# ENOUGH WITH LIN Television....



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

*I have had it with LIN TV*.

Where I live even with an antenna 35ft off my roof I still *can not* get WTNH (local ABC) OTA. When I complain to WTNH I get only a canned response from WTNH telling me "_you can always get WTNH-DT off the air... using an antenna_". How many ways do I have to say *I CAN'T RECEIVE IT WITH AN ANTENNA*?

Until LIN TV quits holding HD service for ransom I'll just watch the ABC shows on Channel 6 from RI which I can get in HD with an antenna. I'll get my local news from one of the other CT stations all of which I get in HD.

I *REFUSE*to be used as a pawn. 
I *WILL NOT* put pressure on DirecTV to make an expensive deal with LIN which will mean higher costs for me. 
I *WILL NOT* watch the SD version of WTNH LIN allows DirecTV carry. 
I *WILL* watch the ABC shows I want even if that means out of state OTA or over the Internet.

I really like WTNH. I love their local news/weather but until LIN comes to their senses this the way it has to be.

Mike


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Maybe a letter to the editor would help at this stage.


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

*I posted this over in programming, but I thought I'D post it here too..

Sent the following to LIN TV today:*

Is there any time line as to when I can expect to see WPRI and WNAC in HD on DirecTV. I currently get WJAR and WLNE in HD. I contacted DirecTv and they informed me that the issue is on the LIN TV end. I have a very difficult time receiving these channels via and Over-The-Air antenna at my house. I have also been told that I am not eligible to receive waivers so I may get New York HD feed as you feel that will be a negative impact on your advertisers. This issue has become very frustrating as I cannot seem to get any kind of real answer as to if/when the HD versions of these channels will be available on DirecTV.

Your prompt response is appreciated.

Thank You,

John C. Knight

*And their response...*

Dear Mr. Knight,

Our parent company, LIN Television, has been unable to reach agreement with DirecTV on a carriage deal for HDTV for WPRI12 and FOX Providence.

I am hopeful that we will reach agreement in the near future, but cannot make any promises. I am surprised to hear that you are having a difficult time receiving our free over the air signals as we are usually available with a set top antenna in most of the viewing area. Please let us know if you need any technical advice on how to pick up our stations HD signals for free with an antenna.

Sincerely,

Jay Howell
[email protected]

President & General Manager
WPRI12/Fox Providence

*I encourage everyone to e-mail/call LIN TV to push this issue.

The contact emails I have are:

Pam Brennan <[email protected]>
Courtney Guertin <[email protected]>
Jay Howell <[email protected]>
[email protected]

We as the consumer have the power here. If enough of us call and complain, especially in these times of the Writer's Strike, when there will be little to no NEW programming on THEIR NETWORK, maybe, just maybe we can force their hands a little.

I would also suggest you copy DirecTv, though I don't have the appropriate contacts there.

Email them, call them, get your friends, family, neighbors, and even your enemys to. The squeaky wheel gets the grease!!!

Please post or PM me the responses you receive*


----------



## kstefanec (May 13, 2007)

And I thought I was the only one who got that P.O.'ed! :box:

Keep up the good fight!!!!


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

welcome to the club.... at least OTA works here for me..


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

I totally agree with you on this issue. I think it is ridiculous that free TV stations think they can charge providers for there service and ultimately costing us. 

I would send a letter saying you will be contacting there advertisers letting them know that they are getting less viewers because of this. Therefore they should get less money for the commercial aired on there station. Maybe that will wake up those money hungery idiots at those TV stations.


----------



## narcolept (Mar 1, 2007)

If you're going to go as far as contacting advertisers, you should refer them to the stations that are provided HD LIL by D*, as they'll get better value for their money by advertising on those stations which are received by cable, ota, AND DirecTV. 

There are no LIN owned stations here, and I'm thankful for that. If I was in your situation, I would be compiling lists of advertisers who are buying premium placement from LIN and I would be sure to CC a few people at LIN on each email, to make sure my point got across clearly.

That's just me though. Just think of it as Guerrilla Marketing for your own best interest!


----------



## Jon D (Oct 12, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> *I have had it with LIN TV*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What kind of antenna are you using to get the RI channel 6? I too am done waiting for LIN.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

johnck78 said:


> Please let us know if you need any technical advice on how to pick up our stations HD signals for free with an antenna.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> ...


Why don't you invite them over to set you up....


----------



## Azdeadwood (Aug 18, 2007)

I'm impressed you got a response. I never received a response from the Corporate office and the LIN station in Albuquerque always send the same form letter that is not even related to my email!


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

mhayes70 said:


> I totally agree with you on this issue. I think it is ridiculous that free TV stations think they can charge providers for there service and ultimately costing us.
> 
> I would send a letter saying you will be contacting there advertisers letting them know that they are getting less viewers because of this. Therefore they should get less money for the commercial aired on there station. Maybe that will wake up those money hungery idiots at those TV stations.


As opposed to the money hungry idiots at D*? If Lin stations are available in HD via local cable systems, they reached an agreement. So who is being unreasonable Lin or D*. I don't know.

So, you have no problem with every single "cable-only" (ESPN, etc.) channel charging you indirectly via a sat/cable provider. But, local OTA stations should allow third parties to profit by simply redistributing their product, without compensation? Also, D* has no plans (that I've heard of) to rebroadcast the sub-channels. So a local station developing additional content will not reach D* sat only viewers, limiting the potential ad revenue for those services, too.

By all means, sending the letters may help push a resolution. Good luck. But the vast majority of Americans can simply invest once, in a capable antenna system, and get an unbeatable PQ and additional future services (weather, live local sports, news, etc.) for free, for years.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> As opposed to the money hungry idiots at D*? If Lin stations are available in HD via local cable systems, they reached an agreement. So who is being unreasonable Lin or D*. I don't know.
> 
> So, you have no problem with every single "cable-only" (ESPN, etc.) channel charging you indirectly via a sat/cable provider. But, local OTA stations should allow third parties to profit by simply redistributing their product, without compensation? Also, D* has no plans (that I've heard of) to rebroadcast the sub-channels. So a local station developing additional content will not reach D* sat only viewers, limiting the potential ad revenue for those services, too.
> 
> By all means, sending the letters may help push a resolution. Good luck. But the vast majority of Americans can simply invest once, in a capable antenna system, and get an unbeatable PQ and additional future services (weather, live local sports, news, etc.) for free, for years.


CLEARLY the problem is with LIN. No LIN stations appear on Directv in hd. They are on Comcast and only recently on Cox cable. Very few other cable companies carry LIN hd stations. If Directv is willing to pay big bucks for NFL Sunday ticket, don't you think they would overpay for LIN stations if they were anywhere near reasonable in price?


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

raoul5788 said:


> CLEARLY the problem is with LIN. No LIN stations appear on Directv in hd. They are on Comcast and only recently on Cox cable. Very few other cable companies carry LIN hd stations. If Directv is willing to pay big bucks for NFL Sunday ticket, don't you think they would overpay for LIN stations if they were anywhere near reasonable in price?


Not necessarily.

ST helps get new subscribers to "move" to D*.

A few stations dotted around the country isn't as big a deal.

From what you say, Cox and Comcast made a deal. I'm sure that D* is counting on heat from viewers to the local Lin stations to help their negotiations.


----------



## Jon D (Oct 12, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> As opposed to the money hungry idiots at D*? If Lin stations are available in HD via local cable systems, they reached an agreement. So who is being unreasonable Lin or D*. I don't know.
> 
> So, you have no problem with every single "cable-only" (ESPN, etc.) channel charging you indirectly via a sat/cable provider. But, local OTA stations should allow third parties to profit by simply redistributing their product, without compensation? Also, D* has no plans (that I've heard of) to rebroadcast the sub-channels. So a local station developing additional content will not reach D* sat only viewers, limiting the potential ad revenue for those services, too.
> 
> By all means, sending the letters may help push a resolution. Good luck. But the vast majority of Americans can simply invest once, in a capable antenna system, and get an unbeatable PQ and additional future services (weather, live local sports, news, etc.) for free, for years.


I'm sure you can back up the accusation of money hungry idiots with documentation.. Everybody who runs a business wants to make money. That's the point. I have no problem with it either on the part of DirecTV or LIN. I believe LIN is making a strategic error that will hurt them in the end. Thousands of other stations have reached agreements acceptable to both them and DirecTV which makes LIN the oddball out. I believe that is the point everyone is making. "It's good enough for everyone else, why not LIN?"

The vast majority of Americans very well may be able to get their local stations with antennae, but most also want the convenience of not having to use one or be able to record programming in MPEG4. Additionally, most of the people posting on this topic are likely the un-vast minority that cannot receive the stations in question via antenna. This would include me. The terrain and distance prevent me from using one.

The local cable company here even dropped their SD station for a time. Unfortunately it is a smaller cable company and suffered more from not having the channel than LIN did, and so they gave in. What LIN is doing is basically extortion, unfortunately it seems to be legal. LIN is going through some restructuring and hopefully will get some new people at the top that will resolve this.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> So, you have no problem with every single "cable-only" (ESPN, etc.) channel charging you indirectly via a sat/cable provider. But, local OTA stations should allow third parties to profit by simply redistributing their product, without compensation? Also, D* has no plans (that I've heard of) to rebroadcast the sub-channels. So a local station developing additional content will not reach D* sat only viewers, limiting the potential ad revenue for those services, too.


I'm interested in what you mean by the local station's "product"? Does Lin own the syndicated programs it airs on its stations? No, it merely license their use from the real owners. I'll wager that they even were hardball in negotiating the fees for the use of that programming. Does Lin own the network programming that it airs on its station? No, that is owned by the network, and Lin is (most likely) paid by the network to carry that programming. So what product is Lin not being compensated for? Other people's product, it looks like.

Oh, and what is it that Lin claims that DirecTV is doing to justify Lin's asking for an apparently outrageous sum of compensation for carriage of its HD signal? Lin says they DirecTV is charging a "stiff fee" for carriage of its channel (see here for the quote). I don't know about you, but I don't consider $3.00 a month for all SD and HD local channels in the market a stiff fee. Furthermore, Lin, in the same message, makes outrageous claims about what DirecTV (along with the rest of the satellite/cable industry) has used that stiff $3.00 a month to do. Then Lin uses all these claims to justify asking an outrageous amount for carriage of their HD signal.

As for the subchannels, I would be willing to wager that Lin's idea of a subchannel that they'd like to force DirecTV to carry is a shopping channel that all the revenue generated would go to Lin... would that be a worthy use of DirecTV's bandwidth? Let's face it-by their actions so far, all Lin is worried about is maximizing their revenue streams coming from their TV stations. Don't expect them to provide weather, live local sports, news and other things just from the goodness of their hearts. The only thing Lin managemet is interested in is what will generate the most revenue for the Lin shareholders (of which I'm sure they have a sizable percentage.) Oh, and none of those services would be free... they would be advertiser supported. _Someone_ would pay for them!


