# CES: I did ask about LIN



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

(Note this is a cut/paste from anothe thread)....
I am sorry I didn't post this earlier... RAD's thread, reminded of it..
-------------------

Without naming names.... Let's just say... before I got the "N" out of my mouth from LIN.... you can see the expression on their face, just completely changed...

We spent about 30s basically confirming that it is not a "fun" process... and I left it at that, as I wasn't going to press and push it over the line...

I joking stated, that maybe it will be easier if they got congress to pass a law that allowed them to re-distribute any signal that is broadcasted over the "free" airwaves... (and of course keep it with in the same DMA)

This person... giggled a bit, smilled and said... "probably would be"....

Sorry...
I highly recommend that you contact your local affiliates (regardless if they are LIN or not), and explain to them that you would really like to see the be distributed via SAT... 

And/Or your local congress persons (national, state, and regional officials)


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

That just makes me angry. If it is free to get it OTA then it should be free to get it via satellite or cable. Lin or any other television stations should not hold that signal hostage just so they can get more money. We all should contact our congress persons on this.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

just glad I got a good antenna setup.. woodtv (nbc)


----------



## chrisfowler99 (Aug 23, 2006)

LIN's local NBC station got kicked off of our local *cable* station because they wanted more money.

Somehow I don't think we're getting any closer to get them on satellite...


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

chrisfowler99 said:


> LIN's local NBC station got kicked off of our local *cable* station because they wanted more money.
> 
> Somehow I don't think we're getting any closer to get them on satellite...


Must carry is a weird law.

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



> Digital must-carry
> 
> Digital must-carry - also called "dual must-carry" - is the requirement that cable companies carry both the analog and digital transmissions of local stations. This has been opposed by numerous television networks, who might be bumped off of digital cable were this to happen, and promoted by TV stations and the National Association of Broadcasters, whom it would benefit by passing their HDTV or multichannel DTV signals through to their cable viewers. In June, 2006 the FCC was poised to pass new digital must-carry rules, but the item was pulled before a vote actually took place, apparently due to insufficient support for the chairman's position.
> 
> ...


How can demand money when the FCC requires system to carry them?


----------



## mikhu (Oct 10, 2006)

Yeah, this isn't just a D* thing. Our Fox affiliate is owned by LIN and Time Warner doesn't have their HD feed. I don't think anyone does on any of their stations. 

The GM of our Fox affiliate has a "personal" blog as a part of their website. D*, E*, and TWC subscribers have all gotten on him about this ridiculous deal but so far he's just been towing the company line. I suppose there isn't much he can do. I had contacted him about it back when our LIL's got turned and he seemed to have no idea what I was talking about, but he knows very well what's going on now, yet he doesn't seem to care. His answer for everyone that complains on his blog is to "Put up an antenna".


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

machavez00 said:


> How can demand money when the FCC requires system to carry them?


I think... (some one correct me if I am wrong)....
Burried in that regulation... that an affiliate basically waives their "must carry" provision... if they want to charge a fee.

They have to file a document with the FCC to have must carry apply to them... and I believe that is one of the provisions... that there is no fee involved (other then the company that wants to carry them, has to flip the bill for the method ... of their choice... to get the signal)


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

LIN stinks... I don't see WOOD going up anytime soon...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

SParker said:


> LIN stinks... I don't see WOOD going up anytime soon...


Viagra should fix that....

Sorry... that was just WAY to easy


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Viagra should fix that....
> 
> Sorry... that was just WAY to easy


No problem, anything involving LIN is a joke..


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

Wow, an innuendo from Earl!!

And funny to boot! 

J/k with ya


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I think... (some one correct me if I am wrong)....
> Burried in that regulation... that an affiliate basically waives their "must carry" provision... if they want to charge a fee.


You are correct sir.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Viagra should fix that....
> 
> Sorry... that was just WAY to easy


Earl's in a good mood tonight


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

A serious approach regarding LIN - start writing to the advertisers on your local station explaining to them how you (and thousands of others) are not watching their commercials because LIN isn't allowing that station to be rebroadcast via satellite.

If you can have an impact on advertising dollars, then they will listen.

Carl


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

houskamp said:


> Earl's in a good mood tonight


New round of cold medicine, and it is getting late...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

carl6 said:


> A serious approach regarding LIN - start writing to the advertisers on your local station explaining to them how you (and thousands of others) are not watching their commercials because LIN isn't allowing that station to be rebroadcast via satellite.
> 
> If you can have an impact on advertising dollars, then they will listen.
> 
> Carl


Now that is a plan...

Also include the production companies of the major shows on those networks..

Maybe someone could start a website: DistributeLIN.org

And explain the issue, so more attention could be drawn towards it.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I haven't checked, but recall that must-carry doesn't apply to HD, so they can ask for compensation for HD while opting for must-carry for SD.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

bobnielsen said:


> I haven't checked, but recall that must-carry doesn't apply to HD, so they can ask for compensation for HD while opting for must-carry for SD.


I think you are basically correct, tho I seem to think there are some other fine points to this whole process of "must carry" in HD.

I also think must carry might be mucked up in the language about whether or not to include the subchannels in the regs.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

The entire re-write of the law back in the 80's started off unfriendly to the consumer and has gotten worse since. 

Where I lived, about 90 miles south of San Francisco, we were able to get all SF stations on cable (along with most FMs). When the laws changed, we lost alot of the professional broadcast stations and ended up only getting stations within our DMA (Salinas/Monterey). It was such a disappointment to lose the programming and talents from the Bay Area. Back in those days, stations were more diverse in their programming (i.e. there wasn't a Dr. Phil/Oprah in every market).

Leave it to NAB and their influence on our government to bring us such tremendous, business friendly, regulations.

Here in Tucson, Cox cable just recently added ABC, NBC and FOX in HD. They had a long standing battle with all broadcasters here. I was very suprised to see that DirecTV was able to go live with all 4 networks from day one.


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

I am glad to live in a place that gets the network feed. I can't imagine what kind of television station would not want their feed seen by as many eyes as possible.


----------



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

Our local network broadcasters had said that DirecTV was the one that told them it wouldn't be financially feasible to have ours on DirecTV due to our small population. Our locals said they were quite surprised because we have a huge population from Fort Drum military base but DirecTV told them they couldn't include the population from there (for some reason). It's all OTA for us northern New Yorkers.


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

Thanks Earl for asking. I wish you had gotten a better reaction though. The good vibe I mentioned to you earlier is fading more and more each day.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

chrisfowler99 said:


> LIN's local NBC station got kicked off of our local *cable* station because they wanted more money.


Somebody should remind LIN of Borg that there is a writrt'd strike going on, and that viewship will being going down across the board. They need all the viewers they can get.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Maybe also write your state and US reps and make sure they know what's going on, can't hurt.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

carl6 said:


> A serious approach regarding LIN - start writing to the advertisers on your local station explaining to them how you (and thousands of others) are not watching their commercials because LIN isn't allowing that station to be rebroadcast via satellite.
> 
> If you can have an impact on advertising dollars, then they will listen.
> 
> Carl


That is exactly what I sugessted several months back. We all need to hurt these stations in there pocket books and maybe they will come there senses and come to a good compromise.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Thanks for asking Earl.

Somehow I thought it was going that way.

Bummer.

Mike


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

machavez00 said:


> Must carry is a weird law.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must_carry
> 
> How can demand money when the FCC requires system to carry them?


