WBAY, WFRV hint at retransmission negotiations in the future, WPNE vows to stay free
Whether you watch WLUK or not, you may want to take Time Warner up on those free rabbit ears.
According to a story in the Green Bay Press-Gazette, station officials at WBAY and WFRV both hinted at the possibility that their ownership may seek retransmission fees from cable and satellite as well. WFRV's contract is up in 2010 and WBAY's may be sooner than that, and both see the trend inevitable. While WFRV's negotiations would likely happen locally as they are the only broadcast station in the Liberty Media family, WBAY's rests in the hands of Young Broadcasting, their parent company. Young has had financial troubles and staff shakeups across the country, so it may be very likely that retransmission fees will become part of their deals with providers.
WPNE, the Green Bay affiliate of Wisconsin Public Television and PBS, vowed to stay free, maintaining their goal is to reach as many viewers as possible and provide a service to viewers.
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
next thing will be pay per
next thing will be pay per view sporting events ( superbowl, world series, etc ).... VERY pathedic!
This may be the road WLUK
This may be the road WLUK supporters are blindly driving down. WLUK is not a small issue. All the other providers gave in without a fight (hmmmmm....) TW is the only thing we have to stop this before it spirals out of control. They can only stop it if their customers support them. Every dish and ATT customer, every antenna user better pray there are enough of us to save you.
isnt this exactly what time
isnt this exactly what time warner cable has been trying to tell everyone....give an inch, and they all take a mile....i think the next thing will be paying to pee next.
This is a great example of
This is a great example of the reason behind why TWC is making a stand against LIN TV/WLUK. If this blackout of WLUK goes for a long standing amount of time, it might show WBAY and WFRV owners that it's not worth double dipping into the system. These broadcasters should realize they aren't hurting cable or sat providers, they are hurting the public whom they are supposed to be providing local service.
On another website (CrunchGear) someone said that cable providers should do 'a la carte' pricing. So I replied with this article regarding the FCC and their push for 'a la carte' pricing.
“FCC abandons its ‘a la carte’ cable programming plan” November 28, 2007 http://www.betanews.com/article/FCC_abandons_its_a_la_carte_cable_progra...
Here’s an article from last year showing the FCC basically came out and said it would cost too much for ‘a la carte’ pricing. Mostly due to cable providers not getting the channels for ‘a la carte’ prices.
So, your dream of ‘a la carte’ won’t be happening anytime soon.
I don't think these
I don't think these broadcasters care about cable providers or the public. They are about the bottom line. This is business. If we don't care about right and wrong, they certainly won't. Time Warner is the last thing standing between us and paying every broadcaster for their free channel. Why would anyone even consider giving their business to the companies that folded and put us in this horrible situation? You have to think beyond selfish wants of today if you don't want to lose everything tomorrow.
This assumes that channels
This assumes that channels like WLUK are there as a public service, like PBS. They are there to make money. They don't care if they hurt you. They only care if you hurt them, by not watching because they lose advertisers if you don't. Not only do they not CARE about you, they don't have an ounce of respect for you. They expected you, and most of us, to jump on their gutter-wagon so we can get their channel. They think most of us are stupid, will demand TW give poor WLUK a measly 30 cents and won't look further down the road. They never thought most of us would take the high-road with Time Warner. How much do you want to watch WLUK now?
Did anyone NOT think is what
Did anyone NOT think is what was behind this whole thing from the start? What I find really funny is that TW is fighting saying that they don't feel that WLUK should get compensation, but yet they refuse to put on a FREE network like NFL because TW wants to charge for it and the NFL says no. Hard to look like the good guy TW when you have egg on the face.
Green Bay Forum
pkarm, it is obvious that
pkarm, it is obvious that you did not do your homework. The NFL network is NOT FREE nor would they be FREE as they are a CABLE network. Here read up son! http://www.timewarnercable.com/InvestorRelations/PressReleases/TWCPressR...
Wow, you really dont know
Wow, you really dont know what you're talking about.
