Some viewers feel WLUK's balanced news coverage excludes Time Warner
WLUK has branded itself on "balanced news coverage," by including multiple views from both sides of issues covered on its newscasts. Station Vice President and General Manager Jay Zollar asks viewers if their coverage was balanced after every newscast, inviting viewers to e-mail their responses.
But when it comes to covering its own story about retransmission negotiations with local cable operator Time Warner Cable, some viewers want to know why the same credo doesn't apply.
For almost a week, WLUK's parent company LIN Television has been embroiled in a bitter corporate squabble with Time Warner, resulting in LIN withholding WLUK and a handful of other stations from the cable company's lineups.
One viewer recently e-mailed balancednews@wluk.com, the address given by Zollar at the end of every WLUK newscast, asking why both sides were not being represented on the Time Warner negotiation stories.
Zollar replied:
"We would welcome a balanced discussion but based on what they are claiming, we know for a fact that their remarks are false and we will not provide a forum for them to tell lies to viewers. They have used their resources to tell their story, we will not let them use us to spread untruths."
"Regardless of what side you're on, Zollar's e-mail is a rookie move," responded Jeff Simmermon, Director of Digital Communications at Time Warner, "Everyone expects me to be a corporate shill, because I'm in PR for Time Warner Cable and that's what I do. He's doing the same thing and passing it off as journalism."
Simmermon accuses LIN of using their stations' news programs to stir public ire, adding "they're hitting their corporate talking points hard in newscasts to get people to repeat them, and it's working. And while you may not agree with Time Warner's side of this argument, you've got to recognize that this is dirty pool."
Fox Cities TV is an independent blog and member-driven community based in Green Bay, Wisconsin and serves the Northeast Wisconsin area, including Green Bay, Appleton, and Oshkosh. TV lovers can come here to learn about what's happening in local (and national) television, interact with other TV viewers and express their opinions.
Mark David Zahn is the founder and chief editor of Fox Cities TV, as well as an avid pop culture geek, writer and technology lover. Learn more about Mark on his
Ohhh, hisss. Well done
Ohhh, hisss. Well done Zollar! I love not being able to accidentally watch your newscast!
Jay Zollar reminds me of a
Jay Zollar reminds me of a spoiled brat whose mother tells him no in Wal Mart and throws a childish fit! GROW UP!
To be honest I do not care
To be honest I do not care if TWC ever gets FOX 11 - my HD feed is perfect amyways! Next thing is WLUK will knock down transmission levels on the signal.... I would not put that past them.
I agree I really don't care
I agree I really don't care if TWC ever puts FOX back on their lineup. Just hope they don't cave in like all the other providers did.
The Truth Shall Set You
The Truth Shall Set You Free.
If I were to believe your statement,Jay, one of the presidential candidates should say, his remarks are false and I will not provide a forum for him to tell lies to voters. Your story is the only true story, get real. Go Time Warner.
There's a huge difference
There's a huge difference between stating that "we have a difference of opinion and we don't think it's in our best interest to give them a voice on our airwaves" and saying "we're not going to do it because they are lying".
I'd love to know what specifically it is that Jay is claiming that TWC is lying about.
We ALL need to do ourselves
We ALL need to do ourselves a favor and call the Green Bay Packers Public Relations Department @ 920.569.7201 and let them know that you are a LOYAL packer fan and have been held hostage by LINTV now for one game which may turn into 2 or 3 by the time this is settled and ask to consider a breach of contract on LIN's end of the bargain ( if there is ) and DEMAND that they switch ALL packer games to NBC or CBS - even if you are NOT a packer fan I think this is the right thing to do - this would be a BOLD statement to LIN that WE DO NOT NEED THEM! I am sure the NFL is being bombed by emails and calls and this would just add fuel to the fire seeing Indianapolis also has the same problems our packer fans have which is NO GAMES!
This would relive ALOT of tension for TWC - just one way for you to pay them back for the free antenna's, credits, etc that they gave you ;-)
I am interested in hearing what you all think about this idea.
Cheers!
Jason
Good suggestion Jason. I
Good suggestion Jason. I think all sponsors of FOX should hear from us as well.