The way I understand it is, must-carry is not to protect the consumer, it's to protect the affiliate. There have historically been cases where cablecos have wanted to charge for carriage. I know in some markets local affiliates still pay for carriage and channel position. I don't know how widespread it is.

Must-carry says, that if the affiliate is willing to provide the feed, the cable system must carry it. It does not force the affiliate to provide the feed for free. I also think that if an affiliate asks a fee, they forfeit the right to must-carry.


----------



## vernonator (Jul 31, 2007)

For those that think it is all up to the Local Stations think again. Here in Des Moines we were announced as getting HD locals by the end of '07 in Oct 06 and are still waiting. 

All the local affiliates ARE providing their signal to DTV - I have personally talked to either the Station Manager or Chief Engineer of all 5 and they all stated "DTV has been getting our signal since we started OTA HD". 

SO don't buy the D* line that "the affiliates make it very hard" - they may in some cases, but D* also makes the choice of which markets to pursue and which to ignore.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Yes, but I am beginning to agree with vurbano. I think DirecTV has a problem with that satellite. There are still five markets announced from the end of 2006 that have yet to be turned on. I had always thought the reason Norfolk was passed over was because of LIN owning two of the big four affiliates. However, now that Wilkes-Barre/Scranton has launched without the two big four affiliates, each owned by Nexstar, I am thinking this is more of a technical issue.

I believe that there are carriage contracts in place for all four of the networks in Des Moines. So it isn't a contractual issue that is preventing DirecTV from firing up Des Moines. It is now more likely a technical one.


----------



## on7green (Oct 29, 2007)

> start writing to the advertisers on your local station


Aren't the advertisers charged by the number of viewers? Seems like rates would already be discounted for no SAT viewers.


----------



## chrisfowler99 (Aug 23, 2006)

bobnielsen said:


> I haven't checked, but recall that must-carry doesn't apply to HD, so they can ask for compensation for HD while opting for must-carry for SD.


For our local cable station, it wasn't just about HD. They dropped the whole channel, SD and HD.

Just the other day they added NBC in SD from a different city. I don't know if they did HD or not.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

vernonator said:


> For those that think it is all up to the Local Stations think again. Here in Des Moines we were announced as getting HD locals by the end of '07 in Oct 06 and are still waiting.
> 
> All the local affiliates ARE providing their signal to DTV - I have personally talked to either the Station Manager or Chief Engineer of all 5 and they all stated "DTV has been getting our signal since we started OTA HD".
> 
> SO don't buy the D* line that "the affiliates make it very hard" - they may in some cases, but D* also makes the choice of which markets to pursue and which to ignore.





Greg Bimson said:


> Yes, but I am beginning to agree with vurbano. I think DirecTV has a problem with that satellite. There are still five markets announced from the end of 2006 that have yet to be turned on. I had always thought the reason Norfolk was passed over was because of LIN owning two of the big four affiliates. However, now that Wilkes-Barre/Scranton has launched without the two big four affiliates, each owned by Nexstar, I am thinking this is more of a technical issue.
> 
> I believe that there are carriage contracts in place for all four of the networks in Des Moines. So it isn't a contractual issue that is preventing DirecTV from firing up Des Moines. It is now more likely a technical one.


But how then do you explain the areas that have partial carraige, and those that don't?

Complete markets... yes.. There is probably cases where all the pieces are ready to go... but something else on the other side need to complete.

As for a problem with the SAT... hasn't anyone seen the press releases, where they stated D10 wasn't hitting all the areas they wanted...

Haven't you seen the posts about locals moving from the SpaceWay to the D10... Connect the dots...

You know this other sat.. .the D11, that isn't launched yet.... you think it is just going to be up there to say they have another sat...

Until D11 is up, they have to go slowly with expansion to make sure that they don't max it out... just in case something wrong happens.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But how then do you explain the areas that have partial carraige, and those that don't?
> 
> Complete markets... yes.. There is probably cases where all the pieces are ready to go... but something else on the other side need to complete.


I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, so I'll try to keep this to the short version...

The moment Raleigh was launched, it wasn't available to all areas within the Raleigh market. That is because the spot-beam wasn't wide enough. It has happened to other markets. So launching a market where the beam isn't wide enough isn't necessarily an issue.

Providence and Wilkes-Barre are two markets that only have two of the big four networks available in HD. Providence has been available for some time but the two missing stations are owned by LIN, and Wilkes-Barre was just launched without the two stations owned by Nexstar. So launching a market with only two of the four big networks isn't necessarily an issue.

However, DirecTV did not launch five markets they said they would at the end of 2006. Norfolk and Des Moines were two of those markets. I have to wonder, even with DirecTV having only two of the big four available to them in Norfolk, and DirecTV having all four Des Moines networks, if this isn't a technical problem.

I am aware of the problems with DirecTV 10, but if I am not mistaken, DirecTV 10 wasn't launched until July of 2007. The announcement of adding Des Moines and Norfolk was at the end of 2006, which means those were to be placed on one of the Spaceway satellites.

So what exactly prohibited those five markets that were supposed to be launched at the end of 2006? That is why I am saying it is a technical problem.

And the poster from Des Moines, vernonator, kind of makes my point. The Des Moines locals are being backhauled in HD to DirecTV. So why aren't they available? Even when it was announced they'd be available in 2006? It HAS to be a technical issue, as it is not a contractual one.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

The LIN-owned CBS station in Terre Haute, IN (WTHI) is NOT available in HD on Time Warner Cable.

Being that my specialty is intellectual property law, I am really shocked that rebroadcasting of a signal that is available for free over the air within the same geographic region is NOT considered fair use under the Copyright Law. At the very least, I can see the stations arguing that DirecTV's conversion of the signal from MPEG2 to MPEG4, and the removal of any subchannels from the signal should not be allowed. But if the complete MPEG2 bitstream were unaltered, where is the commercial harm done to the broadcaster?

I should check up on this, and find out how high this issue has been taken. I'm not even sure if its been heard at the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), let alone the Supreme Court.

My guess is (and this is purely speculation) that the National Association of Broadcasters pressured the FCC to write some regulations banning the practice of retransmission, and the cable and satellite companies don't want to spend the millions of dollars in legal costs pushing it up to the CAFC or Supreme Court to see if the regulations jive with the fair use.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Update:

I've done some research, and apparently when the regs were written, satellite providers had no way to localize a signal... So the regs were written assuming that anything carried by a satellite would be openly available worldwide to anyone who had a dish.

There are efforts being made to update the regs to catch up to technology.... Knowing that satellite providers now have the capability to limit who sees what in geographic areas.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

So what happens to the lucky few stuck in ABC LIN (at least I think it's on ABC this year) land this year for the superbowl? Maybe I'm living in a pipe dream, but hasn't D* given out the national feeds for past superbowls?


----------



## mjbehren (Nov 21, 2006)

houskamp said:


> just glad I got a good antenna setup.. woodtv (nbc)


Here in W. MI. I cannot get 8 (NBC) or 3 (CBS). 

Mb


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

Super Bowl's on Fox this year I think.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

Indiana627 said:


> Super Bowl's on Fox this year I think.


Wasn't it Fox last year? Irregardless, the question stands for some people. Are LIN/AnyOtherNonHDLocal customers SOL if they happen to have the SB this year.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

mjbehren said:


> Here in W. MI. I cannot get 8 (NBC) or 3 (CBS).
> 
> Mb


VHF antenna pointed south


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

sunking said:


> Wasn't it Fox last year? Irregardless, the question stands for some people. Are LIN/AnyOtherNonHDLocal customers SOL if they happen to have the SB this year.