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

LIN holds both Satellite providers customers Hostage... no CBSHD here in NM thanks to LIN...


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

If you were to have Michael Caffee pay LIN's affiliate a visit there in Providence, I'm sure they would "see the light" very quickly...


----------



## aramus8 (Nov 21, 2006)

You guys really need to start filing complaints with the FCC. Ask them to look into making it easier to get out of market stations when you can't receive a station over the air. Point out this is an issue specifically involving LIN. Question LIN's validity as a responsible licensee. A few thousand letters to the FCC over this and the LIN stations will have for sale signs going up quick. I've seen this work many times over various issues.


----------



## lobofanina (Apr 14, 2007)

dfergie said:


> LIN holds both Satellite providers customers Hostage... no CBSHD here in NM thanks to LIN...


At least we got grandfathered in on the Fox affiliate. It must have been one of stipulations when LIN took over Fox in New Mexico.


----------



## 2Guysfootball (Jul 2, 2007)

The only reason Cox Cable recieved Lin Hd here in Rhode Island is the State stepped in last year around the Super Bowl I think the threat was along the lines of looking at the Fair right to view at the time of there license renewal. Making viewers go out and buy new antennas they deemed as a unfair burden. 80% of the RI public have Cable but I have been seeing more and more Dishes go up(from both sat. companies)

I am not 100% sure on the exact wording they used but I know a few local station did a Consumer Report piece on it. I think one of them was a Lin owned station?

I have email LIN on this and have yet to get a responds from anyone there. I called twice and both times was told to hold then got hung up on.


----------



## lifelong (Sep 16, 2007)

I'd be interested to see what kind of "technical advice" they could give you. Ask them to send over an engineer to get you setup w/ OTA.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> As opposed to the money hungry idiots at D*? If Lin stations are available in HD via local cable systems, they reached an agreement. So who is being unreasonable Lin or D*. I don't know.


D* reached an agreement with Sinclair who is one of money grubbingness companies out there. The problem is with LIN.

Reaching an agreement for one network for local cable is different than reaching a blanket agreement for multiple affiliates nationwide.


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

OK, so I've successfully emailed back and forth with a contact at LIN corporate for a few months about this (about 3 or 4 emails - I send more than I receive). I sent another one yesterday and got this reply:

_"I appreciate all the emails. Please also know that we have been trying to negotiate with DirecTV for some time now. They are not returning our phone calls. Believe me, I want us to reach an agreement as much as you do."_

So... If this is true, it appears maybe D* is part of the problem? Maybe they got tired of LIN's hardball tactics and now don't want to deal with them at all? Maybe some of the D* insiders here could pass the word on to the appropriate people at D* that LIN is seemingly read to talk? Earl? Satelliteracer? Other D* insiders I don't know about?

It also sounds like all of our pressure on LIN is getting to them as they want to put this behind them. Let's keep it up! (And let's somehow get D* back to the table - if what my contact said is true about D* not returning calls.)


----------



## Rockywwf (Aug 21, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> CLEARLY the problem is with LIN. No LIN stations appear on Directv in hd. They are on Comcast and only recently on Cox cable. Very few other cable companies carry LIN hd stations. If Directv is willing to pay big bucks for NFL Sunday ticket, don't you think they would overpay for LIN stations if they were anywhere near reasonable in price?


Exactly. I posted about this about 2 months go in reference to WTNH in CT. Got the canned recorded responce that they have yet to reach an agreement. Upon research I found out that LIN all over the country will not make an agreement with D*V. They are basically looking to charge a ridiculous price to D*V for their HD signals. Well in my opinion F'em! I am not going to pay more on my bill for their station!


----------



## CKNAV (Dec 26, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> ST helps get new subscribers to "move" to D*.
> 
> ...


Cox only made the deal with LIN in CT six months ago. WTNH HD has been on the air since 1999. They kept HD signal from Cox for 8 years. Camcast is the only one that had HD from LIN for about 4 years. The fault lies with LIN period, since they are greedy.


----------



## ktk0117 (Nov 27, 2006)

It's not just Lin, it's also Weigel. I had to watch the Super Bowl last time in SD Friggin ridiculous.


----------



## rlhammon (Nov 11, 2007)

houskamp said:


> welcome to the club.... at least OTA works here for me..


You're lucky... I'm on the lakeshore and can barely, and only sometimes, pick up WOODTV8 (the Lin owned station in West Michigan).

I've sent several e-mails to both WOODTV and LIN corporate informing them that I now no longer watch their station, as I have HD TV's only and do not view SD channels anymore.

The local station responded with "use an OTA"... which I do, but being in my location it's near impossible to pick up (sand dunes in the way, and almost 50 miles to the tower).

I've given up on LIN... at least there isn't anything I miss watching on NBC.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Probably won't do much good with the current slate of FCC commisioners, but keep an eye on when a LIN stations broadcast license comes up for renewal and then let the FCC know your dissatisaction with LIN's holdout and they should not be granted continued use of the public airwaves.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Newshawk said:


> I'm interested in what you mean by the local station's "product"? Does Lin own the syndicated programs it airs on its stations? No, it merely license their use from the real owners. I'll wager that they even were hardball in negotiating the fees for the use of that programming. Does Lin own the network programming that it airs on its station? No, that is owned by the network, and Lin is (most likely) paid by the network to carry that programming. So what product is Lin not being compensated for? Other people's product, it looks like.
> 
> Oh, and what is it that Lin claims that DirecTV is doing to justify Lin's asking for an apparently outrageous sum of compensation for carriage of its HD signal? Lin says they DirecTV is charging a "stiff fee" for carriage of its channel (see here for the quote). I don't know about you, but I don't consider $3.00 a month for all SD and HD local channels in the market a stiff fee. Furthermore, Lin, in the same message, makes outrageous claims about what DirecTV (along with the rest of the satellite/cable industry) has used that stiff $3.00 a month to do. Then Lin uses all these claims to justify asking an outrageous amount for carriage of their HD signal.
> 
> As for the subchannels, I would be willing to wager that Lin's idea of a subchannel that they'd like to force DirecTV to carry is a shopping channel that all the revenue generated would go to Lin... would that be a worthy use of DirecTV's bandwidth? Let's face it-by their actions so far, all Lin is worried about is maximizing their revenue streams coming from their TV stations. Don't expect them to provide weather, live local sports, news and other things just from the goodness of their hearts. The only thing Lin managemet is interested in is what will generate the most revenue for the Lin shareholders (of which I'm sure they have a sizable percentage.) Oh, and none of those services would be free... they would be advertiser supported. _Someone_ would pay for them!


The contract that a local station has (pays bucks for) with a syndicated program provider is for exclusive distribution of it within their DMA. They bought the rights.

The same applies the the contract a local station has with their network. Gone are the days when local stations were paid to be an affiliate. Most stations now pay to carry network programming. Again, with exclusive rights within their DMA.

When cable first started, operators simply passed OTA signals to households. It was a great symbiotic relationship. The cable company made money providing a better PQ and access to homes that couldn't get a decent OTA signal. The station benefited by having more viewing households.

Then cable changed the game. They started selling local ad insertion on cable channels. (To maximize the profits...like the evil LIN and D* empires ). The cable company was now taking ad dollars away from local TV stations. So, the local stations demanded that they must pay to carry their product, since they are also going after the same local ad revenue base, too.

A local station is wise to demand must carry of it's sub-channels. Why let a cable or sat provider "cherry-pick" only what they want to deliver, helping themselves and hurting the local station? Remember, for example, that ABC has several cable channels (ESPN, SOAPnet, A&E, etc.) you know that they mandate that cable/sat operators carry some of their less popular cable channels they may not want to. So why is that OK for a multi-channel cable programmers, and not a local station?

By FREE sub-channels I meant free to the end user with an antenna. Of course they would be advertiser supported. But, they will get less ad revenue if they are not viewable in the homes of all D* "dish-only" subscribers.

Maybe LIN is asking too much. I don't know. Maybe the other locals have yet to consider the future impact of the developing sub-channel market and are short changing themselves. I don't know that either.

I like to hear what both sides are asking for.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Our LIN station has a subchannel of weather radar - no audio, no commercials, just radar - how would they claim that generates any revenue for them ?


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

bhelton71 said:



> Our LIN station has a subchannel of weather radar - no audio, no commercials, just radar - how would they claim that generates any revenue for them ?


It could be a "placeholder". As the product develops and gains viewership, then ad insertion, and revenue, can follow later.

Also, it helps branding. If you use the "radar channel", you may be more likely to watch that station's news, too.

Locals are still trying to figure out what they want to/can do with these "new channels". Since day one, it's been a single "pipe" for a local TV station to feed. They now have to develop infrastructure to multi-cast.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

bhelton71 said:


> Our LIN station has a subchannel of weather radar - no audio, no commercials, just radar - how would they claim that generates any revenue for them ?


I'm surprised that they're still doing that. The FCC mandated that the subchannels needed to follow the same rules as the main channels for the amount of educational progamming they needed to show. Our local stations, including the two LIN stations here pulled their weather sub channels last winter.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

RAD said:


> I'm surprised that they're still doing that. The FCC mandated that the subchannels needed to follow the same rules as the main channels for the amount of educational progamming they needed to show. Our local stations, including the two LIN stations here pulled their weather sub channels last winter.


Yep...you're right.

Some locals are just hoping that they don't get busted and the FCC reverses that decision soon.

Personally, I think it ties the hands of local stations who want to develop all local news, all local weather, etc. sub-channels. Now they must either produce, or buy, programs that may not fit the format of what they want to deliver.

Remember that cable channels have no obligation to provide educational/informational programming. Only OTA stations have more of these rules to follow.

Think if ESPN had this mandate. Ugh!


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

As a CT resident I also suffer from lack of WTNH in HD. As more and more people go to HD, I would think it would hurt the viewers eventually and thus the station revenue. In a state as small as CT and surrounded by other ABC stations we have OTA choices. I am much close, physically, to Springfield, MA than New Haven. I'm sure I couldn't pick up WTNH on an antenna if I had one - I'm 5 miles from Mass. border.

I also still have basic cable (long reason) and I get the digitial signals on that so if I really want to watch ABC in real time in HD I just flip to the cable signal. 
Some time these companies are going to iritate enough politicans or people who write to them that rules will be passed to easily allow distant networks to be carried when the local stations don't want to be reasonable.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Yep...you're right.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Think if ESPN had this mandate. Ugh!