I agree that is was a class act on the part of Time Warner to give us the antennas. (and the free Showtime for 3 months). Not to mention that Stars channel on the former WLUK is great. It's encouraging to see most people are on the right side of this issue. Some people just don't care - and most of the 'uncaring' group are the first to cry about what's wrong with the world. My neighbor was actually spitting he was so angry that Time Warner made him pick up his own free "stinking antenna" as he called it, and then offered him Showtime instead of paying for his gas, his time and his trouble. I noticed a Time Warner truck out in front of his house later. I asked him about it. He was embarassed but admitted he couldn't figure out how to install the antenna. TW sent a tech over to help him. For free. I asked him if he offered to pay for the guy's gas! These people just don't get it. THEY are what's wrong with the world.
There is a 0% chance the
There is a 0% chance the games get moved. While I agree with your anti-LIN sentiments, the NFL would never be able to make the move you are suggesting. They have multi-multi-multi-million dollar contracts with FOX for NFC games, CBS for AFC games, NBC for Sunday Night games, and ESPN for Monday Night games.
Exactly. Harassing the
Exactly. Harassing the Packers about this isn't going to do anything. The TV deal is between the NFL and the Fox Network. The other locals would love to show Packer games, but the only way they'll ever be able to do it is if their parent network coughs more billions of dollars and their bid is more than the other networks that are bidding and even then they'll have to wait until the next time that the NFL contract for NFC games comes do. The Packers have absolutely no say in what network broadcasts their games as the contracts are between the NFL and the networks and always go to whoever is willing to pay the most.
I'm the director of digital
I'm the director of digital communications at Time Warner Cable, so of course I've got a stake in this argument. But look: regardless of what side you're on, Zollar's e-mail is a rookie move. Everyone expects me to be a corporate shill, because I'm in PR for Time Warner Cable and that's what I do. He's doing the same thing and passing it off as journalism.
This is the same tactic and the same mentality that sold America a bogus war: "the opposition won't get a say because they are lying liars that conveniently disagree with us."
Nobody with two IQ points to rub together thinks Bill O'Reilly's anything other than a corporate wind tunnel. I'm just sorry to see the same behavior trickle down to management at the local level like this.
The bottom line is this: WLUK and all the rest of LIN-TV's properties are using their "news" programs to promote a corporate agenda and whip the public up as a negotiation tactic. They're hitting their corporate talking points hard in newscasts to get people to repeat them, and it's working. And while you may not agree with Time Warner's side of this argument, you've got to recognize that this is dirty pool.
To be fair, comparing in any
To be fair, comparing in any way a dispute over carriage rights of a TV channel to a war is totally classless and insulting too.
This is not Jeff
This is not Jeff Simmermon... at least I hope it's not because he just lost himself some customers if it is. Roughly half the audience (maybe less, maybe more) is on the political right and take offense to bashing their party and their news guy while taking a shot at their IQ in the process. Dumb move if it is.
After posting my initial
After posting my initial comment regarding Jeff's comment, I kind of thought that maybe it was someone impersonating him too. However, Mark added part of his comments to the main article.
I now have to question both sides on how they're handling this dispute and I'd argue that Jeff's comments foolishly adding politics into the argument and callously treating a war (which is literally a life and death issue) as being on par with watching TV as trumping anything Jay has said as far as being stupid.
When you're selling a product, you never ever ever want to insult a major percentage of your customers or potential customers and doing so is a far more "rookie move" than childishly referring to someone who disagrees with you as a liar.
Hmmmm...Simmermon's other
Hmmmm...Simmermon's other comments didn't make him sound like he's an idiot. This post sounds more like Zoller trying to do a Simmermon impersonation. Low-ball gutter tactics fit Zollar and LIN.
Then what is your excuse to
Then what is your excuse to deny football fans with the NFL network? You can bash WLUK but you are no better, NFL says it should be free you want to charge for it.
People in glass houses should not through stones.
PS I would trust O Reilly over a paid TW corporate wind tunnel.
Green Bay Forum
Nobody by the name of Jeff
Nobody by the name of Jeff Simmermon works for Time Warner Cable in the state of Wisconsin. The above post is not likely from that individual.