It was CBS last year.

ABC doesn't have an NFL contract of any type anymore.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> It was CBS last year.
> 
> ABC doesn't have an NFL contract of any type anymore.


Ok, it is on Fox and was on CBS. I knew I had to watch it OTA but forgot that I got CBS OTA in HD. But this is kind of missing the point of the actual question. There are a half dozen or so LIN owned FOX stations. What happens to these people.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

They get antennae.

Wasn't there a technical issue with the Super Bowl, CBS and Chicago last year? Or did that get resolved right before the massacre?


----------



## chef8181 (Jan 25, 2007)

Thanks for asking Earl. Been waiting for local HDs in the Norfolk market since they were promised in late 2006 and we're still waiting. I don't care whether it's LIN or a technical issue it's just frustrating when I thought I'd have local HDs last year.


----------



## mikhu (Oct 10, 2006)

sunking said:


> Ok, it is on Fox and was on CBS. I knew I had to watch it OTA but forgot that I got CBS OTA in HD. But this is kind of missing the point of the actual question. There are a half dozen or so LIN owned FOX stations. What happens to these people.


Yep, that's the case here. Our FOX is owned by LIN. Fortunately I have an HR20 and an antenna so if I'm fortunate enough to have my team make it I'll be able to record it. If not I'll be able to watch it in HD none-the-less. :lol: Almost all of my neighbors don't have antennas and will be stuck watching it in SD, no matter who their provider is (TWC is the big cable co around here).


----------



## vernonator (Jul 31, 2007)

Earl,
I totally agree that in some of the markets it is the affiliate and not D* that is the hold up. 

My point is that whenever people bring ask why their locals are not in HD everyone says "They have to have agreements with all the local stations" and that is just not true. I don't know about any others but in Des Moines D* has made the decision to not honor its rollout announcement for '07 - it may be a technical issue or a money issue BUT it is NOT a supply issue.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

jasonblair said:


> Being that my specialty is intellectual property law, I am really shocked that rebroadcasting of a signal that is available for free over the air within the same geographic region is NOT considered fair use under the Copyright Law.


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.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jasonblair said:


> Being that my specialty is intellectual property law, I am really shocked that rebroadcasting of a signal that is available for free over the air within the same geographic region is NOT considered fair use under the Copyright Law.


How could it be fair use? Rebroadcasting a local signal requires the satellite company to create an on-the-fly copy and then send it to their subscribers, where a fee is charged. Without any kind of change to the laws, this completely violates copyright law.

Fair use never came close to considering this type of action.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

But they could change the law...

That in those markets that an affiliate doesn't want to reach an agreement (which could involve an arbitrator)... that a national DNS version of the channel could be provided.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But they could change the law...
> 
> That in those markets that an affiliate doesn't want to reach an agreement (which could involve an arbitrator)... that a national DNS version of the channel could be provided.


That would violate the contract the affiliate has with their network (which most stations now pay the networks to have) giving them exclusive broadcast rights within their market.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> That would violate the contract the affiliate has with their network (which most stations now pay the networks to have) giving them exclusive broadcast rights within their market.


Again...

We are talking the FCC and the law makers, that can create policies that could over ride those contracts..


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Again...
> 
> We are talking the FCC and the law makers, that can create policies that could over ride those contracts..


Sure.

Again...

Why is it OK for HBO, Showtime, FX, etc. to negotiate with cable/fiber/sat providers. But, not broadcasters?

If D* values the product, then pay for it, like they do everything else (i.e. Sunday Ticket).


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The local broadcasters are granted, for free, use of the public airwaves as a matter of public trust. That is a huge differentiator in the equation why them and not HBO. HBO pays for every bit of bandwidth they use, whether fibre or satellite.

Also, the local stations are a more important part of TV viewing with local news and local information.

Lastly, the locals stations pay to re-broadcast materials in exclusive areas, hence they have received protections.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Sure.
> 
> Again...
> 
> ...





Tom Robertson said:


> The local broadcasters are granted, for free, use of the public airwaves as a matter of public trust. That is a huge differentiator in the equation why them and not HBO. HBO pays for every bit of bandwidth they use, whether fibre or satellite.
> 
> Also, the local stations are a more important part of TV viewing with local news and local information.
> 
> ...


What he said.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

The lawmakers could create a law as Earl mentions, but they won't.

Take a look at the scuttlebutt from the NFL Network and the game where the Patriots could go 16-0. Senators sided with the cable companies and wrote the NFL a letter stating that Congress may look over the NFL's anti-trust exemption if they didn't, paraphrasing, stop limiting the distribution of the NFL Network and the NFL games.

It didn't matter than in a competitive multi-channel environment, both satellite companies, both telco video providers and almost all cable overbuilders have the NFL Network available on a basic tier. Because the incumbent local cable monopolies would not strike a deal, the NFL was being threatened.

Although it would take an act of Congress to intercede on behalf of consumers, I highly doubt that the politicos would actually pass a law to interfere within the free market quite like that.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Sure.
> 
> Again...
> 
> ...


Because that doesn't benefit DirecTV. The only laws that some around here would say are allowed to be made/changed are those that directly benefit DirecTV. Anything else is an abomination that flies directly in the face our free-market system and should never be allowed.

If I were DirecTV I'd be careful about asking for laws to be changed...they may not like what they end up with. Might have something happens that cuts into that 50% GPM.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What he said.


So put up an antenna, and get your free OTA via the public airwaves.

Sat/cable/fiber isn't the public airwaves.

Their competition with the free OTA, damages them. The FCC allows them to choose either must-carry or compensation, to offset that damage.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Try this backwards, guys. Out of the 30 million subscribers there are to satellite companies, how many subscribers would they lose if Congress decided tomorrow to remove local channels from satellite?

Therefore, local channels are way more important to keep the subscriber base happy.

Congress and the government have been trying for years to make competitors to the local cable incumbent. This way the market will set the price. And that is exactly what is happening.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But they could change the law...
> 
> That in those markets that an affiliate doesn't want to reach an agreement (which could involve an arbitrator)... that a national DNS version of the channel could be provided.


Such a law change would have to involve an arbitrator to keep the balance between the affiliates rights and the MSO's power. If a unscrupulous MSO were to put an undue burden upon the affiliate solely for the purpose of ensuing the affiliate would not sign an agreement, said MSO could end up with what they would love--everyone getting the same national feed.

And to be clear, I do not envision DIRECTV ever doing such nor Dish network for that matter, but I could see it attempted by someone someday...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Why is it OK for HBO, Showtime, FX, etc. to negotiate with cable/fiber/sat providers. But, not broadcasters?


They can, and they do.

NBC is the same legal entity as Universal HD. They offer UHD to cable systems and satellite companies.

ABC is the same legal entity as ESPN. They offer a myriad of ESPN channels to cable systems and satellite companies.

The difference is that networks have a CONTRACT with local affiliates who own the network (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CW, PBS) broadcasts locally. That is why, where there is no local affiliate, you can import out of market network programming. (Of course, Dishnet abused this provision and had to stop offering even to those who were legally entitled to the programming as punishment.)


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> ABC is the same legal entity as ESPN. They offer a myriad of ESPN channels to cable systems and satellite companies.


Uh, not quite.