"And welcome to ESPN's presentation of the National Football League. And now '13th Century French Poetry: A quarterbacks perspective'. Here are your hosts: Joe Buck and Troy Aikman"


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

This is giving me deja vu regarding "local" signals vs. distant networks. For several years, I could not get a FOX affiliate in my area (Fallon is 60 miles east of Reno and Carson City). All of the other stations happily gave me waivers (even KOLO ABC which had a repeater in Fallon, so I could get that one via OTA). FOX flat out refused. No way, no how. They even claimed to have sent a tech out to my address and he got an "acceptable" signal strength. Here's the rub, the "local" FOX affiliate in Reno isn't even a local affiliate. They are simply a reboradcast feed of the San Francisco FOX affiliate! All I can say is that they have b_lls!!!

To this day, even though I now get FOX via DirecTV, I refuse to patronize any establishment owned by Luthor Mack (the owner of KRXI)!


----------



## sr6376 (Sep 18, 2007)

First, what does "LIN" stand for? 

Second, I am in RI and HATE the fact that I have to have an OTA antenna to get Fox 64 and CBS 12 in HD. I had Cox for years and was pissed off that I couldn't get either with them either. Then I switch to D* for better HD and both of those channels now finally come over Cox. Figures!

Anyhow, I am lucky to pick-up the channels as a co-worker of mine cannot get Fox 64 for some reason on his OTA. 

My personal feeling is that this is more of an issue of the local stations trying to strong-arm the providers (Cox, Full Channel, D*, etc) into paying more for the right to have the station on their system. Why should those providers have to pay more for programming which is "free over the airwaves" anyways?? What's the big deal!


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

sr6376 said:


> First, what does "LIN" stand for?
> 
> Second, I am in RI and HATE the fact that I have to have an OTA antenna to get Fox 64 and CBS 12 in HD. I had Cox for years and was pissed off that I couldn't get either with them either. Then I switch to D* for better HD and both of those channels now finally come over Cox. Figures!
> 
> ...


EXACTLY!!!

We the consumer need to get involved. E-MAIL LIN, CC DirecTV. E-Mail their advertisers... I already sent an e-mail to Cardi's, I'll post the reply if I ever get one.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

sr6376 said:


> Why should those providers have to pay more for programming which is "free over the airwaves" anyways?? What's the big deal!


The deal is that some local cable companies have launched local cable channels (news/weather/local info/etc.).

That is content that competes with the OTA stations. Therefore, they are also competing with the local stations for advertisers, and viewers, both. Call your local stations and ask if cable insertion is a major or minor impact on them.

The FCC ruled that since cable/sat companies have become potential competitors, rather than only passive re-transmitters, local OTA channels have the right to negotiate compensation.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

sr6376 said:


> First, what does "LIN" stand for?


IIRC:

L = Lousiville
I = Indianapolis
N = Nashville

These were the three cities that they purchased stations in.


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

<<BUMP>>

We need to keep interest in this going...... We need to put pressure on LIN!!!


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Here is a blog subject about this very issue.

http://wtnh.tv/blogs/index.php/wtnh...mming&page=1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&disp=single

Maybe there is something similar on other LIN stations.

Mike


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

<<BUMP>>


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> The contract that a local station has (pays bucks for) with a syndicated program provider is for exclusive distribution of it within their DMA. They bought the rights.
> 
> The same applies the the contract a local station has with their network. Gone are the days when local stations were paid to be an affiliate. Most stations now pay to carry network programming. Again, with exclusive rights within their DMA.
> 
> ...


Sub channels CAN be nice...some are 21 hours of a radar map with the other hours being occasional break-ins for weather updates. Nice to have, but not quite compelling when weather.com gives me the same thing.

A network news feed is also nice...but amounts to a national channel.

rarely will a subchannel have significant programming. I've yet to see a pop-up on a local OTA station saying "because the game went over, channel X-2 will carry your regular programming while X-1 will carry the game."

which would be great.

Must-carry for subchannels invites a 24-7 infomercial channel that nobody watches, taking up bandwith that could see much better use.

I think TV stations will have to begin using their subchannels better before either satcaster thinks about picking them up.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Ext 721 said:


> Sub channels CAN be nice...some are 21 hours of a radar map with the other hours being occasional break-ins for weather updates. Nice to have, but not quite compelling when weather.com gives me the same thing.
> 
> A network news feed is also nice...but amounts to a national channel.
> 
> ...


Like I said earlier, the infrastructure needs to be developed on the local end, before more content can be delivered. Just because you haven't seen something yet, isn't necessarily predictive of the future.

Time-Warner Cable in Austin, and in some other markets, has a local 24 news channel, for example. It's all about the sat/cable/fiber provider compensating the local channel for both using its product to get subscribers and also trying to make additional revenue, to the detriment of the local station, by going after its same ad base.

Allowing the sat/cable/fiber providers to create "local channels" gives viewers more options for content (that's good). Some cities have competing cable companies, in addition to competition from two sat providers. Some cable/fiber companies are promoting their exclusive local content to woo customers to their service.

The FCC had to choose. Either allow sat/cable/fiber operators the option to develop these additional services, only if local stations can negotiate compensation (including must carry of sub-channels) to offset the negative impact. Or force them to be passive re-transmitters only, denying them the ability to develop more content.

So, it doesn't matter if it's a waste of bandwidth (which it could very well be!), or not. If the local station says "you must take all of our channels, or nothing" it's simply the cost of doing business for the providers, if they want to carry it. If only one service reaches an agreement, then it can promote the exclusive local availability of WXXX in HD to attract new customers. Just like D* uses Sunday Ticket.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

At least LIN's also being jerks with cable, check http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6512961.html.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

johnck78 said:


> *I posted this over in programming, but I thought I'D post it here too..
> 
> Sent the following to LIN TV today:*
> 
> ...


Where the heck do you live in RI???! I had an H20-600 receiver and I lived in Exeter for 3 years and WPRI was one of the strongest HD signals! (The state is only 45 miles from SW to NE corner.)
I find it REALLY hard to believe you cannot get WPRI-TV/WNAC unless you are 
a) using a paperclip for an antenna -or-
b) putting then antenna in a metal enclosure

Now, WLNE pixelized a every now and then since they put that tower closer to New Bedford and my antenna was pointed to TV 10/12/64.

Also, I managed to get channels 2,4,5, and 44 from Boston 99% of the time with no problem. Exeter is one of the low points in the county/state of Rhode Island less than 15 miles from the south coast.

Maybe you need to get some RG-6, a preamp, and an outdoor antenna with some gain to it and you'll be OK. I find it amazing to believe DTV is even putting a small market (#52 nationally) like Providence/New Bedford HD on the dish. Consider yourself lucky you don't just get SD like a bunch of other larger markets.

LINN is screwing everyone. Perhaps if you really want to get their attention make some calls to their advertisers and mention their stubbornness. That'll get them off their high horse.


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

You guys are missing the point of the law needs to be immediately changed, which means contacting your elected representatives and demanding they do something to earn their keep in Washington. Please, stop laughing.

They are the ones who bowed to lobbyist pressure several years ago and created the abomination now known as SHIRPA, which needs to be repealed. 'course that will probably happen as quickly as getting a deal with LIN.

Dave


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

<<Bump>>

Anyone have any update/workaround for this? Superbowl on WNAC-64 FOX which is owned by LIN!


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

Even if a deal were reached today, I doubt there'd be time to get all the LIN stations setup in HD before this weekend.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

johnck78 said:


> <<Bump>>
> 
> Anyone have any update/workaround for this? Superbowl on WNAC-64 FOX which is owned by LIN!


Lock yourself in a sound proof room during the game then watch the HD rerun on the NFL channel.


----------



## pratttech (Jan 13, 2008)

MicroBeta said:


> I *WILL* watch the ABC shows I want even if that means out of state OTA or over the Internet.


LOL for me I need OTA for in-state. My dang DMA is out-of-state.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Oct 3, 2004)

Yes, it is really a life changing event to miss the SuperBowl, isn't it?


----------



## Rockywwf (Aug 21, 2006)

jdspencer said:


> Maybe a letter to the editor would help at this stage.


Tried it did nothing. I also called and quickly got shuffled over to a pre-recorded message that basically says "we don't care about viewers we just want to get paid for our HD signal"...well at least that's what I got out of it.

I am myself done with WTNH! If DTV dropped them tomorrow I wouldn't even care. Oh and forget that waiver because WTNH refuses it and says to use an antenna which does not work from my location.

100th post!!!!!


----------



## Rockywwf (Aug 21, 2006)

My reply from WTNH in CT:

Good afternoon,

Thank you very much for your e-mail regarding our HD services in the Hartford/New Haven area. In order for DirecTV to view WTNH in HD, we must enter into a contractual agreement. WTNH is just as eager as you are to successfully negotiate with DirecTV and provide subscribers our signal in HD.

I understand your frustrations but must emphasize that what is at stake in these negotiations is not just an allocation of cost between cable and satellite systems such as DirecTV and broadcasters but the very survival of high quality local stations. WTNH is fully-committed to providing its viewers with the best local and network programming and the best in HD picture quality. Needless to say, doing so is extremely expensive. We have spent millions of dollars to upgrade our facilities nationwide so that we may broadcast a pristine, high-definition signal to households like yours.

For years, we and other broadcasters allowed these companies to carry our stations at no cost while they charged viewers a stiff fee for those very same stations. To make things worse, they have used the revenues from local broadcast stations to pay our cable and satellite network competitors. Those competitors now routinely outbid us for signature entertainment and sports programming despite the fact that they get a fraction of the viewing we get. We have made a determination that we cannot continue on this path, much less make the transition to digital, and continue to provide you with the best prime time network, sports and high-quality local news programming unless we get a modest-but-fair share of the pay television revenues.

Most of the cable and satellite companies that carry our stations have recognized this new reality and are now compensating us. We are optimistic that we will reach a deal with DirecTV too - and we are committing tremendous resources to getting that deal done sooner rather than later.

Thanks very much for your interest.

Judi Mickmac

Program Manager

WTNH/WCTX

phone - 203-784-8944

fax - 203-752-1001

Ummmm, I call Shananigans!


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

Have you requested a waiver thru D*? if so have you requested a signal strength test thru D* for that channel that will force that station to negotiate with D* and have a independent tester come out and check signal levels at your home and if they do not have sufficient strength they have to grant the waiver that is the law. I used to work for D* and this was my job


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Rockywwf said:


> WTNH is fully-committed to providing its viewers with the best local and network programming and the best in HD picture quality. Needless to say, doing so is extremely expensive. We have spent millions of dollars to upgrade our facilities nationwide so that we may broadcast a pristine, high-definition signal to households like yours.


I always love it when a LIN station uses this line. The first part is the millions of dillars to upgrade their facilities nationwide. LIN has 27 television stations so yep they're going to have to spend millions to upgrade for ATSC transmission. But it's not like they've done that out of the goodness of their heart, without doing so the FCC would yank their broadcast license so they wouldn't be able to make millions.

