With locals it would be $63.99. Soon to change in February.


----------



## Montezuma58 (May 24, 2004)

ChuckZ said:


> Yeah, I just read that piece on the Huntsville Times website. What I like is the following:
> 
> WAFF: "DirecTV earns hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from WAFF programming but gives the station only a "tiny percentage" of that money", the website says.
> 
> ...


What the Raycom propaganda leaves out is that DirecTV has spent a couple of billion of dollars to be able to provide local channels. They had to do this due to lobbying by the station owners. DirecTV may collect "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from subscribers in a particular market but that does not necessarily translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars of profit for DirecTV.

Raycom is the one being greedy here. DirecTV retransmitting their stations costs them nothing. If anything it helps them. Any local station would wither and die in short time if not for cable/satellite distribution.

WAFF missing from the line up would not be enough reason for me to drop DirecTV. If I want to I can get it over the air and WAFF gets $0 from me. Or they could wise up and realize that the could make a few bucks that they would other wise not get.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Did you reply letting them know that?


Sure did.

I know you are local so I encourage you to drop them a note as well. You can do it via Raycom website or I can pass you the direct email address of the WFLX person if you are interested and send me a PM.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Montezuma58 said:


> What the Raycom propaganda leaves out is that DirecTV has spent a couple of billion of dollars to be able to provide local channels. They had to do this due to lobbying by the station owners. DirecTV may collect "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from subscribers in a particular market but that does not necessarily translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars of profit for DirecTV.
> 
> Raycom is the one being greedy here. DirecTV retransmitting their stations costs them nothing. If anything it helps them. Any local station would wither and die in short time if not for cable/satellite distribution.
> 
> WAFF missing from the line up would not be enough reason for me to drop DirecTV. If I want to I can get it over the air and WAFF gets $0 from me. Or they could wise up and realize that the could make a few bucks that they would other wise not get.


Not sure of the amount but they did spend a fortune to do this and haul it back to the Spot beam satellites.

If Directv hadn't rolled out WHDVR service with it using the OTA TV band for MRV, they could have had some type of workaround. Since AM21's are sold, not leased, AM21 owners can get OTA even without a station agreement. These signals should not be blocked as owned equipment. AM21 service could be marketed better then. It's a great alternative to rain fade.

Albeit a small number, AM21 owners could be exempt from the monthly payments to the local stations, if they ever accounted to a significant portion (say greater than 10%) it would show the local stations that Directv isn't 100% dependent on them.


----------



## mpaquette (Sep 25, 2007)

I sent off a quick email to the WIS general manager. Curious if I'll get a response.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

NR4P said:


> Sure did.
> 
> I know you are local so I encourage you to drop them a note as well. You can do it via Raycom website or I can pass you the direct email address of the WFLX person if you are interested and send me a PM.


Oh I have friends at both 29 and 25, I've made phone calls.


----------



## jazzyjez (Jan 2, 2006)

Interesting, so my local channels get revenue from Directv because I have satellite service, and yet I actually get my locals via OTA because Directv doesn't them in HD (nor do they appear to have any plans to do so).
I must admit I didn't realize that was the way it worked. Well I suppose the convenience of having OTA locals integrated with the satellite service (using HR20s) is worth something, and I do appreciate the local service - however, I don't like the fact they effectively disallow me from watching the long distance feeds that are available. Sometimes I could use the local NY news, or take advantage of the 3-hour time shift of LA programming.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

I just saw the ticker here in Memphis a couple of days ago (on WMC - our NBC affiliate). I fully intend upon writing the GM of the station tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## jtudor (Feb 24, 2008)

jazzyjez said:


> however, I don't like the fact they effectively disallow me from watching the long distance feeds that are available. Sometimes I could use the local NY news, or take advantage of the 3-hour time shift of LA programming.


What I dislike is not being able to have 2 sources for network programming. Quite often a local station will pre-empt a network show for something local and with DTV, then I have no way to see the network show. While I was a cable customer, I had two sources for each of the networks (well the major ones at least).

I don't understand why Cable and Satellite have different rules for this.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

This has been a long-standing advantage cable had over sat, and the cable industry has worked hard (greased pockets) to ensure that through legislation and regulation that Directv and Dish could not offer significantly viewed / near market locals or nationals to all their customers. 