ESPN as a legal entity is a partnership, owned 80 percent by ABC and 20 percent by Hearst. Therefore, they are not the same legal entities. Just my two cents.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> They can, and they do.
> 
> NBC is the same legal entity as Universal HD. They offer UHD to cable systems and satellite companies.
> 
> ...


+1

But this tread is the "how dare LIN ask for compensation...if D* says they are asking too much, then we need a law to force LIN, or allow DNS" thread.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> And to be clear, I do not envision DIRECTV ever doing such nor Dish network for that matter, but I could see it attempted by someone someday...


Me, too...after enough couch potatoes complain to their elected representatives, laws may change.

Then after stations start killing local news and programming, and some go dark, they'll complain about that, too. Not, realizing that they helped choke the revenue keeping free OTA TV alive.

Local TV stations are not "cash cows" anymore, thanks to explosion of cable/fiber/sat channels and the Internet, profit margins are shrinking these days. Add that to the unreimbursed expense of conversion to digital, and some stations are barely hanging on.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I guess I don't understand why doesn't DirecTV pay the fees and then charge what they need to charge to those customers? 
The customers would then, at least, have the option of paying to watch it through DirecTV or getting the station with an OTA antenna.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I'm surprised to read LIN owned HD stations are not on Time Warner systems. Here, CBS and CW are owned by LIN, CBS HD has been on TW here for years. Fox HD and MyNetwork HD (useless) were added about a year ago when TW and Sinclair made nice.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Ken S said:


> I guess I don't understand why doesn't DirecTV pay the fees and then charge what they need to charge to those customers?
> The customers would then, at least, have the option of paying to watch it through DirecTV or getting the station with an OTA antenna.


Very good point.

All they would have to say is, we can give you X,Y & Z stations for G per month.
If you want P, you will have to pay an additional H.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Because the law for local-into-local is that all channels must be available at a non-discriminatory price.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Greg Bimson said:


> Because the law for local-into-local is that all channels must be available at a non-discriminatory price.


Curious...how is non-discriminatory defined in the regulation?


----------



## mph21976 (Dec 19, 2007)

Is it against the law for Directv to purchase LINTV?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

mph21976 said:


> Is it against the law for Directv to purchase LINTV?


Not against the law... per-say...
May not be approved by the necessarily regulatory boards though


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not against the law... per-say...
> May not be approved by the necessarily regulatory boards though


Ya know...it might be.

Cox cable also owns a chain of TV/radio stations. Or Cox TV/radio, also owns a cable company.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Guess the big question for me is how much more is LIN trying to get? They aparently settled with the other network stations.. So by this logic the blame still falls on LIN


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

Another aspect to think about is focusing on your local affiliate itself, as mentioned above with the suggestion of contacting local advertisers. 

Back in the day, networks actually PAID locals to carry network programming. These days it's the opposite, putting more pressure on the locals to stay afloat. 

Knowing that eyes are being lost from not being on the SATs hits the struggling locals where it hurts the most.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> So put up an antenna, and get your free OTA via the public airwaves.
> 
> Sat/cable/fiber isn't the public airwaves.
> 
> Their competition with the free OTA, damages them. The FCC allows them to choose either must-carry or compensation, to offset that damage.


What about those that can't install an antenna? (There are many HOA's that have approved SAT dishes, but are not approving OTA antennas... even MDU's that will allow dishes on the side or balcony's... but what about ota antennas?)

There are many people that don't want an OTA antenna... for something they have been getting (the SD versions) to this point via SAT

And in those markets (Where LIN is), the fact that their competition on the SAT (and LIN isn't) is helping them?

Nothing is saying LIN has to stop their OTA broadcasts... not at all..
And probably would be the case, DirecTV would pick up the signal via OTA.... and what they charge (the $3 a month), covers the costs of getting that local (and all the others, since they charge $3 accross the board, regardless if it is 1 local or 20) from the DMA, to the uplink center, back to the DMA.

That is the part I have a hard time understanding, on how DirecTV (or any other carrier), carrying LIN's local affiliate signals... hurts LIN in any possible way.... it only helps them get their signal out to more customers.

So in the current scenerio:

LIN gets no income from their DMA Customers... it's not like Joe-PQ public pays LIN for access to their signal... their is ZERO income from that.

LIN gets their income from the advertisers.... so if DirecTV/Dish/Cable-Co's get their signal out to a larger customer base..... they can charge the advertisers more... thus more income.

Sounds like LIN wants to double dip into the HD-Digital broadcast pool.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What about those that can't install an antenna? (There are many HOA's that have approved SAT dishes, but are not approving OTA antennas... even MDU's that will allow dishes on the side or balcony's... but what about ota antennas?)
> 
> There are many people that don't want an OTA antenna... for something they have been getting (the SD versions) to this point via SAT


The same FCC ruling that allows for the installation of satellite dishes also prevents limiting a person's right to put up an antenna to receive OTA signals.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl,

I've posted several times, on several threads, about how cable/fiber/sat competes for the local ad money pool that local TV stations draw on.

Please refer to those...and talk to your local TV station and ask if/how cable/fiber/sat has hurt them.

Like many other arguments, there are some whose minds will not change. So we will agree to disagree. I very much appreciate and respect what you do for this forum. I hope that we can both be passionate, and realize that this isn't in any way personal. I don't think you are...but I'm just making sure.

Cable/fiber/sat do get to "double-dip" both selling commercial insertion and collecting subscriber fees.

OTA can seek either must-carry or compensation from those who profit from its service.

What's so unfair?

If you can't get free digital local TV via OTA, that's a bummer. But, if you don't live near Starbucks, you don't get Starbucks either. If local TV is that important to you. Live somewhere you can get it for free. Or, be willing to pay for it's retransmission to you. Like you do for ESPN, HBO, etc.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> The same FCC ruling that allows for the installation of satellite dishes also prevents limiting a person's right to put up an antenna to receive OTA signals.


Oh understand the rulling... and now the FCC allows it...

But the HOA's do everything can to try to NOT let you have it up...
And they will bill and fine residents, until they try to fight back and have to pony up for lawyers and stuff like that.

I lived in an HOA that wouldn't allow OTA, but would allow dishes.

My father lived in an HOA that wouldn't allow either, and sent him multiple $500 fines, and actually took his dish down once...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> So we will agree to disagree. I very much appreciate and respect what you do for this forum. I hope that we can both be passionate, and realize that this isn't in any way personal. I don't think you are...but I'm just making sure.


It is not personal (nor should it be).

And yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> It is not personal (nor should it be).
> 
> And yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.


Cool and thanks.


----------



## bb37 (Dec 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> There are many people that don't want an OTA antenna... for something they have been getting (the SD versions) to this point via SAT...Nothing is saying LIN has to stop their OTA broadcasts...


That's why I asked my "what happens next February question" in another thread. The FCC is saying that Lin and everybody else must turn off their analog transmitters next February. For D* customers that are currently getting Lin stations in analog SD, will those channels just disappear from their subscriptions when the analog OTA transmitters are turned off?

P.S. Thanks for asking the question at CES.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bb37 said:


> That's why I asked my "what happens next February question" in another thread. The FCC is saying that Lin and everybody else must turn off their analog transmitters next February. For D* customers that are currently getting Lin stations in analog SD, will those channels just disappear from their subscriptions when the analog OTA transmitters are turned off?
> 
> P.S. Thanks for asking the question at CES.