He is at the TWC corporate
He is at the TWC corporate office and I assure you all, that post was him.
I can't believe he would be
I can't believe he would be that dumb. I plan on forwarding his comments to all of my friends with TWC to reveal his feelings. Unreal.
While I may or may not
While I may or may not necessarily condone the "war/O'Reilly" portion of Jeff's comments (or their use in this particular context), personally I would find the assessment of "dumb" just as offensive if not more so. I wish we were better than that as a nation.
I may not agree with your worldview or personal opinions on politics, and you very well may not agree with mine, but dismissing someone with opposite opinions than yours as dumb just seems narrow minded to me.
I find the Bill O'Reilly's and Michael Savages of the world abrasive and, at times, offensive. And while I don't agree with their views on the vast majority of issues, I don't dismiss them as dumb or wrong. Hell, I listen to them more often than shows whose hosts I agree with. Even though I disagree or get offended, I recognize that's their opinion and it's their right to say it. I don't call for censorship. I don't go out and tell people to boycott them. That's just ridiculous. Free speech rest solely with you. People will offend you. That's freedom, isn't it?
Personally, I wouldn't necessarily automatically go tell all my friends to do something based off the opinion of one person out of thousands who work for a company. If I did that with everyone with whose opinions I disagreed, I don't know if I'd be able to leave the house in the morning. I'm pretty sure that bagger at Festival Foods I've been weary of is going to vote for the other candidate in the election, so I won't shop there. Come to think of it, the guy in Michigan assembling my future car has a different stance than me on the abortion issue... better buy a different car now, I guess. Sure, I might tell friends about what he said, but I sure as hell wouldn't preface it with "Oh my God, look at the horribly offensive thing this guy said and you should switch because he said it!" I hope I'd find my friends intelligent enough to let them form their own opinions from it.
I really wish we didn't inject politics into everything these days, but I know that with situations like these, they themselves are often pretty political as well. Knowing Jeff the short while I have (about a week's worth of e-mails and a couple of phone calls), I get the sense that he's a guy that doesn't pull any punches, and that very well may rub some people the wrong way. I would never censor his comments, even if they offended me. I may or may not agree with that particular portion of Jeff's comments, but I'll be damned if I didn't think he had the right to say it.
Now, before anyone jumps all over me here, I'm not saying anyone shouldn't have the right to be offended and act accordingly as they would. They certainly have that right. At the very least, a moment to pause and reflect before making a conclusion is always in good order, I think.
First off, I am not
First off, I am not switching from TWC because I am on their side and actually like most everything about them. I just thought they were taking the higher road and was disappointed they were not. I have been a firm supporter of TWC as evident by my posts here. The thing I thought was dumb was that he would bring politics into something that is not political and alienate a large portion of customers that were (and maybe still are) on TWC's side in this situation. I have passed on Jay Zollar's comments and have passed on Jeff's to give a fair and balanced view of the situation... something you have preached all along. Why is it that you have never defended Jay Zollar when someone says that his handling of the situation is dumb, but come rushing to Jeff's defense?
Also, who says that I am not on your side politically? I would have said the same thing if he brought politics into the equation on the opposite side and insulted fans of Keith Olberman. I am so sick of everything being so political. That is why I thought it was so dumb to inject politics into his argument. He could have said everything without those digs at the Right.
Here is a part of a post of
Here is a part of a post of mine from The Oshkosh Northwestern to show you more about how I feel politically:
"I really don't understand the anger from both sides against each other. I fall into the cool headed and intelligent category you describe. I personally am far from impressed by either candidate and do not get how the left thinks Obama is never wrong and the right thinks Obama is never right (and vice versa)."
"It's the blind/partisan support that I do not understand.... along with the name calling. In the grand scheme of things, don't we all want the same thing? I have friends on both sides of the aisle and have maintained those friendships because we respect that we have differing opinions for different reasons. It would just be nice if there was a little more civility both in these blogs and in the world as a whole."
Obviously, both sides have
Obviously, both sides have their views, and while each refuses to make concessions, ultimately, it's the public that loses. And as it stands now, I don't "have a horse in this race" as I cannot afford pay TV service, even basic, right now.