Yolks on you Pkarm. The NFL
Yolks on you Pkarm. The NFL charges - the dispute is they want to make us all pay for their channel. It should be a pay per view channel. I don't want it, and it wouldn't be cheap enough to ignore like a shopping channel. TW seems to pay attention to what most of their customers say, because they're saying they don't want to make everyone get this channel. BTW, do you happen to live next door to me? (just kidding)
OUCH YOU BURNED HIM!
OUCH YOU BURNED HIM!
I think the story shows that
I think the story shows that WLUK/LIN isn't some wild card in this acting outside the industry norm - it looks like their deal just came up first.
Playing devils advocate
Playing devils advocate here...
Did anyone stop and think that maybe the other local carriers are only looking into this option because, by TWC not paying fair market value has made everyone aware of the situation. If TWC just agreed before the cutoff date, these other stations would have been none the wiser and wouldn't be looking to charge like WLUK.
Again what makes TWC any more special then the other satellite/cable providers in NE Wisconsin. Why should they pay less then everyone else?
1) You're making the
1) You're making the assupmtion that what LIN is asking from TWC is the same as what they're getting from the other providers. They might very well be, but I haven't seen what LIN is getting from the other providers written any where. They might be getting considerably less than what they are asking for from TWC (might also be more).
2) TWC has a larger customer base than the other providers in our area. If LIN is asking for the same amount of $ per customer from TWC as they are getting from say DISH, then TWC would be paying more because they have more customers. From TWC's perspective, going from not paying anything to paying $10 million a year (the estimate of what it will cost them at a penny a day for all TWC customers who were previously receiving a LIN station on TWC) is a pretty big increase in expenses. Multiply that times all 4 major networks (because if they cave on one, the other 3 will likely follow) and that amounts to $40 million a year in new expenses.
3) The satellite providers charge extra- $5 a month extra- to provide locals to their customers. Part of that expense has to cover expenses associtated with getting the signals to customers, but part of it is certainly going to cover whatever carriage fees they are bing charged. I don't think TWC could get away with charging customers that much extra but the key here is that TWC would have to pass costs on to their customers and lower cost has always been one of TWCs big selling points- a point that could quickly evaporate if they start having to raise their rates to pay for locals.
Does DirecTV charge $5 for
Does DirecTV charge $5 for locals, wihogfan? What I'm seeing on their website is that locals are included. (Unless they're folding it into the package price now...?)
When I was looking into
When I was looking into DirecTV they were, but that's been a while ago. Perhaps they don't anymore. Being a Dish customer, I know they do- although Dish and some of their resellers quote pricing with Dish locals included automatically too (the one thing I don't like about Dish is that while their pricing isn't a la carte, there are so many different packages and options- a lot more than cable- that it really can get confusing fast).
DirecTV included locals now
DirecTV included locals now in the base price of the package where local channels are available. If local channels aren't available in an area (far and few) DirecTV discounts the package by $3-$5 per month for that person.
If local channels are available from the satellite you can't turn them down and save, it is a must have since it is included in the base price.
I don't know about you, but
I don't know about you, but I'm already paying WLUK too much. They get their channel free from the government - that's me. All other broadcasters who get their free government channel make their money from selling commercials. Broadcasters who buy a channel and do not accept a gov. handout, sell a subscription and also commercials. If Time Warner makes me pay WLUK, or any other broadcaster who's already getting a cut of my taxes from their gov. handout, I'll cancel them instantly.
You started to think, but
You started to think, but you haven't finished.
Is it right to accept a free government channel and then charge a subscription for it from people who already pay for it in taxes?
If free gov. broadcasters start charging to get their free channel, will cable broadcasters, who actually buy a channel and rightfully charge a subscription for it, then raise their rates? They provide more, that would certainly be fair.
What about special events, like the Super Bowl?
What about ethics? Are they more or less important than having it your way?
I know at one time too, you
I know at one time too, you could get locals by themselves on Satellite (Well at least the Superstations package). However, you would have to pay about $10 for the hookup fee. This was about 5 years ago. Maybe it changed since then where you can't do that, or the price has gone up. I think this is similar to Time Warner's $25 or $30 base price, to pay for their equipment. However, wonder why Time Warner charges soo much more for the hookup...