Each market/DMA may be different.
DirecTV gets the SD channels via multiple methods... some OTA, but a lot of others via hard line connections.

As for what happens in February for the others... Time will tell.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Since E* announced HD locals for Austin I'm curious to see if E* and LIN have come up with retransmission agreement.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

NYSmoker said:


> I am glad to live in a place that gets the network feed. I can't imagine what kind of television station would not want their feed seen by as many eyes as possible.


I think you could make an argument that the stations should pay the sat/cable companies to carry their signal. IMO, it's backasswards.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

houskamp said:


> Earl's in a good mood tonight


Hey now........what happens in Vega$ stays in Vega$.  :lol:


----------



## gulfwarvet (Mar 7, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Viagra should fix that....
> 
> Sorry... that was just WAY to easy


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

What cash you bring to Vegas, stays in Vegas...


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> What cash you bring to Vegas, stays in Vegas...


Or Pahrump. !devil12: :heybaby:


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> How could it be fair use? Rebroadcasting a local signal requires the satellite company to create an on-the-fly copy and then send it to their subscribers, where a fee is charged. Without any kind of change to the laws, this completely violates copyright law.
> 
> Fair use never came close to considering this type of action.


So your problem is with the fee? What if I started a company where I rented antennas to people? By your definition, I should have to pay broadcasters to do this? What would the difference be? I am charging a fee to deliver a signal to a subscriber's television.

How are the cable/sat companies doing anything differently? They are charging for the delivery of a signal.

Merely passing a signal through doesn't mean that there is another copy of the material made, either.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Cable/fiber/sat do get to "double-dip" both selling commercial insertion and collecting subscriber fees.
> 
> OTA can seek either must-carry or compensation from those who profit from its service.
> 
> What's so unfair?


Woah woah woah! You are telling me that cable and satellite companies are inserting their own ads on LIL broadcasts?!?!?!

I DON'T THINK SO!

They do that kind of stuff on the Cable channels, but I have NEVER seen them do that on CBS, NBC, ABC, or Fox broadcasts.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.


I've NEVER understood this phrase. If you believe that your own opinion is right, why would you agree to disagree? Someone who takes that stance must not have much faith that their own beliefs are correct!


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I've posted several times, on several threads, about how cable/fiber/sat competes for the local ad money pool that local TV stations draw on.


You are looking at this from only one way. You assume that given a choice between the local broadcast channels and cable or satellite without broadcast channels, consumers would automatically prefer the former.

But what about people who have DirecTV, and one of the local stations is NOT being broadcast on DirecTV. How many DirecTV subscribers just watch something else rather than go through the hassle of setting up an antenna? So you could make the reverse argument that the local channels are benefitting from increased viewership by being on DirecTV and cable....

So who is leaching off of whom? You can't just argue it one way.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

jasonblair said:


> Woah woah woah! You are telling me that cable and satellite companies are inserting their own ads on LIL broadcasts?!?!?!
> 
> I DON'T THINK SO!
> 
> They do that kind of stuff on the Cable channels, but I have NEVER seen them do that on CBS, NBC, ABC, or Fox broadcasts.


They don't. I didn't say that they did.

But, they sell insertion on their own "local cable" and "national cable" (when permitted by contract) channels.

The revenue for this insertion comes from the same local pool of TV advertising dollars, that used to be wholly available to the local TV stations.

The FCC ruled that since the sat/fiber/cable providers are competitors, and no longer passive re-transmitters, that local stations have the right to seek either must-carry or compensation.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

jasonblair said:


> You are looking at this from only one way. You assume that given a choice between the local broadcast channels and cable or satellite without broadcast channels, consumers would automatically prefer the former.


I assume nothing.

If a local station harms itself by not reaching an agreement, so be it. If D* harms itself by not having a LIN station, so be it.

The market will decide.

What I have a problem with are threads where people think we need to change laws simply because they don't like a little part of this free market process. If they can't reach an agreement...well we'll force one! Even if we don't know who's being the bigger bad guy. I need to see CSI in HD via D*, dammit!

You can attempt to argue all you want that it's "better" for the locals to be on D*. Maybe so.

But, if you don't think that sat/fiber/cable has HURT the cash flow of local free OTA TV. That local news/weather/information/programming/etc. is threatened, you are not looking closely at the industry.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jasonblair said:


> I've NEVER understood this phrase. If you believe that your own opinion is right, why would you agree to disagree? Someone who takes that stance must not have much faith that their own beliefs are correct!


Basically... we agree to stop bickering and going back and forth about it...
As we are both confident in our opinions...

I could continue all day with my opinion, but it would be simply rehashing each point over and over.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> What I have a problem with are threads where people think we need to change laws simply because they don't like a little part of this free market process.


Where's the free market? The LIN stations are proctected by law from having someone come in and provide a station from outside their DMA. If it was free market then let me pick what network affiliate I want to see and not have a law say watch this channel only if you want to see Law and Order first run episodes.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jasonblair said:


> So your problem is with the fee? What if I started a company where I rented antennas to people? By your definition, I should have to pay broadcasters to do this? What would the difference be? I am charging a fee to deliver a signal to a subscriber's television.


If you _rented_ antennae to people? Antennae are used to receive original, OTA broadcasts. Therefore, I have no problem with this arrangement. Not that I have any skin in it, either. You are simply enabling a customer to receive the original transmission.


jasonblair said:


> How are the cable/sat companies doing anything differently? They are charging for the delivery of a signal.


Ah, but that is where things are interesting. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that retransmitting terrestrial broacasts over cable does not violate copyright law. Therefore, it isn't a copyright violation. But a cable company must have a carriage contract (which may include fees) in order to carry a local broadcaster, unless that local broadcaster chooses must-carry.


jasonblair said:


> Merely passing a signal through doesn't mean that there is another copy of the material made, either.


It is a rebroadcast, and therefore, a copy. Anything that is not the original transmission is a rebroadcast. And because a terrestrial broadcaster does not transmit its original broadcast over a cable, the cable companies are rebroadcasting it over cable.

That is also much different than what the satellite companies must do. They must capture the broadcast, digitize and bounce it off of a satellite to subscribers. It completely meets the definition of a rebroadcast. It is not a pass-thru.

Kansas Zephyr said it best:


> The FCC ruled that since the sat/fiber/cable providers are competitors, and no longer passive re-transmitters, that local stations have the right to seek either must-carry or compensation.


There was a study done in the late 1980's. The question? What would you expect from your cable company if it no longer provided local channels? Over half of the respondants said they'd expect their bill to be at least halved, while a large chunk stated they'd dump their cable company. Therefore, a very large value was assigned by customers to have their carrier provide local channels, which in turn meant the local channels made up a very large part of the value of cable. And none of the cable income went to those stations.

So remember, until DBS had local channels available in December, 1999, both Dish Network and DirecTV provided out of market networks in violation of the laws, because people wanted network TV. As of late 1999, the satellite companies (Dish Network, DirecTV, Primestar) had about 8 million subscribers. After the local-into-local legislation was passed, and we are now 8 years into it, the satellite companies have 30 million subscribers.

Local stations (read network television programming) helped build that subscriber number. And they want a piece of the pie.

And no, I don't particularly agree with this stance, but I understand it.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

RAD said:


> Where's the free market? The LIN stations are proctected by law from having someone come in and provide a station from outside their DMA. If it was free market then let me pick what network affiliate I want to see and not have a law say watch this channel only if you want to see Law and Order first run episodes.