Admittedly, I may not have jumped in on Mr. Zollar's behalf in those situations when I could or should have, and for that, I apologize. I shouldn't have let the violation of trust I feel as a WLUK viewer over Zollar's above comments (among others made in past) get in the way of staying an impartial party in this thing. This is probably why I've never been able to parlay my blogging career into a real one.
Don't take this as a defense of Jeff's political points above though. I personally agree with him on those points as that is where I tend to lean politically, but injecting them into this issue weakened the rebuttal as a whole. I could very well have edited those points out to spare this whole secondary debate, but I don't want to censor unless absolutely necessary (ie. threatening comments, posting of confidential info, etc) and talking with Jeff yesterday, I know he stands by his comments.
Nice Jeff! ha ha ha! Its
Nice Jeff! ha ha ha! Its about time I see a TWC person start throwing mud back at Jay and company.... although the comment about the Iraq war in comparison to this issue was kind of unnecessary.
Yes, I don't agree with Jeff
Yes, I don't agree with Jeff on the war thing nor the O'Reilly thing, but he DOES have a right (or a left? haha) to an opinion. Yes, his opinion may not sit well with some, heck even me if my mood hits me just right, but for god sakes, everyone with this entire thing is making a mountain out of a mohill.
If you look at the picture we are looking at in N.E.W., it is JUST FOX. JUST WLUK. Everyone is getting soo worked up over such a stupid thing. If you want FOX, make adjustments. If you wanna get in a contract and head to DISH or DirecTV, that is your choice. Had Dish, had DirecTV, both were alright at the time, but so far the SERVICE and QUALITY of Time Warner and Road Runner have been great, plus we don't have to pay for each TV we have hooked up (4 direct to cable, 1 to HD box, with free HD channels), only costs us $85 after tax for both Internet and Cable (not introductory)
I remember a tech guy coming here to fix our internet issue, saw right away it was the modem, replaced it, and actually showed me some cool things you could do with a computer.
Another thing I want to add... since there are people that bring up Time Warner and their basic package charging. 1. Yes these channels aren't that big, but they do include WGN, EWTN, CSPAN, and local public access with BASIC cable. 2. Six-Seven years ago, when we first got DISH (had for 5 years), I remember looking at their tiers. You COULD get the locals or superstations by themselves, BUT they charged you somewhere between $10-$20 just to have the satellite hooked up and working. THEN they added on the $5-5.99 (forgot the exact price at the time) to that price. So total of $15-25 after locals added.
I look at Time Warner Cable, and don't see this as any different. However, I actually do. Time Warner has an infustructure to take care of out here. Wires upon wires for miles. They have local equipment in their Darboy facility to take in the channels, and redistribute them. They have many different ACTUAL employees who come out to houses, go out to fix the wiring, etc out here. Heck, even part of their customer service is out here. Then take that and look at all the other markets they have. That is a lot of $$$$$ going out just to maintain what they have.
Alright, back to the $10-$20 for satellite hookup. You have to look at satellite a bit different here. Yes, satellites are VERY VERY expensive. HOWEVER, these SHOULD be built better and should stand up against wind and trees falling on them ;) if that happens in space (haha just kidding). DISH and DirecTV, just assuming here, probably run their channel distribution from one or 2 buildings, VS. Time Warner that has local offices in each area (Milwaukee, Appleton, etc).
I am guessing if you add up all the extra Time Warner may have to spend to keep the system going over satellite (with a base of $10-$20), it would add up to pretty close to the $25 or whatever the basic is, WITHOUT locals or the other 3 or 4 channels added in there.
Of course, this is just a thought. I don't work for any company, just had a lot of experience with these companies, and am a bit of a technology geek. Sorry for making such a long post :)
I think your TWC comments
I think your TWC comments are right on the money( no pun intended ). If I have an issue I can't resolve with my settings or a re-boot, and I call TWC about it, they will have a tech here the same day or the next day in a time slot of my choice. The techs are courteous, efficient, and know what they're doing. TWC has tiny annoyances from time to time, but no different than those with satellite ( which I tried before returning to TWC. ) TWC provides a high quality picture ( analog, digital, HD ). Although too slowly and not all to my tastes , they ARE continuing to add new HD channels. As silverdiskdj says,this all does come with a cost, but to me, for now, it is well worth paying. TWC is local, NOT an "800" call away. This is, to me, proof that you definitely can get what you pay for. Either enjoy what you have, or else, if dissatisfied, make a change to your liking. It's just that easy. Incidentally, I'm retired and have never been employed in communications, so I have no vested interest in TWC.