As for the pristine HD signal, I don't know about the other LIN stations but the Austin LIN station by most accounts has the worst PQ for their upconverted SD programming. They don't have the facilities to time shift NBC network programming when they preempt it for other programming. They don't have the facilities to record syndicated programming like Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune which is in HD but we get a SD version.

Out local CBS affiliate, which is carried on D*, has local news in HD, can timeshift and record syndicated HD programming and has a good looking SD upconvert. If they can come to agreement with D* and others and provide the pristine HD signal why can't LIN with their crappy image?


----------



## dogs31 (Feb 27, 2006)

K4SMX said:


> If you were to have Michael Caffee pay LIN's affiliate a visit there in Providence, I'm sure they would "see the light" very quickly...


I'd send in Rambo instead.:kickbutt:


----------



## Rockywwf (Aug 21, 2006)

mtnsackett said:


> Have you requested a waiver thru D*? if so have you requested a signal strength test thru D* for that channel that will force that station to negotiate with D* and have a independent tester come out and check signal levels at your home and if they do not have sufficient strength they have to grant the waiver that is the law. I used to work for D* and this was my job


I requested a waiver twice. The second time they sent my email which stated I was not able to receive the signal over the air at my house with the 2 antennas I tried.

I never requested a signal test. BUT I'm sure if I spend a lot of money and have an antenna run from my roof in I may be able to pick it up but why should I go through that expense for one lousy channel?


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

RAD - same here. A sub-standard affiliate claiming that they're trying to fund their excellent operations.

LIN is nudging up to Cablevision somewhere warm.


----------



## Dan1 (Jul 25, 2007)

Rockywwf said:


> My reply from WTNH in CT:
> 
> Good afternoon,
> 
> Thank you very much for your e-mail regarding our HD services in the Hartford/New Haven area. In order for DirecTV to view WTNH in HD, we must enter into a contractual agreement. WTNH is just as eager as you are to successfully negotiate with DirecTV and provide subscribers our signal in HD.


That is the exact letter, word for word, that I got from WISH (CBS - Indianapolis), also a LIN station. And it sounded so personal when I first read it!


----------



## mikhu (Oct 10, 2006)

Although I am the furthest thing from a Packer fan, I live in Packerland. Our local Fox affiliate is owned by LIN. For that reason (and that reason alone!) I was hoping the Packers would have beaten the Giants and gone to the Super Bowl. The uproar would have been tremendous. It was pretty bad as it was for the championship game. This is because LIN refuses to come to a deal with both D* and Time Warner in this area, so all cable and sat feeds of our local Fox affiliate are in SD in this area.

I don't know how LIN came to a deal with some cableco's around the country, but around these parts they are hated like no other. No one is able to watch Fox in HD unless they have an antenna (I do, so it doesn't bother me too much personally).

So yeah, I would have to strongly disagree with anyone who blames this on D*. This is LIN's fault all the way. Why are they so special? Why does their investment in HD broadcast equipment give them the right to charge for their product when EVERY OTHER network doesn't? I'm sure they all invested heavily as well.

If you all want to read some humorous angry responses to this mess, here's a blog from our local station director at our Fox affiliate. It's almost humorous how he toes the company line.

http://community.myfoxnewisconsin.com/blogs/Jay_Zollar/2007/11/21/HD_Programming


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

I mentioned in another thread that IMO, the only way to affect change with LIN, is to hit THEM where it hurts, in their wallet. Complain to their LOCAL ADVERTISERS and tell them they are losing viewers because of LIN's strong arm tactics and that maybe they(the advertisers) should take this lower viewership into consideration when paying for/buying advertising. 

Granted this isn't much of a shot, but IMO it's the only shot, as the only thing LIN knows is money. If they start losing money, due to their tactics, they will change them.


----------



## chrisexv6 (Sep 14, 2002)

FWIW I too got the same "we're trying to recoup $$$ for the signals we paid to upgrade" response.

My reply to that was that Im in the lucky position of getting WTNH-DT or WABC-DT over the same antenna. I also told them which one I expected would get completely removed out of the guide on my receivers. Not that they care, but hey I can function perfectly fine without WTNH.

Now maybe Ill start complaining to their advertisers..........but that might require actually seeing who advertises on the channel


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

That blog is hilarious.

Hmmm - the FCC database has a license expiry date of 2007 for both the analog and digital channels of the CT LIN ABC affiliate.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Rockywwf (Aug 21, 2006)

Dan1 said:


> That is the exact letter, word for word, that I got from WISH (CBS - Indianapolis), also a LIN station. And it sounded so personal when I first read it!


Oh I knew this was a generic letter when I opened it. I am actually gound to reply back to the fact that this letter has been previously posted on the internet with the call letters changed.

LIN :new_cussi


----------



## tfederov (Nov 18, 2005)

So what happens in February 2009 when all channels have to go digital? I mean I know it's a year away but won't their signal be sent to carriers in HD automatically?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

tfederov said:


> So what happens in February 2009 when all channels have to go digital? I mean I know it's a year away but won't their signal be sent to carriers in HD automatically?


That's a really good question.

Will the HD signal be automatically replace the SD version I have now?

OR

Without a carriage agreement does that mean that Directv will stop carrying WTNH(in my case)?

Mike


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

I mentioned this question "elsewhere" - my guess is that LIN will be forced to give up, but it's merely a guess


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

LIN can provide a Digital SD signal


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

jefbal99 said:


> LIN can provide a Digital SD signal


Forgot about that one.

That would seem to imply that the status quo would exist.

However, what's the likely hood that a network affiliate would have a digital 4x3 480p signal replacing the lost analog signal?

Does the station have a 4x3 480p subchannel right now? I can't tell because I can't get the OTA but if they don't, I can't see them adding one.

When the analog signals stop, do the stations loose that frequency or do the simply convert it to digital?

I never really thought about what happens when the shut off date gets here. I'll have to look that one up.

Mike


----------



## pratttech (Jan 13, 2008)

Hey you guys posting about WNAC (FOX 64)--

Anyone else ever notice in the guide data that WJAR (NBC 10) lists the station as Providence, MA? Rhode Island is small, but you think they could get it right-- Providence is the state capital. :lol:


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Chuck W said:


> I mentioned in another thread that IMO, the only way to affect change with LIN, is to hit THEM where it hurts, in their wallet. Complain to their LOCAL ADVERTISERS and tell them they are losing viewers because of LIN's strong arm tactics and that maybe they(the advertisers) should take this lower viewership into consideration when paying for/buying advertising.
> 
> Granted this isn't much of a shot, but IMO it's the only shot, as the only thing LIN knows is money. If they start losing money, due to their tactics, they will change them.


If I were an advertiser on a Lin station, I'm not by the way. The first thing I would do when I got your message is I'd think the person is complaining about not being able to view the station. So how did this person know to contact me? Bottom line they did see my advertising so my advertising dollars are working. Note to secretary, Please file this in the circular file.


----------



## Keane (Aug 1, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> .
> I really like WTNH. I love their local news/weather but until LIN comes to their senses this the way it has to be.
> 
> Mike


If all you want is the news and weather from them, why not just get it off the net?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

tfederov said:


> So what happens in February 2009 when all channels have to go digital? I mean I know it's a year away but won't their signal be sent to carriers in HD automatically?


Who says that cable or DBS has to carry the station. I thought it was the station that had to request that it be carried, maybe LINK just doesn't care if they get carried or not? LIN played chicken with Suddenlink cable in the north Austin burbs and they let them drop carriage. Suddenlink was in a good position where they could carry another NBC station from Waco so basically LIN scr*wed themselves.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Keane said:


> If all you want is the news and weather from them, why not just get it off the net?


That isn't all I want...

I also would not like to deal the reception problems from the RI ABC station. It doesn't always come in very well.

Mike


----------



## bb37 (Dec 27, 2007)

To me, it's a matter of fairness.

In the Indianapolis market, all of the major networks (ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, NBC, PBS) are broadcasting in HD. The CBS affiliate is a LIN station.

Here is breakdown of which providers in this area carry which network HD signals:

AT&T Uverse - ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC
Brighthouse - ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, NBC, PBS
Comcast - ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, NBC, PBS
DirecTV - ABC, Fox, NBC
Dish - none
Insight - ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, NBC, PBS

The glaring difference here is that LIN and the *cable* companies have come to terms so the *cable* customers get CBS in HD. LIN should make the same deal with DirecTV that they made with the cable providers and DirecTV should make the same deal with LIN that they made with the other network broadcasters in town. Why is the LIN-DirecTV arrangement different? I am not an attorney and I don't know the financial details of these arrangements, but this smells like a restraint of trade situation.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

bb37 said:


> To me, it's a matter of fairness.
> 
> In the Indianapolis market, all of the major networks (ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, NBC, PBS) are broadcasting in HD. The CBS affiliate is a LIN station.
> 
> ...


They may have come to terms but at what cost. Any deal that Directv makes with LIN will set the price that all the other locals will go after. That means LIL cost will go up for us. If Directv does not want to increase the cost of LIL, they can not cave to LIN.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

bb37 said:


> To me, it's a matter of fairness.
> 
> In the Indianapolis market, all of the major networks (ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, NBC, PBS) are broadcasting in HD. The CBS affiliate is a LIN station.
> 
> ...


You're taking the right view, but on the wrong data.

Take ALL the US-wide affiliates that D* has LIL. Every market. It's a big number.

Take ALL the missing major networks, a pretty small number by comparison.

Look at the owner of the networks in the smaller list - it's almost exclusively LIN now.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

My guess is that Anybody with a analog contract will be reading the contract carefully. 

Does it say they can downconvert to SD?
Does it say they can not downconvert and must negotiate a HD and HD to SD contract?
Does the government have any regulations covering this scenario? Or ???


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

TBoneit said:


> If I were an advertiser on a Lin station, I'm not by the way. The first thing I would do when I got your message is I'd think the person is complaining about not being able to view the station. So how did this person know to contact me? Bottom line they did see my advertising so my advertising dollars are working. Note to secretary, Please file this in the circular file.


Then you would not make a good advertising exec. Taking a snapshot of who advertises, is hardly considered success, from an advertising standpoint. Who is advertising is one thing, WHAT they are advertising, is another. I will not watch WTNH, at all anymore. If I must watch ABC, I watch WABC, on my cable system(for which I still have basic cable). When I see my wife stop on that channel, to watch something, i MAKE her change it to WABC. She thinks it's silly, but I really don't, as I resent the game LIN is playing that much.

For every one person writing to them, there are probably a lot more that aren't, who won't even bother to turn their channel on, whatsoever.



bb37 said:


> LIN should make the same deal with DirecTV that they made with the cable providers and DirecTV should make the same deal with LIN that they made with the other network broadcasters in town.