To start, understand the definition of FREE MARKET. It is the ability for two parties to reach an agreement without government mandates. Therefore, it is the free market that is keeping LIN off of DirecTV (and Dish Network). That is because it is up to those parties to come to an agreement in the free market.

The LIN stations are only protected by law the same way it would be illegal for you or I to make copies of Metallica's albums and distribute them over the internet. You nor I nor DirecTV nor Dish Network are allowed to make a copy of copyrighted material and distribute it freely.

And it is slightly possible to contract an outside of DMA station, but there are a couple of steps involved. The Suddenlink Cable skirmish around Austin forced and allowed Suddenlink to contract with the Waco NBC station in lieu of the Austin LIN-owned NBC station because the Waco station is significantly-viewed.

Once again, it is not free market for you to choose your affilate. The network-affiliate contracts are based off of a stranglehold in distribution. Therefore, that beloved network you want to watch controls how you see it.

Like I have said many times before, if you simply remove the laws (17 USC 119 and 122, respectively for distant networks and local-into-local, I believe), you only remove the ability to receive terrestrial broadcasts over satellite. You still won't get what you want. To get what you want, you need to have copyright law set on its ear.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

RAD said:


> Where's the free market? The LIN stations are proctected by law from having someone come in and provide a station from outside their DMA. If it was free market then let me pick what network affiliate I want to see and not have a law say watch this channel only if you want to see Law and Order first run episodes.


Which is no different than being a McBurger franchisee.

Your contract with parent McBuger, gives you the exclusive rights to be the only McBurger within your area.

So if people want McBurger, within your contracted territory, they get it from you.

Just like you get NFL Sunday Ticket only from D*. Under your school of thought D* is "protected" by law, and it's unfair that I can't get Sunday Ticket via cable or E*.

Since there is more than one cable/sat/fiber provider serving an area, usually. What if Bob's cable reaches an agreement with LIN? Then it can promote CSI in HD only on Bob, not on D*! This creates free market pressure, via competition.

The market will eventually sort this out without new laws/regulations.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> What I have a problem with are threads where people think we need to change laws simply because they don't like a little part of this free market process.


I am not arguing that the law needs changed... I am arguing that the current Copyright Law contains fair use doctrines that could be interpreted as allowing this practice.

Just because an agency such as the FCC passes a regulation doesn't necessarily mean that the regulation jives with the law. All I'm saying is that I think with advances in technology, satellite carriers have some pretty good arguments that carrying local stations is fair use. A lot has changed since the last set of regs were passed.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Ah, but that is where things are interesting. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that retransmitting terrestrial broacasts over cable does not violate copyright law. Therefore, it isn't a copyright violation. But a cable company must have a carriage contract (which may include fees) in order to carry a local broadcaster, unless that local broadcaster chooses must-carry.


If it isn't a copyright violation, why would a cable company need a contract? Completely contradictory.



Greg Bimson said:


> It is a rebroadcast, and therefore, a copy. Anything that is not the original transmission is a rebroadcast. And because a terrestrial broadcaster does not transmit its original broadcast over a cable, the cable companies are rebroadcasting it over cable.
> 
> That is also much different than what the satellite companies must do. They must capture the broadcast, digitize and bounce it off of a satellite to subscribers. It completely meets the definition of a rebroadcast. It is not a pass-thru.


What definition of "rebroadcast" are you using? Even if you have an antenna, there are cables that go from the antenna to your TV... Taking your definition, it would seem that OTA users are also "rebroadcasting" the signal from the antenna to the TV set.... They are converting the signal from one passed through the air to one passed over a cable.

It seems to me that such a definition is silly. Converting the medium through which the signal is carried (through the air vs. over copper wires) is not equivalent to a "rebroadcast."


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jasonblair said:


> I am not arguing that the law needs changed... I am arguing that the current Copyright Law contains fair use doctrines that could be interpreted as allowing this practice.


Current copyright law and fair use doctrines do not allow anyone to distribute copyrighted programming without consent. It is as far from fair use as possible.

The current laws for satellite rebroadcasts amended copyright law so that the satellite carriers were exempt from having the broadcaster negotiate licenses for their copyright content.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

jasonblair said:


> I am not arguing that the law needs changed... I am arguing that the current Copyright Law contains fair use doctrines that could be interpreted as allowing this practice.
> 
> Just because an agency such as the FCC passes a regulation doesn't necessarily mean that the regulation jives with the law. All I'm saying is that I think with advances in technology, satellite carriers have some pretty good arguments that carrying local stations is fair use. A lot has changed since the last set of regs were passed.


Sorry, I don't agree.

I still remain steadfast that local stations have to right to reach retransmission agreements with those that profit from it, while also competing with them. The FCC has affirmed this.

I'm done.

Like Earl alluded to, I've got my stance. Now, I'm stopping since were only rehashing within this thread.

Soon a new one will emerge, and we can start tossing grenades at each other again.

Peace out.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jasonblair said:


> If it isn't a copyright violation, why would a cable company need a contract? Completely contradictory.


Because Congress and the President enacted the Cable Act of 1992, which requires a retransmission consent contract or must-carry election to retransmit a local broadcast over cable.

You can find on this site that at the beginning of the year, Suddenlink Cable was forced to stop carriage of the Austin NBC station on their systems. The copyright is still "unenforcable", but the law was changed so that the system must have a carriage contract in order to rebroadcast.


jasonblair said:


> What definition of "rebroadcast" are you using? Even if you have an antenna, there are cables that go from the antenna to your TV... Taking your definition, it would seem that OTA users are also "rebroadcasting" the signal from the antenna to the TV set.... They are converting the signal from one passed through the air to one passed over a cable.


Sure. And that consumer is responsible for picking up the primary transmission via an antenna. It is not a copy.

In many cases, a cable company does not always retransmit on the same frequency as the broadcaster is licensed. That makes it a copy of the original transmission.

I am using the "original transmission" as the basis for the law. I think that is how it is defined in 17 USC 119 and 122.


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

The American legal system on full display.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

What's "LIN"? Local Into...Network? Nanotubes? Nerfballs?


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

Maruuk said:


> What's "LIN"? Local Into...Network? Nanotubes? Nerfballs?


A TV company that owns about 10-15 channels across the country that hasn't come to terms with D* to let D* retransmit their HD signals. I believe the name LIN came from Louisville, Indianapolis and Nashville, the first 3 cities they were in.


----------



## itguy05 (Oct 24, 2007)

Greg Bimson said:


> Try this backwards, guys. Out of the 30 million subscribers there are to satellite companies, how many subscribers would they lose if Congress decided tomorrow to remove local channels from satellite?
> 
> Therefore, local channels are way more important to keep the subscriber base happy.


For us, we could care less about "local" channels. Heck for 3 years before we went with Comcast (and not back with DTV), we had New York locals. I could care less about the mindless drivel on the local news. I could do without the incompetencies of the "locals" like ABC constantly switching from HD to SD whenever they have to brand the image, the compression on NBC because they want to thave 2 subchannels, etc.

What we do want is the CONTENT from NBC, CBS, and ABC. If I could get just the NBC, ABC, and CBS network we'd be happy. It's not about the locals, it's about the unique content from the major players.