Well, for the record, I
Well, for the record, I agree with some of the political opinion that Jeff expressed...didn't agree with some of it too...not gonna specifically state what I agreed with and what I didn't because it's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make...introducing politics into a debate about the rights to carry a TV station when politics are totally irrelevant to the situation at hand is stupid...doing so when you are a salesperson or PR person and should know that you'd be offending close to half of your customers (no matter what stance on an issue that you take) is dumb and a totally "rookie move" and what they teach you not to do in any marketing 101 class...and when you throw out a position on a war (whether you're for it or against it) into a debate about something as trivial as television, then you're being offensive and tasteless...
EDIT: I'll add that I don't understand why Jeff introduced Fox News into the argument (a station which I didn't watch when I was a TWC TV customer and am not sure if I even get as a current Dish TV customer) as Fox News has about as much to do with WLUK or the other LIN stations as does the NY Post. If Jeff has a problem with Fox News that can't be solved by him personally not watching it, then maybe his company should delete it from their lineup. Fox News is not in any way part of this argument because TWC has a carriage agreement in place to carry Fox News (and the Fox New carriage agreement has nothing to do with LIN) and many of the other LIN TV stations are spouting the exact same propaganda as WLUK but have absolutely no affiliation with the Fox Network or News Corp (see the NBC affiliate in Buffalo as an example of this).
The only losers here is TW.
The only losers here is TW. WLUK still has it signal going out to everyone, people still get WLUK's broadcast, and DISH and DIRECTV have many new customers. TW have lost customers, won't get them back and they are going to have to do it all over again for the other locals.
Green Bay Forum
Not true at all...I know
Not true at all...I know quite a few TWC customers who think it's not worth the effort to use an antenna to get WLUK, but have no plans to switch to other providers for TV service...plus WLUK (and the other LIN locals) have lost advertisers and will continue to lose more advertisers the longer this goes on....you can argue it's a lose, lose situation...you can argue whose losing more or you can argue whose right, but to try and argue that only one side is losing is not looking at the total picture...
How many advertisers has
How many advertisers has WLUK lost? Please share that number with us. This is not good for either side, but it is worse for TW. I await to hear your numbers.
Green Bay Forum
That's something you'd have
That's something you'd have to ask WLUK, and something I highly doubt they would divulge.
No Mark I asked wihogfan
No Mark I asked wihogfan because he is the one who made the statement, ".plus WLUK (and the other LIN locals) have lost advertisers and will continue to lose more advertisers the longer this goes on."
I don't need to ask WLUK nothing he needs to back up his statement with facts.
Green Bay Forum
I personally know of 3
I personally know of 3 companies that have or are in the process of moving their their advertising to other stations (or in one case moving almost entirely to radio and print advertising). I'm sure there are others that have and will follow the longer this continues.
Why print no one reads the
Why print no one reads the newspapers anymore and unless they are moving to conservative talk radio they are going to miss the biggest audiences for consumers, especially if they use the WHBY morning show.
As for WLUK, they still reach every person in the viewing area, so there really is no drop of there.
Green Bay Forum
WLUK definitely doesn't
WLUK definitely doesn't reach every person in the viewing area right now. Just search this forum here and you'll see a number of people who are TWC customers and can't pick up WLUK using an antenna. And as I previously stated, I know a few people who simply don't think using an antenna is worth the hassle and are not going to switch from TWC to another provider just to get one channel. How many people are in that situation? No idea, but some are and thus WLUK has lost viewers.
Because they are either not
Because they are either not bright enough to hook up an antenna or to lazy to do it does not mean they CAN NOT receive the signal, they can and could with the proper equipment. Its is THEIR choice not to receive it.