And that's the problem. From what I have gathered(at least with the CT situation), Directv has offered the same agreement to LIN, that they have with other affiliates. However, LIN values themselves HIGHER than other affiliates in the areas and thus wants compensation for their perceived higher value. Directv is not will to do this, as it would set a precedent that would affect every deal they have with other affiliates(probably across the country). Charter cable, my local cable company, from what I can tell, is taking the same stance, as they do not have WTNH HD either, yet have all the rest. So this issue isn't exclusive to satellite.


----------



## mduz (Mar 25, 2006)

Chuck W said:


> I will not watch WTNH, at all anymore.


Same here.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> My guess is that Anybody with a analog contract will be reading the contract carefully.
> 
> Does it say they can downconvert to SD?
> Does it say they can not downconvert and must negotiate a HD and HD to SD contract?
> Does the government have any regulations covering this scenario? Or ???


LIN could see all their SD disappear from Directv under scenario #2 next year.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

If Lin doesn't present a value that others will pay for then sooner or later they'll be gone. 

I wonder if they've seen this thread or if someone should send them a copy/link for it?


The biggest problem with regards to LIN is that some systems have caved and paid so they believe their course is right. Plus the contracts they have may have a clause to the effect that if they give someone else a lower rate then they will have to lower the other signers rates. If nobody had signed then they would have felt the pressure. My guess that they have research, True or not, to the effect that not signing with D* has a minimal if any impact on their bottom line.

Veering off topic:
You are right I'd never make a good advertising exec. I don't want to try and influence anybody with regards to how they spend their money. 

When Somebody asks me what is the best "Insert choice here"

I give them the true answer, There is no best. My best cannot be best for you since we are not identical. 

Best Car? Money no Object? Large cargo capacity? Large passenger capacity? Low price? Fixed amount $, Then New better for one person and Quality used is better for someone eles. 2 door, 4 door, van, pickup and so on. 

For my father on food it was always best price. For me it is best quality I can afford.


----------



## Dr_J (Apr 15, 2007)

LIN whacked with $30 million settlement in the R.I. Station nightclub fire case:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/02/tentative_deal_set_in_ri_fire_case/


----------



## RTracey (Jan 14, 2008)

TBoneit said:


> I wonder if they've seen this thread or if someone should send them a copy/link for it?


I have a friend who works in sales at WTNH in New Haven, CT. I sent him the link, and he was quite concerned. Not keeping my hopes up though....

Ross


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Dr_J said:


> LIN whacked with $30 million settlement in the R.I. Station nightclub fire case:
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/02/tentative_deal_set_in_ri_fire_case/


The money is nothing. The insurance will pay most if not all of that. The real problem for LIN is the preception that the actions of one of their camera men was possibly responsible for some deaths. I am supprised that the camera man has not been charged with a criminal charge.


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

Looks like LIN and E* get along nicely....

View attachment 8254


This just sucks!!!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

johnck78 said:


> Looks like LIN and E* get along nicely....
> 
> View attachment 12331
> 
> ...


This is a promo that is being run in Austin TX due to our local LIN station and a cable company in a pissing match and LIN was pulled. Now what will be interesting is when/IF (say if since E* said Austin would have HD LIL's in 2006) E* fires up HD LIL will LIN stations be included.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

johnck78 said:


> Looks like LIN and E* get along nicely....
> 
> View attachment 12331
> 
> ...


I hope this doesn't force Directv's hand.

I'd hate to see them have to go to Lin, hat in hand, and be at their mercy.

Maybe that's why our prices went up...

Mike


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Unless I missed something, this is meaningless. There is nothing in their agreement about hd channels, only sd. Big deal, we already get those LIN channels from Directv. You can likely get the same credit by calling up Dish and asking for a discount.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

A $50.00 gift card in areas where LIN is not on cable when cable subs switch to Dish. The big question is what Dish is paying LIN per sub. The $50.00 is not really that much in the big picture. Is this deal an exclusive to these areas. Will LIN with hold availability to cable cos and Directv because of this deal. If so I wonder how the FCC would think about that. A lot of questions regarding this deal.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

Since Dish has announced plans to offer HD channels in Austin, let's see if the Dish/LIN sweetheart deal extends to the HD signal.

Of course, Charlie is a maverick, so....


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

As I recall, the only market that Dish Network carries with a LIN station is Albuquerque, and one of the two LIN stations is missing. I can't recall which one. So Austin will definitely be the one to look for, to see if the HD agreement has been made.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

raoul5788 said:


> Unless I missed something, this is meaningless. There is nothing in their agreement about hd channels, only sd. Big deal, we already get those LIN channels from Directv. You can likely get the same credit by calling up Dish and asking for a discount.


Ding ding ding - we have a winner.

Thank about it, those thinking this is NOT LIN's doing - you have cable companies willing to DROP THEIR SD channels!


----------



## bigglare (Feb 6, 2008)

johnck78 said:


> Looks like LIN and E* get along nicely....
> 
> View attachment 12331
> 
> ...


That sounds like a good deal for markets where the LIN station is carried by E*. Here in Albuquerque LIN owns both FOX and CBS affiliates.

Dish carries FOX HD but not CBS HD. Comcast here carries FOX HD but not CBS. Cable One, the cable company in the adjacent city of Rio Rancho carries both Fox and CBS in HD. It's not that LIN isnt playing nicely with providers, they simply are witholding from those who don't pay for their product, the combined package of programming they broadcast.

Just before the NFL playoff game a few weeks back between GreenBay and Giants, there was an article in the paper discussing the LIN ownership of FOX there. The Article actually revealed LIN's terms for Timewarner in Greenbay. Assuming its the same everywhere, $.02 per day per digital subsriber, thats only $.62 a month. Surely not a major expenditure by any means. Dish already charges $5 a month for locals, Comcast here in Albuquerque wants $12 a month for just the local channels.

Complaining to LIN won't help. They are a broadcaster. They send their signal OTA to viewers. They get paid by advertisers not viewers. We don't pay them anything. We do pay cable and satellite providers though for television services, including local channels as that is the point of this thread. We need to complain often to those who we send money to each month for services less than what we get with an antenna.

I know this is my first post here at DBS talk but I comment on our LIN problems extensively over at avsforum. When I built my new house last year I told builder to not run lines for cable to the house. When comcast came out after i moved in I called them up daily for 3 weeks until they sent a tech out to disconnect my house.

I paid comcast $150 a month for combined Internet and Television services for HD service. It was only in the last year that comcast added our CW and MyNetwork affiliates. NBC wasnt added until the last olympic games. Yet they still charged for their HD services forcing subs to get Digital cable packages, Digital Set top boxes, DVR fees if you want those.

We deserve to get what we pay for. If you want a local channel on a paid provider, call the provider not the broadcaster. Unfortunately if you live outside of the broadcast area or in a location where you physically cant receive the signal you're just sol.

Look on the brightside though, In a 375 days when the analog is turned off and cable and satellite providers lose even their analog channels they carry, they will find them forced to get out their wallets or loose these affiliates altogether. One thing we see is that cable providers at least will not go for long without any form of the networks, and when all thats left is the HD channel that they now will have to pay for.


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

(Welcome to the forums, bigglare!!!)


----------



## moghedien (Dec 3, 2007)

[QUOTE
Look on the brightside though, In a 375 days when the analog is turned off and cable and satellite providers lose even their analog channels they carry, they will find them forced to get out their wallets or loose these affiliates altogether. One thing we see is that cable providers at least will not go for long without any form of the networks, and when all thats left is the HD channel that they now will have to pay for.[/QUOTE]

Corporations aren't people; they don't have wallets. It is our wallets they will get out if they agree to LIN's asking price.

Cable and Satellite companies and the content providers raise rates all the time; I have no illusions about that. What bothers me is when a government-protected monopoly tries to act just like them. There is nothing, technology-wise, preventing Directv from providing me the national feed of NBC HD in the Austin area; it is, however, against the law for them to offer me anything except LIN's NBC affiliate in the Austin DMA without a waiver from the network.


----------



## bigglare (Feb 6, 2008)

moghedien said:


> Corporations aren't people; they don't have wallets. It is our wallets they will get out if they agree to LIN's asking price.
> 
> Cable and Satellite companies and the content providers raise rates all the time; I have no illusions about that. What bothers me is when a government-protected monopoly tries to act just like them. There is nothing, technology-wise, preventing Directv from providing me the national feed of NBC HD in the Austin area; it is, however, against the law for them to offer me anything except LIN's NBC affiliate in the Austin DMA without a waiver from the network.


$.60 cents is too much to ask for a local HD network? I heard ESPN wants like $2 per sub. Cable companies are the protected monopolies. It's not just the law that keeps carriers from offering out of market channels to you. Affiliates have legal contracts with networks to protect their audience. Broadcasters don't get paid by subscribers but by broadcasting advertising. If you allow an out of market station to be carried by in market providers you are stepping on their toes.

Profit isn't one of the Seven Deadly Sins, nor is it a word banned by the FCC.

Ask yourself these questions.

1. Do you pay anyone to receive a local channel over the air with rabbit ears? No.

2. Do you pay anyone to receive a local channel over a cable or satellite dish? Yes

3. Do you think someone should pay for something they get through a third party they could get free themselves?

4. Do you think the originator has a right to ask for compensation from the third party who is selling access to their content for a large price?

5. Do you think the reseller should pay for that which they are selling for a profit?

6. Can I build a large box around your house and sell you access to air? I will install the box at no charge to you. Better yet, Why don't I charge you a monthly Window and Door fee. I'll start the Windoor Company. If you want access to air by opening a door or window you have to pay me $49 a month, and $2 per addition door or window. There's a discount on locks, for the first 6 months I will waive the $.75 surcharge.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

bigglare said:


> That sounds like a good deal for markets where the LIN station is carried by E*. Here in Albuquerque LIN owns both FOX and CBS affiliates.
> 
> Dish carries FOX HD but not CBS HD. Comcast here carries FOX HD but not CBS. Cable One, the cable company in the adjacent city of Rio Rancho carries both Fox and CBS in HD. It's not that LIN isnt playing nicely with providers, they simply are witholding from those who don't pay for their product, the combined package of programming they broadcast.
> 
> Just before the NFL playoff game a few weeks back between GreenBay and Giants, there was an article in the paper discussing the LIN ownership of FOX there. The Article actually revealed LIN's terms for Timewarner in Greenbay. Assuming its the same everywhere, $.02 per day per digital subsriber, thats only $.62 a month. Surely not a major expenditure by any means. Dish already charges $5 a month for locals, Comcast here in Albuquerque wants $12 a month for just the local channels.