I'd imagine most would feel the same way.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

itguy05 said:


> For us, we could care less about "local" channels. Heck for 3 years before we went with Comcast (and not back with DTV), we had New York locals. I could care less about the mindless drivel on the local news. I could do without the incompetencies of the "locals" like ABC constantly switching from HD to SD whenever they have to brand the image, the compression on NBC because they want to thave 2 subchannels, etc.
> 
> What we do want is the CONTENT from NBC, CBS, and ABC. If I could get just the NBC, ABC, and CBS network we'd be happy. It's not about the locals, it's about the unique content from the major players.
> 
> I'd imagine most would feel the same way.


I don't know about that.

I like my locals. I like the local content. I like the local news.

But I guess that's just my opinion. 

Mike


----------



## jacksonm30354 (Mar 29, 2007)

I think there should be a time limit and the retransmission $ amounts made public. I wouldn't mind knowing if my CBS station is getting $1 per subscriber, NBC $.50, ABC, $2 etc. If one is getting alot more than another I would expect a superior product - more of that $ spent on talent, news, equipment, graphics. 

The airwaves belong to the public. Why does LIN (or Nexstar) think they deserve more compensation than their crosstown rivals that have come to terms? It's obvious they are requesting some unreasonable amount. 

There should be a 2 month grace period that the sat/cable operator is allowed to carry the station while negotiations are underway. If there is no agreement within that time frame a mediator must be brought in. The station has a choice to pull their signal at that point HOWEVER the provider can pull in an affiliate from an adjacent market. That neighboring affiliate maybe barred from advertising aimed at the market in dispute. It is just being provided so the market is not deprived of the network shows. Syndicated shows shown on this out of market station that air on another station in the market maybe blacked out to protect the local affiliates rights. After 2-4 more months if no agreement is made, the station owners must return the signal to the public by putting it up for sale. Their competitors that reached agreements (or those in similar sized markets), are able to survive in the market for less than they are asking. It's obvious the owners are unable to provide an equal product given an equal playing field and must surrender the station to owners that can make due on what the market will bear.


To the analogy of having Burger franchise. This is not the same. This is like having the burger franchise for the area, but only allowing people who drive Toyotas or Hondas to purchase from them. The burger joint came to an agreement with Toyota and Honda that the car maker will pay the burger joint $1 a month for each Toyota and Honda owner in the city. Since you own a BMW, if you want to eat there, you have to go trade in your car eventhough you like your car better. As you like your BMW and have too much invested in it (and have 2 years left to pay on it), you just have to put up with not being allowed to eat at the burger joint. Your friends in the town 100 miles away down have that problem as the franchisee there does just fine letting all car owners dine at his restaurant.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Try this backwards, guys. Out of the 30 million subscribers there are to satellite companies, how many subscribers would they lose if Congress decided tomorrow to remove local channels from satellite?
> 
> Therefore, local channels are way more important to keep the subscriber base happy.





itguy05 said:


> For us, we could care less about "local" channels.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...





MicroBeta said:


> I don't know about that.
> 
> I like my locals. I like the local content. I like the local news.
> 
> But I guess that's just my opinion.


Look. Even I'll agree that if there were true "network feeds" on DirecTV and Dish Network, and the local stations weren't there, that it wouldn't cause a "grave concern".

However, that is the point. The networks have signed their distribution agreements as they've seen fit. And they are rooted in the exclusive affiliate distribution model. The truth is, unlike jacksonm30354's fast food model, it is more like a pizza delivery model.

Take the top four pizza delivery businesses: Domino's, Pizza Hut, Little Caeser's, and Papa John's. They have thousands of franchises across the United States, but only one of them will deliver pizza and other foodstuffs to your house. If you want something from another franchise in the chain, you have to physically go there. And it is because the corporate chain carves out the delivery areas, to mollify the franchisees.

And anyone that wants to have the government step in has got to be plum crazy. You'll see how well that works in about 13 months, when the digital transition occurs.


----------



## moghedien (Dec 3, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Earl,
> 
> I've posted several times, on several threads, about how cable/fiber/sat competes for the local ad money pool that local TV stations draw on.
> 
> ...


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Indiana627 said:


> A TV company that owns about 10-15 channels across the country that hasn't come to terms with D* to let D* retransmit their HD signals. I believe the name LIN came from Louisville, Indianapolis and Nashville, the first 3 cities they were in.


Actually they own twenty nine stations.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

raoul5788 said:


> Actually they own twenty nine stations.


All thier stations...

http://www.lintv.com/about/television.html


----------



## bb37 (Dec 27, 2007)

RAD said:


> Where's the free market? The LIN stations are proctected by law from having someone come in and provide a station from outside their DMA.


And I think that's a good law. The local stations should have some protection from stations outside their DMA.

On the other hand, Indianapolis viewers find themselves in an interesting, and possibly unique, situation. Our CBS affiliate is a LIN station. The next closest CBS affiliate is in Lafayette, also a LIN station. The next closest CBS affiliate is in Terre Haute, also a LIN station. The next closest CBS affiliate is in Fort Wayne, also a LIN station. Viewers in this area, whether they be OTA, cable, or sat, get CBS programming from LIN or nobody.



jacksonm30354 said:


> Why does LIN (or Nexstar) think they deserve more compensation than their crosstown rivals that have come to terms?


I'm not worried so much about LIN getting more compensation from cable/sat carriers than other network affiliates in my DMA. What I am worried about is if LIN is demanding more compensation from DirecTV than they demand from Comcast or Brighthouse, the two major cable companies in this area. If that is the case, then LIN is showing some favoritism in the distribution of their HD signal. If that's not the case, then I have no argument.

So, who's the bad guy here? Is LIN asking too much from DirecTV or is DirecTV just not playing along?


----------



## RoundRockJohn (Apr 24, 2007)

I live in Austin, and not having their HD signal on DirecTV bothered me, so I sent them an email.

Dear Sirs,

I'm writing to expresses my concern with KXAN's missing HD feed on DirecTV. As a huge fan of many of NBC shows, I enjoy watching them with the best possible experience. To me, this means High Definition.

Since LIN communication has refused to come to an agreement with DirecTV about the rebroadcasting of the HD signal, I was unable to view these programs in HD, and I searched for alternative methods to view these programs.

Thanks to your position on this issue, I've discovered I can download these shows off the Internet, in HD, free and legally, very often within 24 hours of them being aired. It's been very liberating, and it turns out I don't need to watch KXAN at all anymore to enjoy my favorite shows. So I was concerned about this, but now, not so much. 

Maybe when this all over, NBC will give you a cut of their Internet advertising revenue. Then again, maybe not.

Thank you so much for helping me see the light!

John Carney
Round Rock, TX


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

moghedien said:


> I've posted several times, on several threads, about how cable/fiber/sat competes for the local ad money pool that local TV stations draw on.


Actually, moghedien, you are completely wrong about the competition for _local_ ad money by _satellite_. Neither DirecTV nor Dish have any way of inserting local ad avails into any programming stream. Remember, the feed of USA Network (or ESPN, or CNN, or Discovery, etc.) that goes to your house from satellite is the same one that goes to every house in the USA. The only localized channels satellite provides are the LiL channels, which are the very local broadcasters you claim that satellite is poaching from! Satellite has not _hurt_ local broadcasters, it has helped them by returning them to the sole provider of local advertising availabilities in their respective markets!



moghedien said:


> Please refer to those...and talk to your local TV station and ask if/how cable/fiber/sat has hurt them.