Green Bay Forum
You are assuming a lot
You are assuming a lot there, and I don't think it's mere laziness in all cases. Take my example for instance. To get a clear reliable signal, I would need to use a rooftop antenna given where I live. I am in an apartment and don't have access to put an antenna on the roof, or a satellite dish because I don't have a patio. To get even a marginal signal where I live -- and lately it has been marginal at best -- I have a 40" aluminum outdoor antenna mounted near the ceiling of my spare bedroom. I'm shooting through other apartments and natural physical obstructions doing that.
What do you say to people like me who are not allowed to use the proper equipment required to get a broadcast signal? I may not be bright in your estimation, but I'm not lazy either. I've tried many antennas and this is the closest I've come to an uninterrupted signal. This is assuming digital. Forget about getting an analog OTA signal here!
It's for people like me that cable access is required. I'm in Appleton, not out in the rural areas or anything.
Not WLUK's problem that you
Not WLUK's problem that you cannot access their signal. The signal is out there for the taking, its up to the user to figure out how they are going to get it and yes it is possible there are some people who are unable to get it. I remember when I was young that it was not always easy getting a decent picture, such was life.. If they need a cable company in order to do that they that's what they need. But if the cable company does not have that channel it's whose responsibility that they do when they are charging their customers to watch it, that is correct the cable compnay.
Green Bay Forum
They may count the number of
They may count the number of people their signal can, theoretically, reach, but that doesn't mean everyone can see them well if at all, depending on their geography, antenna, etc.
And that is in no way WLUKs
And that is in no way WLUKs fault. So it comes down to they did not get WLUK before cable and can't now because of cable.
Green Bay Forum
But WLUK is still using
But WLUK is still using those people as "potential viewers" when they sell exposure to advertisers.
I would think it would be more important to a broadcaster to make their signal physically available to the most eyeballs possible than to assume anybody in my signal range can get my signal without fail, which is not in all cases true. If I were an advertiser, I'd opt to go more with a WFRV or WBAY whose signal is so widely accessible on cable and satellite versus a WLUK (or a WIWB or WACY when we're talking about high-def feeds).
Mark, you failed to mention
Mark, you failed to mention one other factor: it also does not mean that everyone WANTS to watch their telecasts. Your polls indicate about 50 % indifference to WLUK's absence. Aside from Packers ( Oh, Boy ! ), and one or two other FOX programs, they offer nothing really worth viewing. If WLUK never returned to TWC, I could exist just fine without them, thank you !
In Green Bay, is there
In Green Bay, is there anything but conservative talk radio?
The morning show may not be ultra-conservative, but WHBY has Michael Savage, Robbie Johnson, Neal Boortz, Steve Malzberg, Jerry Doyle, and Phil Valentine.
I think the advertising on radio would have more to do with ratings than programming, and in each station's home market, they're pretty comparable in ratings.
If the advertiser is going for the Green Bay area, they'd go with WTAQ because WHBY doesn't have much traction up there. In Appleton, WHBY has a bigger share than WTAQ.
Sure we have several sports
Sure we have several sports talk stations and luckily no "progressive" stations.
Green Bay Forum
Heaven forbid we have one of
Heaven forbid we have one of "those" stations around here. :)
We could have one but no one
We could have one but no one would listen. :)
Green Bay Forum
The best part about your
The best part about your post is that during the game today I didn't see 1 local advertisement on their channel. The loser in this stand off will be LIN, if you cant see that then you are not in tune with business today. I have TWC and have no intention of leaving them because of 1 channel that I may watch a few things on a year.
I don't pay attention to
I don't pay attention to commercials so I can't say if you are right or wrong. When commercials come on I switch to the other game or ESPN NEWS to watch highlights. As for TW I have no plans to leave either, I watch the games I want on FOX Sunday and just DL the shows I want to watch without commercials from the internet. Like I said until TW stops playing games with the NFL Network they have no credibility in this whole issue.
But hey maybe they could put a few more home shopping channels on.
Green Bay Forum
A precedence has been set
A precedence has been set (late Friday night) with Comcast and NFL Network... http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hArfYYiwpbzJErkId7Tqk-76zfwAD93O0VL01.