Only 62¢ per month per subscriber? That's for the High Definition version of one channel only. If LIN gets their way this time, what's to stop them from asking for another, oh, 62¢ per subscriber per month for the SD digital signal when its time for them to negotiate carriage again. That would make it $1.24 for LIN's station alone. Not to mention... why should LIN ask much more than many national cable networks per subscriber? I know it doesn't seem like much, but letting LIN get that sort of money is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, let's look at the entire Albuquerque market. There are presently 13 SD stations carried by DirecTV, with three of them also being carried in HD. Since, in the example you cite, the LIN Station has set the price for local channels in Albuquerque at 62¢ per month per subscriber, I would trust that no station in the market would settle for less. Of course, the FCC regulations allow for stations to claim "must carry" status, but if you choose must carry, you give up the right to be paid for carriage of your station.

So let's take a look at the worst case scenario-all 13 Albuquerque TV stations demand retransmission consent at LIN's price point. That is now 17 times the 62¢ per month per subscriber fee (13 SD plus 4 HD, as LIN's HD CBS station would be included in the mix.) Suddenly, for just the Albuquerque market, DirecTV would incur a monthly expense of $10.54 per subscriber per month! I don't know about you, but I sure would not want to see my local channel expenses go to over $10 a month.

Oh, and as for the "digital" subscriber... with DirecTV, all subscribers are digital subscribers, so the charge would apply to them all.



bigglare said:


> Complaining to LIN won't help. They are a broadcaster. They send their signal OTA to viewers. They get paid by advertisers not viewers. We don't pay them anything. We do pay cable and satellite providers though for television services, including local channels as that is the point of this thread. We need to complain often to those who we send money to each month for services less than what we get with an antenna.


It's funny... LIN apparently does not see itself the way you see it. You say that LIN is a broadcaster, paid only by the advertisers. LIN seems to think they are the brokers of a commodity that should be paid for by anyone who wants to view it. I'd venture to guess that if LIN could figure out a way to force OTA viewers to pay for the "privilege" of viewing their signal that they'd do it in a heartbeat. LIN has forgotten that (as my Intro to American Broadcasting professor said on day one of class) the purpose of American commercial television stations is to deliver as many viewers to a certain point in time so that an advertiser can deliver his message.



bigglare said:


> We deserve to get what we pay for. If you want a local channel on a paid provider, call the provider not the broadcaster. Unfortunately if you live outside of the broadcast area or in a location where you physically cant receive the signal you're just sol.


Just a bit of a cavalier attitude, don't you think? "I've got mine, Jack, so..." Besides, who said you aren't "getting what you paid for"?



bigglare said:


> Look on the brightside though, In a 375 days when the analog is turned off and cable and satellite providers lose even their analog channels they carry, they will find them forced to get out their wallets or loose these affiliates altogether. One thing we see is that cable providers at least will not go for long without any form of the networks, and when all thats left is the HD channel that they now will have to pay for.


First off, its not true that in "375 days" there will be nothing but HD channels broadcasting. Many stations will continue to broadcast in SD, but do it digitally. Also, the transition to digital may not have the earthshaking result you seem to expect. For all we know, DirecTV has already covered the transition to digital in the last round of station negotiations.

The only upshot of your scenario as far as I can see, is a huge increase in DirecTV's cost of bringing your local channels to you. Do you honestly expect DirecTV to absorb that potentially huge cost and not pass it on to the consumer-to you?


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

I offer my sympathies to any satellite customers who are in a LIN market. They appear to be nothing more than greedy corporate suits trying to make a buck any way they can.


----------



## bigglare (Feb 6, 2008)

A bit Quote happy are we here. Well I'll try to follow your arguement without having others kill their scroll wheels....

Let's not confuse Analog broadcast channels as SD. Let's assume that anyone who find their way to this forum knows the difference between SDTV and ANALOG as well as HDTV SDTV and DTV are all the same concept.

Sure right now we don't know what any provider cable or satellite has negotiated in the future. We can only discuss Ideal situations and realistic predictions.

That said I highly doubt any broadcaster is going to continue to produce an analog feed for their station to provide to cable and satellite providers past the deadline. Anyone with a digital tuner, whether its an SDTV or HDTV or a Digital Television Convertor Box, will receive the same Digital signal and display it appropriately. There won't be a need to produce an NTSC version when everything is supposed to be ATSC. 

Since digital satellite and digital cable and Digital Television are all different animals LIN's exact deal or terms can be different. Chances that every station in a market demanding a fee is unlikely. Who is going to be willing to pay for the local religous channel? Even if they did, Who gets directv or dish for just the local channels? Does D* charge for local channels? I know E* does, 5.99. 

Comcast for example charges 11.45 for just the local analog channels, another $8 for HDTV. $19 just for what I get for free with rabbit ears. And yet comcast wants to get all those channels for free making $19 in pure profit for them. That's some gouge.

I really couldn't find the price Directv would charge if you just wanted the local channels, but their smallest package they list on their website was 29.99. Then add the local package you would be paying over $30 for what you support directv getting for free.

So you're certainly happy to pay Directv or whoever your provider is a large amount of money each month as it is. Maybe you wont mind a $.02 cent a day increase. (since the monthly charge as you point out is .62 for a 31 day month and 60 for a 30 day month, 56 for february, unless its a leap year)

As far as your professor maybe he hasn't kept up with the times, FCC doesn't seem to care about the old fairness doctrine that was struck down in the 80s or a notion that stations are to educate, nor the fact that LIN is fully in its Congressionally granted right to charge carriage fee for its channel.

Yes I'm alot cavalier abput the whole notion. Broadcasters give you their signal free of charge OTA. If you refuse to use an antenna and rely on a third party provider thats your choice and you should take it to their complaints department.

I have 5 digital televisions in my house. All of them are jointly connected to a pair of rabbit ears in my attic as well as my dish. Why do you think Satellite companies build OTA tuners in their receivers? So they can save money not providing local channels because they are greedy SOBs that would rather you get your own local HD than provide them all themselves.

Thankfully our Digital Televisions can view the same broadcast whether its the local religious channel thats broadcasting SD and viewing on an HDTV or CBS broadcasting HD and viewing on an SDTV. All thats needed is one signal by each broadcaster. And that one signal can carry multiple channels too. But you knew that.

I totally expect prices to go up when they loose their analog locals and have to pay for the digital version. It's not like prices are frozen and never increase. But then when they just provide one version of a network and not have to provide the analog and digital version that should free up bandwith for them so they may not have to raise the rates but then that would show who the real greedy suits are. I really don't see the "Potentially huge costs" as you put it. They already carry the Digital versions, or if they were smart, planned room to carry them, so when the time comes they lose their analog channels and turn on the digital one.

If the price becomes too high we can always write to President Clinton or President Obama to ask for a National HDTVcare program to aid the millions of families in the US paying way too much for HDTVcare. :lol:


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

LIN reached a deal with Cable One to allow it to retransmit KASA's analog and HD signal in Albuquerque. So maybe there's hope for a deal with D*.

http://lintv.com/news/images/PDFs/n...es Deal with Cable One - January 29, 2008.pdf


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

bigglare said:


> Comcast for example charges 11.45 for just the local analog channels, another $8 for HDTV. $19 just for what I get for free with rabbit ears. And yet comcast wants to get all those channels for free making $19 in pure profit for them. That's some gouge.


In your numbers you've forgot a few items that Comcast needs to pay for:

- The cost of the cable system plant. That's a lot of wire spread all over the area
- The building and staff to the head end operation, plus all the customer support staff and back room operations
- Local government franchise fees
- Usually cable companies are required to provide public access services

How about having the FCC strike a better deal with LIN, they'll charge LIN only $0.01 per day per household in their DMA for use of the public airwaves, that they get to use for free, for distributing their signal?

Also, in one of your prior post you commented about cable channels like ESPN and what they charge. One thing you didn't mention in that post is that those cable channels allow DirecTV (and other distributors) to insert some of their own advertising into certain spots which helps offset the cost of the channel. Would LIN allow DirecTV to insert their own commercials like cable channels do?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

RAD said:


> In your numbers you've forgot a few items that Comcast needs to pay for:
> 
> - The cost of the cable system plant. That's a lot of wire spread all over the area
> - The building and staff to the head end operation, plus all the customer support staff and back room operations
> ...


But you are now bringing expenses into the equation without bringing the expense in on other sides...

DirecTV and Dish Network need create a receive facility within each DMA.
They need to have equipment to receive and possibly encode the signal.
They need to contract for a fiber network to deliver the signal.
They may even need more than one uplink center to drive it all.

And LIN? So what if they've received their public airwaves license for free. So did DirecTV and Dish Network. Yet I don't hear anyone asking that they give away their product for free. LIN also has expenses, all due to the transition:

They need a second transmitter.
They need power for a second transmitter.
They need switching equipment for their digital feed.
They need new HD cameras.
They need a new news studio for the HD camera.

Or are we forgetting the EXPENSE that is required for the digital transmission.

No, I don't like how LIN is holding everyone hostage. But I do understand.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Greg, never said they didn't have to pay those expenses. The post I was responding to was saying that Comcast was making pure profit on their bottom line basic cable charge of $19/month to retransmit the local channels and pointing out that Comcast does have overhead and it's not pure profit.


----------



## ktk0117 (Nov 27, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> . LIN also has expenses, all due to the transition:
> 
> They need a second transmitter.
> They need power for a second transmitter.
> ...


OK, but doesn't LIN got tons of $$$ from commercials? I thought that was how they got their money?

I just think it's BS that people like me are held hostage to Weigel (others LIN) because D* cannot make a commitment with them. Is it $$, or what?

Neither Weigel or D* could tell me why I cannot get CBS in HD (too far unless I install a massive antenna). When I can get NBC, FOX, & ABC in HD from the same local area, I want an explanation. Weigel blames D*, D* blames Weigel, and I can't get a waiver to receive national feed.

It's a bunch of BS powerplay. Time Warner not only offered me locals from 2 markets (http://www.timewarnercable.com/Custo...&Image1=submit), but I had Milwaukee CBSHD. But I can't get it with D* or Dish?

Sounds like cable has control.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

RAD said:


> Greg, never said they didn't have to pay those expenses. The post I was responding to was saying that Comcast was making pure profit on their bottom line basic cable charge of $19/month to retransmit the local channels and pointing out that Comcast does have overhead and it's not pure profit.


I understand, but let's not forget that there was this little complaint about terrestrial broadcasters not paying for an airwave license.

Everyone has overhead.


ktk0117 said:


> OK, but doesn't LIN got tons of $$$ from commercials? I thought that was how they got their money?