However, I've noticed that in some cities in the last few years many cable companies are slowly dropping the extra near-market locals and cutting down to just the official list of local market network affiliates. For instance, in my own town Time Warner used to have PBS from my city and three others, now TW is down to just 2. They provide 2 CBS and Fox, but just the one local ABC, NBC and CW, while 10+ years ago they had 2-3 of each.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

jtudor said:


> What I dislike is not being able to have 2 sources for network programming. Quite often a local station will pre-empt a network show for something local and with DTV, then I have no way to see the network show. While I was a cable customer, I had two sources for each of the networks (well the major ones at least).
> 
> I don't understand why Cable and Satellite have different rules for this.


Good point. Comcast has the additional major networks (ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS) from my secondary local market that Directv doesn't offer. Of course we are in the Spot Beam but Directv can't turn those on. I get them them OTA but most Directv subs cannot.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Called Directv yesterday to start the paperwork on applying for a waiver to get a Fox and ABC replacement. CSR was not aware of the dispute and said until she could see them no longer available, she could not start the process.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

I doubt that communications on the local level will have any impact. Since the messages on all stations web sites are almost identical, this seems to be a corporate issue that will be dealt with between Raycom and DirecTV. Local GMs will have no impact.


----------



## Stewpidity (Jan 26, 2008)

taz291819 said:


> Ok folks, here is an update regarding Raycom and Directv. There seems to be confusion on Raycom's part. According to Directv, Raycom's contract automatically renews for another year on December 31st, since Raycom did not give Directv notice of cancellation.
> 
> http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/12/directv_says_it_has_no_plans_t.html


so do we trust this report ? or should I start making alternative plans ?

possibly losing FOX & ABC this weekend


----------



## Montezuma58 (May 24, 2004)

The url that directv has in the guide is working now ( http://www.directv.com/alert ). Before I was just getting a page not found message.

It looks like it's a generic response used for any of these negotiations.



http://www.directv.com/alert said:


> We're Negotiating to Keep Your Local Broadcast Station on DIRECTV
> DIRECTV is currently negotiating with the owners of your local broadcast station to continue carrying their channels after our contract with them expires.
> 
> As a negotiating tactic, they have decided to run a message on these channels threatening their removal from DIRECTV. We have been negotiating in good faith to try and reach a resolution and will continue to do so. If an agreement is not reached by the deadline, we intend to continue to provide the stations unless the station owner demands that we take them down. If they do come down, it will have been solely the station owner's decision to take the channels away from our customers.
> ...


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

MikeW said:


> Local GMs will have no impact.


 ... but they can apply pressure up the line.


----------



## jtudor (Feb 24, 2008)

It's almost Dec 31 here, and my Raycom Station is still airing the banner, so I guess Raycom still thinks negotiations are ongoing? I hope I don't lose my CBS station tomorrow night, but I am not going to hold my breath.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

Is Raycom the same as this below?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ith-hearst-to-carry-tv-stations-update1-.html


----------



## shy007 (Apr 11, 2003)

No. Directv claims the contracts are extended thru end of 2011. I guess we will find out today who is right.


----------



## Stewpidity (Jan 26, 2008)

west99999 said:


> Is Raycom the same as this below?
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ith-hearst-to-carry-tv-stations-update1-.html


no that is Hearst, different provider


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

shy007 said:


> No. Directv claims the contracts are extended thru end of 2011. I guess we will find out today who is right.


I believe even with an auto-renew contract, Raycom could still request the stations be pulled. The above response from Directv seems to mimic what they said in the link I posted.


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

taz291819 said:


> I believe even with an auto-renew contract, Raycom could still request the stations be pulled. The above response from Directv seems to mimic what they said in the link I posted.


Ok and we have news on the Raycom front courtesy KOLD http://www.kold.com/


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

This says that Raycom has substantially agreed to mutually agreed terms and is waiting for DirecTV to sign, which would cover through 2014.

http://www.wxix.com/global/story.asp?s=13659842


----------



## shy007 (Apr 11, 2003)

Same on my station (WIS Columbia, SC).

This info is on their website.