Now TWC and NFL Network might have a blueprint to get a deal done.
If you were in Time Warner's
If you were in Time Warner's shoes and it was your bottom line... and shopping channels paid you for carrying them, but NFL Network wanted to take 70 cents a head and dictate where they went on your lineup, wouldn't you "play games" with them, as you put it?
yeah I guess I would. Green
yeah I guess I would.
Green Bay Forum
If this were any other local
If this were any other local channel there wouldn't be this uproar. WLUK, sadly, airs Packer games. They assume that the majority of N.E. Wisconsin residents are losers who care more about convenience than right/wrong. They assume we are losers. It's looking like the majority of us do care about right/wrong and teaching the concept by example. Doing the right thing isn't always the convenient thing. Not all of us know, or care about right/wrong. WLUK thinking most of us don't sickens me. I don't know that I'll ever watch their government freebie channel again.
Deb if you cared about right
Deb if you cared about right or wrong you would see TW who is taking a free signal for their profit and then charging YOU to watch it. No one needs TW cable to watch TV. If TW was really all that innocent they would put the NFL network on their lineup but because they are more worried about their profit. They can whine all they want about the evil of WLUK but when they are just as guilty if not more so.
Green Bay Forum
For some channels, there are
For some channels, there are some that need a pay TV service to watch them. I get e-mails from people all the time who have trouble receiving broadcast signals. Whether it's cable or satellite, they all charge for providing service, including locals. No one is going to be able to provide satellite or line-based TV service for free, so of course they're going to charge something for it. You may not like what they charge, and that's your right to choose your own service.
The reason Time Warner does not want to sign NFL Network's standard contract is because they are being inflexible on carriage price and placement on the lineup. That's all part of the negotiation. They don't want to take NFL Network for free, they just don't feel that paying 70 cents a month from EVERY subscriber is worthwhile when they only carry a handful of games a year, none of which this year involve the Packers. You don't see any quibble with the NBA or NHL's network, because they likely came to the table willing to make a reasonable deal.
But to some, Time Warner will always look greedy no matter what. If they caved and paid WLUK and built the cost into their pricing structure, they'd say they're greedy for raising rates. And saying "well, they should just absorb that cost without raising rates." They're a business, not a carcass of free cash waiting for every network to come and pick off of. They're a business with shareholders to report to, just like LIN. They're going to do what they feel is in their best long-term interest. On the flipside, if they don't pay WLUK, they're being greedy for NOT wanting to pay WLUK. Some people will always be anti-cable, which seems to be en vogue these days. I don't like cable raising rates any more than the next guy. I canceled Time Warner because of it. I would never go to DirecTV though, because I find their 2-year agreements and early termination fees to be the pinnacle of greed. If I don't like it, I'm screwed for the next 24 months.
The WLUK issue has as much
The WLUK issue has as much to do with the NFL as the price of milk in Spain.
WLUK has to choose which type of broadcaster they want to be. If they want to charge a subscription for their broadcast, they need to be a cable channel. That means they need to buy a channel, like all other cable broadcasters, and give up the free channel the government gives them. We are already paying for their channel and should not be charged twice. Our taxes pay them already, plus they earn more from selling commercial time. If they want me to pay for their free channel, then it better stay free.
TW takes their short-range, lower quality signal and makes it better. That's what I pay for. Right now I can use an antenna if I want to see WLUK (which I don't), and I don't expect to receive a charge from WLUK in the mail if I do decide to watch it by antenna. Again, I'm already paying for their channel.
Thats right you are paying
Thats right you are paying for a channel that you no longer can receive. And again you stated it correctly TW TAKES their signal and makes money off of it. They have no investment in WLUK but reap profits from it, WLUK says hey we deserve a little of YOUR profits since we are the ONES providing the shows that make YOUR profit.
Green Bay Forum
I really wish, with all this
I really wish, with all this retransmission fee controversy coming on, that the FCC would relax its rules on taking network feeds from other markets. Why shouldn't we be able to take Wausau or Milwaukee's FOX affiliate if we don't like the price WLUK's parent is seeking. Where's the free market there?