That isn't the only way they are trying to receive money, anymore. Let's face it, viewership on terrestrial broadcasters has been receding for the better part of two decades. Just like every other cable programmer, the terrestrial broadcasters have decided they need more than one revenue stream.


ktk0117 said:


> I just think it's BS that people like me are held hostage to Weigel (others LIN) because D* cannot make a commitment with them. Is it $$, or what?
> 
> Neither Weigel or D* could tell me why I cannot get CBS in HD (too far unless I install a massive antenna). When I can get NBC, FOX, & ABC in HD from the same local area, I want an explanation. Weigel blames D*, D* blames Weigel, and I can't get a waiver to receive national feed.


Actually, as I recall the race to get the SD channels up back in 2001, this is more likely Weigel's fault, to a point...

Weigel owns an independent channel in the Chicago market. I recall it being called WCIU. Weigel probably wants DirecTV to carry that channel in HD, and because it is an independent, DirecTV is not exactly keen on the idea.

This is what is currently happening over at Dish Network right now with the local FOX affiliates in Seattle and San Francisco. Tribune, which owns the two, also owns some major market CW stations, and want Dish Network to carry them. Dish Network appears to be saying no dice.


ktk0117 said:


> It's a bunch of BS powerplay. Time Warner not only offered me locals from 2 markets but I had Milwaukee CBSHD. But I can't get it with D* or Dish?
> 
> Sounds like cable has control.


To a point, they do.

Dish Network is no longer allowed to offer significantly-viewed channels, which would get you the second market you were looking for. DirecTV may be allowed to give the second market local channels, but have not done so in many markets at all.


----------



## bigglare (Feb 6, 2008)

It's really a matter of getting over the whole LIN or any broadcaster holding people hostage with their channels. They have a product (no matter how much you think of it as their product) and a right to ask third party providers like cable and satellite to pay for use of it on their systems. Broadcasters broadcast that's their thing. Ensuring that competing cable and satellite systems have free access to their product is crazy. 

They have set a price for their product. Dish and Directv and some cable systems are refusing to pay. Both sides have that right. But some cable systems have chosen to pay in order to provide their paying customers the best possible expirience. If these missing networks are that important to viewers cancel your subscriptions and use an antenna. Taking revenue away from the providers and stating the lack of major networks as the reason is the only way to get progress. These channels if their available in your location with an antenna are free to you as the broadcaster intends, as their FCC license provides for.

As our local Albuquerque Comcast office always states, "We don't think people should pay for something they get for free." Stop paying big providers for local channels when you can get them free.


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

bigglare said:


> It's really a matter of getting over the whole LIN or any broadcaster holding people hostage with their channels. They have a product (no matter how much you think of it as their product) and a right to ask third party providers like cable and satellite to pay for use of it on their systems. Broadcasters broadcast that's their thing. Ensuring that competing cable and satellite systems have free access to their product is crazy.
> 
> They have set a price for their product. Dish and Directv and some cable systems are refusing to pay. Both sides have that right. But some cable systems have chosen to pay in order to provide their paying customers the best possible expirience. If these missing networks are that important to viewers cancel your subscriptions and use an antenna. Taking revenue away from the providers and stating the lack of major networks as the reason is the only way to get progress. These channels if their available in your location with an antenna are free to you as the broadcaster intends, as their FCC license provides for.
> 
> As our local Albuquerque Comcast office always states, "We don't think people should pay for something they get for free." Stop paying big providers for local channels when you can get them free.


This is all well and good provided you can receive their signal OTA. I am unable to receive both WNAC and WPRI with an antenna. I get one or the other.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> But you are now bringing expenses into the equation without bringing the expense in on other sides...
> 
> DirecTV and Dish Network need create a receive facility within each DMA.
> They need to have equipment to receive and possibly encode the signal.
> ...


Or they do not need the New studio and HD cameras and go digital at 480i using the old equipment.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Well, I'd agree with that to a point. And then when the local news operations (which generates the most money from an operating expense to income ratio) don't rake in as much money because people would actually rather watch others that have the latest and greatest, it forces that local station to compete with others there.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

OTOH HD vs SD TV set penetration is low. My suspicion on Local news is that viewers will tune in for the personalities on it and the content and not the image quality.

I set a bunch of timers last night and they were mainly FMC and TCM. I have all the HD premiums and one movie there worth seting a timer for all the other 8 or so were for SD events.

I can't believe I'm the only person that will not watch garbage just because it is HD and will watch the good stuff in SD.


----------



## CHDinCT (Dec 23, 2006)

From the above post:

"The Article actually revealed LIN's terms for Timewarner in Greenbay. Assuming its the same everywhere, $.02 per day *per digital subsriber*, thats only $.62 a month."

Maybe the "per digital subscriber" is the issue. Thinking about it, I would guess maybe 50% of all cable subs take a digital package - just a guess on my part. And, I think, HD locals come with a digital cable package by definition.

For Direct TV, however, all subscribers are by definition digital subscribers, even if they don't opt into the HD tier of programing. So, reading this literally, D* would have to pay $.62 per month for every subscriber in the DMA served by LIN for their HD signal, even if only 20% of those customer pay extra for the HD tier and receive the LIN HD signal. Based on these terms, if I were D*, I wouldn't agree either.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

I have Basic cable along with satellite.

No digital subscription.

I get SD Locals and HD locals on my HDTV which has QAM.

Would I count as a digital subscriber for my local cable company? Who Knows. My guess is that LIN would say as long as you have the HD locals available to anybody with a basic cable package and a QAM tuner, then every subscriber must be counted. The cable company would say only those with a HD Digital box. Then the lawyers start reading all the fine print and offering interpretations of the contract unless it is clearly spelled out. 

D* & E* all subs are digital. Not all subs are HD Digital. Who knows what LIN wants. 

They could want that 2 cents per sub for every sub systemwide.


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

<Bump>

Anyone have any news?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Nothing yet.

Prepare To Stand By..... 

Mike


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> Nothing yet.
> 
> Prepare To Stand By.....
> 
> Mike


Are you hearing something?


----------



## jake14mw (Oct 5, 2007)

Dish Network has launched HD in CT with Lin's WTNH that the OP is complaining about on it.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

jake14mw said:


> Dish Network has launched HD in CT with Lin's WTNH that the OP is complaining about on it.


I happen to know a few witches (Wicca), and think that I will ask them to cast a spell on LIN


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Indiana627 said:


> Are you hearing something?


Haven't heard anything.

Just in wait mode hoping something is comming.

Mike


----------



## gslater (Aug 5, 2007)

Emailed the station manager here in Grand Rapids, MI for the local NBC affiliate (LIN station) about a month ago and no news regrettably. It's a shame too. NBC is the only local station owned by LIN and you know who's got the Olympics this time around. Fortunately, I can get them OTA with a pair of rabbit ears but it certainly would be nice to take those ugly things down and just use the DirecTV feed. I'm looking at getting a DVR (only 2 h20-100's right now) and I'm afraid I'm going to have to pony up the money for the AM21 just because of LIN.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

curt8403 said:


> I happen to know a few witches (Wicca), and think that I will ask them to cast a spell on LIN


Are they as powerful as these witches?

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


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

kevinwmsn said:


> Are they as powerful as these witches?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmed


<Snort> I would have to say more powerful.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Charter's agreement with Lin is up in June and Lin is saying they may stop carrying

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6567133.html

I'll bet Charter caves.

Mike


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

How long before the actual networks step up and play hardball with LIN? At some point their deals with the networks will be up for renewal, and I can't wait to see how much luck LIN has in trying to play hardball with the networks. They will probably laugh in their faces and tell LIN to pound sand... Karma's a *&^%$&!!!

I hope charter doesn't cave, for so many reasons.....


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> How long before the actual networks step up and play hardball with LIN? At some point their deals with the networks will be up for renewal, and I can't wait to see how much luck LIN has in trying to play hardball with the networks. They will probably laugh in their faces and tell LIN to pound sand... Karma's a *&^%$&!!!
> 
> I hope charter doesn't cave, for so many reasons.....


Our local Lin station (WTNH) has a ticker running at the bottom of the screen to get updates.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=8384136

WTNH isn't going to do anything except follow the party line at Lin. 

Notice the reference to E*?

Mike


----------



## Rockywwf (Aug 21, 2006)

Don't get me started all over again on LIN and WTNH!!!! Lakers/Celtics on ABC....standard def thanks to the CROOKS at LIN!!!!


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Charter are on the "cheap *******" side of the cableco side of the ledger 

Don't be so sure...


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Rockywwf said:


> Don't get me started all over again on LIN and WTNH!!!! Lakers/Celtics on ABC....standard def thanks to the CROOKS at LIN!!!!


Deep Breaths... :eek2:

Didn't mean to give you an aneurysm. :lol:

Mike


----------



## Azdeadwood (Aug 18, 2007)

Rockywwf said:


> Don't get me started all over again on LIN and WTNH!!!! Lakers/Celtics on ABC....standard def thanks to the CROOKS at LIN!!!!


 In Albuquerque it is CBS. I HATE LIN as much as you do. I don't understand why they can get away with this!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rockywwf said:


> Don't get me started all over again on LIN and WTNH!!!! Lakers/Celtics on ABC....standard def thanks to the CROOKS at LIN!!!!


Thats worth suing over!!!!!! 

GO LAKERS!!!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> Our local Lin station (WTNH) has a ticker running at the bottom of the screen to get updates.
> 
> http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=8384136
> 
> ...


I wonder what program they use that spits out those BS letters.....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

hancox said:


> Charter are on the "cheap *******" side of the cableco side of the ledger
> 
> Don't be so sure...


LIN has a history of asking for more than any other local broadcast network. There is no question about that. Don't believe their letter. NO broadcast station was ever paid a fee for carriage on any pay system until a few started to do it recently... And get real... they get a lot more money for advertising than any cable channel as a general rule. There are very few exceptions to that rule.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

hancox said:


> Charter are on the "cheap *******" side of the cableco side of the ledger
> 
> Don't be so sure...





inkahauts said:


> LIN has a history of asking for more than any other local broadcast network. There is no question about that. Don't believe their letter. NO broadcast station was ever paid a fee for carriage on any pay system until a few started to do it recently... And get real... they get a lot more money for advertising than any cable channel as a general rule. There are very few exceptions to that rule.


That's absolutely right.

Just look at the number of markets where the Lin stations are the only ones not in HD.

Mike


----------



## tfederov (Nov 18, 2005)

DIRECTV doesn't like it, but will this help?

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6567436.html?desc=topstory

Thanks to Doug Brott for the link.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

tfederov said:


> DIRECTV doesn't like it, but will this help?
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6567436.html?desc=topstory
> 
> Thanks to Doug Brott for the link.


If it's upheld it puts Lin in the driver seat. 

DirecTV would have to pay what ever Lin is charging. :eek2:

Mike


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

> We only want the same treatment as the cable networks, so we may compete on equal footing and provide both high quality local news and premium sports and entertainment programming.