*Important notice for DirecTV subscribers.*
We have provided DirecTV a signed copy of an agreement that will allow continued carriage of this station to DirecTV subscribers into 2014. We are awaiting their signature.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

did Raycom and Directv come to an agreement? What happens if Directv does not sign?


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

dorfd1 said:


> did Raycom and Directv come to an agreement? What happens if Directv does not sign?


To answer both questions Im not sure.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

cjrleimer said:


> To answer both questions Im not sure.


it sounds like raycom is waiting to sign a contract but why would directv sign a contract they claim has automatically been extended till 2011? if the stations do get removed would it happen at midnight?


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> This says that Raycom has substantially agreed to mutually agreed terms and is waiting for DirecTV to sign, which would cover through 2014.
> 
> http://www.wxix.com/global/story.asp?s=13659842


Raycom has agreed in writing to substantially all the terms mutually negotiated

There is a difference between substantially agreeing and agreeing to substantially all terms. What we don't see is the terms (albeit, not substantial) that Raycom did not agree to in the signed document. This sounds more like posturing than anything else.

Time will tell.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

MikeW said:


> Raycom has agreed in writing to substantially all the terms mutually negotiated
> 
> There is a difference between substantially agreeing and agreeing to substantially all terms. What we don't see is the terms (albeit, not substantial) that Raycom did not agree to in the signed document. This sounds more like posturing than anything else.
> 
> Time will tell.


as long as guide data for the ota channel does not go away I will be fine.


----------



## Eddie L. (Jul 6, 2007)

MikeW said:


> Raycom has agreed in writing to substantially all the terms mutually negotiated
> 
> There is a difference between substantially agreeing and agreeing to substantially all terms. What we don't see is the terms (albeit, not substantial) that Raycom did not agree to in the signed document. *This sounds more like posturing than anything else.*
> 
> Time will tell.


Bingo! That contract could contain anything in it. All Raycom is doing is trying to create the public perception that the ball is in DirecTV's court, not their court. If a dispute has been ongoing, this contract may not be any different than the one that has been causing the trouble all along.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Eddie L. said:


> Bingo! That contract could contain anything in it. All Raycom is doing is trying to create the public perception that the ball is in DirecTV's court, not their court. If a dispute has been ongoing, this contract may not be any different than the one that has been causing the trouble all along.


do you think the stations will stay or be removed?


----------



## tvjay (Sep 26, 2007)

Well being that the http://www.directv.com/alert page ONLY mentions Northwest Broadcasting, I am assuming all other broadcast groups are fine.


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

Id wait until Raycom and D release something stating they have reached a long term deal.


----------



## Montezuma58 (May 24, 2004)

The station in Huntsville is still up this morning. They still have the alert channel in the guide too.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

On our Raycon station's news last night they announced that Raycom had signed the new agreement thought 2014 and forwarded it to D* for their signature. The crawl at the beginning of the NBC news said the same thing.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Our local CBS and Mtn stations were both dark for a short time this morning here in Cleveland when suddenly they were opened back up with a message that they were being kept on in good faith while negotiations continued.


----------



## Gary*W* (Sep 19, 2007)

The crawl about the D* contract issue reappeared on WMC ch. 5 in Memphis TN. yesterday


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I noticed this just a few minutes ago... Sigh...



> *Important notice for DirecTV subscribers*
> DirecTV has refused Raycom's offer to enter into a contract that would allow continued carriage of this station through June 2014. Raycom and DirecTV continue negotiations for carriage rights of this station on the DirecTV service.


~Alan


----------



## shedberg (Jan 20, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> I noticed this just a few minutes ago... Sigh...
> 
> ~Alan


Me too. However my channel is still there. Are the negotiations for 2012 and on since there was an auto renewal for 2011?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Seems a "good faith" extension is in play...with the idea of landing an agreement any time...both sides would have to agree to that...so I'd actually take it as a good sign.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Seems a "good faith" extension is in play...with the idea of landing an agreement any time...both sides would have to agree to that...so I'd actually take it as a good sign.


Exactly. That normally means they're very close to a deal, just working out a few minor wrinkles.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

taz291819 said:


> Exactly. That normally means they're very close to a deal, just working out a few minor wrinkles.


Here's some clarification and update on this matter...in another thread.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2674637#post2674637


----------