Agreed. I think there are
Agreed. I think there are dozens of network affiliates out there that would jump at the chance to gain viewers, even if those viewers were well outside of their immediate home coverage area.
WLUK has a message board -
WLUK has a message board - not many people go there. I checked it out last wk and again today. Most people posting last week were pro-TWC. All those posts have now been deleted. WLUK has a questionable take on "fair and balanced".
http://community.myfoxnewisconsin.com/boards/forum.aspx?forum_id=121
I agree that letting cable
I agree that letting cable providers allow out of market stations to be broadcast if a deal cannot be met with local stations. I was at my relatives in Kenosha over the weekend, and on their cable network (comcast I think) they get all the locals from Milwaukee AND Chicago, all of them. This means he can watch every Bears game as well as every Packer game. He also has the option between the news stations and TONS of options for syndicated shows. Its absolutely awesome. Why can they get two stations and not us? TWC should be able to offer a Milwaukee station a deal as well as a Green Bay Station and a Wausau station, if they want to accept the deal the can, otherwise don't and let others in.
When I lived in Lake Mills,
When I lived in Lake Mills, WI we got both Madison and Milwaukee locals. It was nice having options as some of the local news was better than others and some times during national sports broadcasts the CBS station (just as an example) for Milwaukee would be showing a different game than the Madison station. I'm guessing the reason that Kenosha and Lake Mills can get away with doing that is that they have no true locals of their own. (Can't remember what our cable system was in Lake Mills.)
Good article from Dayton, OH
Good article from Dayton, OH regarding the LIN owned NBC station there that outlines issues from both sides better than anything I've read or seen from the local media:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/business/2008/10/14/dd...
Interesting things that I haven't seen reported in our area (other than in this forum here):
-Includes reporting about the laws that first allowed cable operators to rebroadcast OTA channels free of charge and why cable companies can't negotiate with other out-of-area network affiliates.
-The NBC affiliate admitting that they are only reaching just over 50% of the audience that they were reaching when they were on TWC.
If cable, satellite, and
If cable, satellite, and fiber providers all pulled the local network affiliates out of their channel line ups, I wonder how many of these loco locals would go out of business? I'm guessing, relying solely on their antenna transmission, the viewership would be so low that most would struggle to break even as their advertisers jump ship. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement...the service providers get a local channel to pass on to its customers and the local station gets higher viewership which GREATLY increases their ad revenues. If anything, the no-fee retransmission agreements benefit the local station more than TWC and I suspect TWC sees that and has drawn their line in the sand. I hope they don't cave in, and I hope the providers that did cave in will re-evaluate their position on future negotiations.
For those of you who are claiming that TWC was charging me for WLUK while under their no-fee retransmission agreement...exactly what amount of my bill do you think was being charged for WLUK? Does TWC pay FOX for its content? If so, WLUK should be asking FOX for a handout, not asking a portion of its viewers that are TV service subscribers while giving the remaining viewers the same content for free.
Just say no to WLUK and LIN TV!
http://www.just-say-no-to-lintv.com
Article about the LIN owned
Article about the LIN owned NBC station in Buffalo and the amount of money and viewers that they have lost as a result of being taken off of TWC:
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/463812.html
Highlights:
"According to sources, Channel 4 may have lost about $50,000 when the Bills’ loss to Arizona on Oct. 4 wasn’t carried on Time Warner. The sources estimate that — unless its advertisers are being very understanding — the station is losing between $100,000 and $150,000 in net revenue per week...In the first full week of the standoff, Channel 4 averaged a 3.1 rating for the 6 p. m. newscast, meaning that 3.1 percent of the 637,000 TV households in the area were tuned in. That’s compared with the 9.2 percent of the households watching in the last full week Channel 4 was on cable. Channel 4 registered a 4.6 rating at 11 p. m., compared with 11.9 the last full week on cable."
Thanks for the article,
Thanks for the article, wihogfan.
I've been looking for an article like this to cite in a follow-up piece I'm currently working on right now.
Note that I said it was an
Note that I said it was an NBC affiliate but it's actually a CBS affiliate. My mistake.
Post new comment