If any local TV station executives claim they are being hurt by the loss of local ad revenues to satellite, then they are either clueless or flat out lying. The only way satellite distribution hurts them is when it doesn't happen, thus cutting them off from that segment of the viewing public.



moghedien said:


> I think LIN is trying to recoup the costs they incurred in converting from analog to digital transmission from the D*, E* and cable subscribers, using those companies as collection agents.


No, LIN is viewing its signal as a cash cow it can milk dry.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Current copyright law and fair use doctrines do not allow anyone to distribute copyrighted programming without consent.


Absolutely NOT true... There are plenty of exceptions that allow people to distribute copyrighted programming. The "academic exception," for example.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I finally made a mistake. Sue me. 

The reality is that how the networks make their money is as far from fair use as you can get. There is no way that rebroadcasting entire non-academic works from a local television station for some fee-based subscription via satellite would ever fly using the fair use doctrine.


----------



## ToddinVA (Mar 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sounds like LIN wants to double dip into the HD-Digital broadcast pool.


That's exactly the case.


----------



## Mark20 (Dec 25, 2006)

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but...

From some of the numbers I've recently seen, the percentage of people that get a local station OTA is surprisingly low. Most watch via cable or satellite feed. So letting advertisers know your not seeing their ads may be very effective.

Also, matters of bradcast are reserved to the federal government and FCC so bringin it up to local and state officials may be of limited use. But there could be that tax break or zoning approval they are looking for... !devil12:


----------



## finaldiet (Jun 13, 2006)

moghedien said:


> Kansas Zephyr said:
> 
> 
> > Earl,
> ...


----------



## MattWarner (Feb 11, 2007)

I don't have much to add to this thread, but I wanted to say it is a fascinating, thought provoking read. Good and well thought out arguments made by all.. This type of thread is what makes this site great!

-Matt


----------



## narcolept (Mar 1, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Now that is a plan...
> 
> Also include the production companies of the major shows on those networks..
> 
> ...


THat's one hell of a plan. For anyone considering this, like I did (went so far as to register a domain and set up some things), please note I just found out the hard way that you won't be able to discuss it or link to it here, since it's against policies.

So if you were thinking of it, you won't be able to let the majority of visitors or supporters know about it, as they frequent this board and you can't discuss it here.

Nothing like leading a horse to water and not letting him drink.

</rant>?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

narcolept said:


> THat's one hell of a plan. For anyone considering this, like I did (went so far as to register a domain and set up some things), please note I just found out the hard way that you won't be able to discuss it or link to it here, since it's against policies.
> 
> So if you were thinking of it, you won't be able to let the majority of visitors or supporters know about it, as they frequent this board and you can't discuss it here.
> 
> ...


It was a suggestion that I made... as a thought of something someone should do.

And yes, we do have a policy here at DBSTalk... of not allowing petitions..

So once you have more information up on the site, and have basically built it's identity and the message... it can be reviewed...

If it is information, vs a petition... then we most definently can allow it to be linked as a reference point to the information.

But if it is more of a petition... then unfourtently we have to be consistant with our rules, as we don't allow petitions (even though a lot of them are ones we would like to see here).

While at this point, we can't allow it...
It is always up for discussion amongst the moderators and admins of the site, to make exceptions.

If you want to continue with your work and plan, if you truely feel that you want to do it.... then we can talk and see what can be done...

As it is good information, and could ultimately lead to benefit all of our user base here (DishNetwork and DirecTV users).


----------



## Dr_J (Apr 15, 2007)

RAD said:


> Where's the free market? The LIN stations are proctected by law from having someone come in and provide a station from outside their DMA.


What I don't understand is why does my bare-bones basic Comcast cable provide both Boston and Providence locals to this area, but DirecTV provides only Providence locals? I've always wondered about that. If I could get Boston locals on DirecTV, this whole LIN thing wouldn't even be an issue for me. Boston is so (relatively) close that I can even pull in a few of their stations OTA, including CBS HD (WBZ), so I don't have to watch the local CBS (LIN) station. (Alas, the Boston Fox HD station is too weak to reliably pull in OTA, while the local Fox HD (LIN) station is an OTA powerhouse.)


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Dr_J said:


> What I don't understand is why does my bare-bones basic Comcast cable provide both Boston and Providence locals to this area, but DirecTV provides only Providence locals? I've always wondered about that. If I could get Boston locals on DirecTV, this whole LIN thing wouldn't even be an issue for me. Boston is so (relatively) close that I can even pull in a few of their stations OTA, including CBS HD (WBZ), so I don't have to watch the local CBS (LIN) station. (Alas, the Boston Fox HD station is too weak to reliably pull in OTA, while the local Fox HD (LIN) station is an OTA powerhouse.)


Cable companies get to play by different rules than the satellite companies. Cable gets to add channels from other markets. Satellite can't except in a few places.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Changing the subject a bit... DirecTV doesn't yet carry the Terre Haute, IN DMA. The local CBS affiliate, WTHI, is a LIN station. Will LIN hold out on DirecTV for their SD feed as well?


----------



## bb37 (Dec 27, 2007)

Not sure I understand your point, Jason. If DirecTV chooses to add the Terre Haute DMA, they could carry WTHI's analog signal just like they carry WISH's analog signal in the Indianapolis market. LIN doesn't seem to have a problem with D* carrying the analog signal.

And this is the thing that doesn't make sense to me. The programming on WISH analog Channel 8 is the same as WISH digital on 8.1. I don't see how it hurts LIN to allow D* to carry the digital signals. But it will really hurt LIN, and their advertisers, when the analog signal gets turned off next February. Isn't something better than nothing?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

All things being equal, LIN would probably allow the Terre Haute CBS feed up along with the rest of the Terre Haute locals. In every other LIN market, the LIN station is up in SD but not up in HD.

I think LIN's point is that because of the digital transition, they've had to shell out a lot of money, such as HD cameras, HD transmitters, a higher power bill and even newer news studios that will end up being a bit more HD friendly. Unlike a network, or a larger group of affiliates such as Hearst (which has an ownership stake in ESPN and Lifetime) and Scripps (HGTV, Food, DIY) own a chunk of something else that provides revenue. LIN does not.

Not that I agree with it.


----------



## jacksonm30354 (Mar 29, 2007)

I just saw that LIN is asking Time-warner in Green Bay $.02 per subscriber per day to carry their station WLUK FOX 11. So about $.60 per subscriber per month. I wonder how that compares to what other stations in other markets have asked and to cable networks.


----------



## REDSKINSFAN47 (Sep 2, 2007)

HDTVFreak07 said:


> Our local network broadcasters had said that DirecTV was the one that told them it wouldn't be financially feasible to have ours on DirecTV due to our small population. Our locals said they were quite surprised because we have a huge population from Fort Drum military base but DirecTV told them they couldn't include the population from there (for some reason). It's all OTA for us northern New Yorkers.


do they include the population from st lawrence county,have relatives in ogdensburg, lisbon and heuvalton,that watch watertown stations ch 7 comes to mind ota is vdificult for them.i think they get wavers for 2 networks but not the other 2. cbs:nono:


----------



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

REDSKINSFAN47 said:


> do they include the population from st lawrence county,have relatives in ogdensburg, lisbon and heuvalton,that watch watertown stations ch 7 comes to mind ota is vdificult for them.i think they get wavers for 2 networks but not the other 2. cbs:nono:


Yes, they included the St. Lawrence County population as well. I understand that receiving Watertown locals is pretty hard up there.


----------