Fine. Blow up your transmitter, then. What, you want your OTA rights AND cable-style fees? Sorry.

LIN is just an outright joke.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

curt8403 said:


> <Snort> I would have to say more powerful.










?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

LIN isn't just jerking DirecTV around.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6567133.html


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> DirecTV would have to pay what ever Lin is charging. :eek2:


I would think it would still be governed under the must-carry rules so if LIN wants too much money, D* could say no. This law is more for the smaller stations so they won't be shut-out.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> I would think it would still be governed under the must-carry rules so if LIN wants too much money, D* could say no. This law is more for the smaller stations so they won't be shut-out.


I don't know... :scratchin

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6543480.html


----------



## gslater (Aug 5, 2007)

This certainly has a real slimy feeling to it. I saw an add run last night during the Stanley Cup finals that stated that Charter subscribers were going to lose their ability to view the channel and suggested they switch to DISH. It said to go to their website for more information. On their website they say basically the same thing and advocate a switch to dish. There is a very large DISH advertisement on the right side of the page right next to the letter as well as their advice in the letter to contact DISH along with contact information.

Really gives the impression that LIN and DISH are in bed together on this but they can probably get away with it because they have basically a 1 liner about Uverse in there as well but next to the hawking for DISH it's almost invisible.

To top it all off, there's also the $50 incentive being offerred by DISH for people in these LIN areas.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

Are LIN's HD stations blacked out if you use an OTA tuner like the HR20 or AM21?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

aa9vi said:


> Are LIN's HD stations blacked out if you use an OTA tuner like the HR20 or AM21?


Why would they be? It's OTA which is free and has nothing to do with DirecTV's service.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Why would they be? It's OTA which is free and has nothing to do with DirecTV's service.


Well, What's the complaining for then? That's a workaround. Get an H20, HR20, or AM21+HR21. The picture quality is better OTA anyways. If you're 80 miles out, I see the legitimate gripe.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

aa9vi said:


> Well, What's the complaining for then? That's a workaround. Get an H20, HR20, or AM21+HR21.


Not everyone can get OTA. And there are a lot of people that refuse to have an antenna on their house. It's that same old argument. Very few people use or want to use OTA.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

aa9vi said:


> Well, What's the complaining for then? That's a workaround. Get an H20, HR20, or AM21+HR21. The picture quality is better OTA anyways. If you're 80 miles out, I see the legitimate gripe.


As a Chicago viewer I'd like to see if you'd have the same response if WBBM-DT was owned by LIN and the only way you could get it was OTA.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

aa9vi said:


> Well, What's the complaining for then? That's a workaround. Get an H20, HR20, or AM21+HR21. The picture quality is better OTA anyways. If you're 80 miles out, I see the legitimate gripe.


I would need an antenna 75' off the top of my roof to get WTNH....and I'm only 30 miles from the towers.

It's that 700' ridge between me and the towers.

Mike


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

The thing with LIN-owned TV stations is just another symptom of a larger problem regarding the powerful and money-hungry owners of local broadcast channels.

I live in Oklahoma and like the vast majority of Oklahomans, I desperately want Oklahoma local channels. But because I live outside of the Oklahoma City and Tulsa metro areas, I can't receive OTA signals and I'm forced to get my local channels out of Shreveport, LA. It doesn't make sense, but with the influence broadcasters have on Congress and the courts, it doesn't have to make sense – just more dollars and “cents” for the broadcasters.

If my locals came from Oklahoma City or Tulsa – which, by rights they should – I would be watching the NBA finals in (to borrow from ESPN) spectacular high definition. But, no, I'm forced to watch in underwhelming SD. And not one of the four network affliates that I have access to offer Oklahoma news and sports.

I realize this issue doesn't affect the majority of the posters on this forum, but it's a major problem for many DirecTV and Dish Network customers who, like myself, live in rural areas. Currently, our only hope is that Congress will pass H.R. 2821, which will give us access to TV signals that originate in the states in which we live.

Just needed a chance to rant.


----------



## dyker (Feb 27, 2008)

Yeah, believe it or not heard Dish commercial today "The only way to guarantee you'll have your locals is with Dish since Charter will drop your locals" (I'm in same NBC West Michigan market as poster above... I bought an AM21, but extremely slow trickplay makes it mostly unusable).


----------



## gslater (Aug 5, 2007)

dyker said:


> Yeah, believe it or not heard Dish commercial today "The only way to guarantee you'll have your locals is with Dish since Charter will drop your locals" (I'm in same NBC West Michigan market as poster above... I bought an AM21, but extremely slow trickplay makes it mostly unusable).


I have the AM21 as well but I don't have a problem with it specifically. The HR21 is slower than I'm used to. Sometimes it doesn't recognize commands from the remote, sometimes it adds extra commands. But the AM21 doesn't seem any worse than the HR21 by itself. Does seem like a waste though to buy this for 1 station that I rarely watch.


----------



## on7green (Oct 29, 2007)

I've *****ed to LIN and the local CBS affiliate. No results. But at the end of the day... I never watch their station. There plenty of other things out there to watch. LIN=loser


----------



## dyker (Feb 27, 2008)

OT


gslater said:


> I have the AM21 as well but I don't have a problem with it specifically. The HR21 is slower than I'm used to. Sometimes it doesn't recognize commands from the remote, sometimes it adds extra commands. But the AM21 doesn't seem any worse than the HR21 by itself. Does seem like a waste though to buy this for 1 station that I rarely watch.


I really didn't buy the AM21 for NBC since the only show I really watch is the Office and that can be gotten other means. I got it because D* reduces the bitrate and quality of HD locals and so many baseball games on HD locals from D* look like SD. The AM21 retains all the definition since it is a local broadcast and looks beautiful. But is unusable due to the trickplay issues (reported by many in the HRXX forum). So for HD locals I'm back to using my trusty-ole SageTV setup. Besides, with Sage I can also use that MPG for whatever I want... copy to my laptop, downrez to my MP3, burn HD to disk... whatever.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

RAD said:


> As a Chicago viewer I'd like to see if you'd have the same response if WBBM-DT was owned by LIN and the only way you could get it was OTA.


Well, I get WBBM-DT OTA just fine. I use an Radio Shack VU-160 antenna and a Winegard 19 dB low noise preamp. The antenna is mounted with chimney straps and up at 20 feet. I use RG-6 QS cable. So, with a decent installation and the fact I'm only 20 miles out I have no problem.

Like I said, if you're far out or have rugged terrain, hey, I'm with you. But, if you're 20 miles out, If I was you I'd put up an antenna since that's a workaround to the frustration.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

aa9vi said:


> Well, I get WBBM-DT OTA just fine. I use an Radio Shack VU-160 antenna and a Winegard 19 dB low noise preamp. The antenna is mounted with chimney straps and up at 20 feet. I use RG-6 QS cable. So, with a decent installation and the fact I'm only 20 miles out I have no problem.
> 
> Like I said, if you're far out or have rugged terrain, hey, I'm with you. But, if you're 20 miles out, If I was you I'd put up an antenna since that's a workaround to the frustration.


For most of us the frustration with Lin is based in the fact that we can't get the signal OTA.

Otherwise it wouldn't bother me that much.

Mike


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> I would need an antenna 75' off the top of my roof to get WTNH....and I'm only 30 miles from the towers.
> 
> It's that 700' ridge between me and the towers.
> 
> Mike


Here's a suggestion...
See if you can get an antenna with some gain, and a preamp and try to get Boston or Providence stations. I was able to get Boston, Providence, and sometimes Hartford stations when I lived in a low lying area 20 miles south of Providence, RI a few years back. I'm not sure what side of the ridge you are on, so maybe this will or will not work.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

aa9vi said:


> Well, I get WBBM-DT OTA just fine. I use an Radio Shack VU-160 antenna and a Winegard 19 dB low noise preamp. The antenna is mounted with chimney straps and up at 20 feet. I use RG-6 QS cable. So, with a decent installation and the fact I'm only 20 miles out I have no problem.
> 
> Like I said, if you're far out or have rugged terrain, hey, I'm with you. But, if you're 20 miles out, If I was you I'd put up an antenna since that's a workaround to the frustration.


You don't need to be far out, just be downtown, or close to it, with all the multipath floating around and even an outside antenna is hit or miss. And as was pointed out earlier, MANY people don't want to have to go to the additional expense of installing an outside antenna. Glad it worked out for you, but all you need to do is check the Chicago OTA locals section at AVSForum and you'll see many aren't as lucky as you.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

aa9vi said:


> Here's a suggestion...
> See if you can get an antenna with some gain, and a preamp and try to get Boston or Providence stations. I was able to get Boston, Providence, and sometimes Hartford stations when I lived in a low lying area 20 miles south of Providence, RI a few years back. I'm not sure what side of the ridge you are on, so maybe this will or will not work.


First, I miss posted. I'm 44 miles from the tower.

I tried that. I can get the RI ABC station a little better then mine.

However, I had to get 35' above my roof (7 five foot sections) to get them with a rotor.

For me that's just too much.

According to tvfool.com, I have to be 40+ feet above ground level to get -100dBm(not sure what that means  ).

Mike


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> First, I miss posted. I'm 44 miles from the tower.
> 
> I tried that. I can get the RI ABC station a little better then mine.
> 
> ...


That is a nice site (tvfool.com) - I had never seen it - thanks

I think -100dBm is still too low to get a watchable signal.


----------



## Azdeadwood (Aug 18, 2007)

aa9vi said:


> Well, What's the complaining for then? That's a workaround. Get an H20, HR20, or AM21+HR21. The picture quality is better OTA anyways. If you're 80 miles out, I see the legitimate gripe.


I'm only 60 miles out but because of mountains I can't get OTA! Even if I put up a 100 foot tower and had signal boosters on it, I still wouldn't be able to get a signal.

A lot of Directv customers in the same boat.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

I'm not sure how the FCC allowed LIN to own 3 stations in my market.. WOOD (NBC), WOTV (ABC) and WXSP-LP (Mynetwork TV)


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

It's called "corporatism."


----------



## Rockywwf (Aug 21, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> For most of us the frustration with Lin is based in the fact that we can't get the signal OTA.
> 
> Otherwise it wouldn't bother me that much.
> 
> Mike


Here Here!!


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

An Agreement Has Been Reached!!!

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=130495


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

About Time.....

What's it going to cost me?

Mike


----------



## Jon D (Oct 12, 2006)

johnck78 said:


> An Agreement Has Been Reached!!!
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=130495


Wow. This came out of left field. It's kind of funny reading the last page of posts up to this point. :lol:


----------



## CKNAV (Dec 26, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> About Time.....
> 
> What's it going to cost me?
> 
> Mike


Arm and a leg.:lol:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The original poster has requested this be closed.


----------