I will say, the Basic channels aren't all just locals, but include Time Warner's public access, CSPAN, WGN, and EWTN. I know, these channels aren't much. But it does go over just the locals.
TW basic channels are as
TW basic channels are as follows, and are under $16 a month.
1 WGN America
2 Digital Preview
3 WBAY
4 Time Warner Cable Television
5 C-SPAN
6 WFRV/CBS
7 WGBA/NBC
8 WPNE
9 WWAZ
10 WIWB - The CW Network
11 Eternal Word TV Network
12 WLUK/FOX - taken offair by LIN/TV
13 mynetworkTV
This link breaks it down further.
http://www.timewarnercable.com/CustomerService/CLU/TWCCLUs.ashx?CLUID=23...
So there are 7 local
So there are 7 local channels which are suppose to be free out of the 13 you listed. That calculates to roughly $1.20 per channel charged by Time Warner per month per subscriber. How does the $1.20 paid for WLUK not cover the expense LIN wants? TWC is making pure profit from those 7 local channels if they get them for free. That's $8.40 every month from every customer.
The point I am trying to make is that TWC charges their customer for local channels. I can't call TWC and request only the 7 local channels be piped to my home for free every month.
TWC is in the wrong here. They have gotten their way for far to long being the only player in this market and now that they have a little competition, their true colors are showing. I don’t' even have TWC cable but, I do have TWC Road Runner. I have DirecTV for my viewing pleasure. I believe so strongly that TWC is at fault here, that I am having AT&T DSL installed just to drop TWC. I want nothing to do with TWC any more.
While I'm not sure if the
While I'm not sure if the $16/month price is correct (I had seen more in the mid-$20 range), Time Warner shouldn't be allowed, as a business, to build overhead into their price? (ie. staff, office, infrastructure, equipment, etc) I don't know why everyone assumes that cable "just happens" and doesn't cost money to operate. I think the insinuation that they're making "pure profit" on basic cable is, at best, a half-truth.
No, I don't think TWC should have WLUK or other broadcasters for free. They have overhead and expenses too, but just because of sagging ad revenue shouldn't mean you're trying to soak millions directly out of a segment of customers who can't (or won't) opt to use an antenna for free. Thirty cents seems high, compared to the cable networks. What's wrong with 5-10? Maybe even 15? LIN seems inflexible on price, and that I have a problem with.
To pay WLUK thru TW or any
To pay WLUK thru TW or any provider is the same as picking up a free "Start to Rent" available at gas stations, stores etc. and being charged 30 cents to take it home if you choose to put it in your grocery bag to get it home instead of carrying it in your hand. We already pay WLUK thru taxes, they get their channel free from the government. Why is this even an issue? Why is it most people understand that, but not everyone?
We pay for the signal. If
We pay for the signal. If they give in to this blackmail, we'll be paying more but we won't be getting more. We'll get the same old WLUK. Watch WLUK using their own signal, then watch it on TW. They clean it up, they filter it and they boost it. They send it much further than WLUK is able which opens up more possible sponsors for WLUK. (should TW charge WLUK for providing them with more sponsors?)
I don't understand some of these people willing to promote a wrong action because for whatever reason they hate TW. Even if you aren't a TW customer, if they give in your rates will be higher than most can afford very soon.
No, I'm not saying that
No, I'm not saying that there isn't overhead cost to TWC but, everyone else has overhead costs too. What LIN or any other company wants to charge for their signal should be the same amount charged for any other cable/satellite provider. No picking favorites or making special deals.
DirecTV and Dish both get the local feeds from OTA which is then pumped to the satellite then out to the customers. They don't have hard wired feeds to these local stations but do have costs to make this all happen.
Local channels used to make their revenue from commercials whereas cable/satellite channels used to make their revenue from subscriber fees. Things are rapidly changing and in this economy everyone wants to make as much as they can.
What I don’t like is the fact that TWC is holding out on their customers. Allowing LIN to pull the channel without dealing long before the cut-off date and going through all the work to give out antenna’s (unnecessary overhead costs). I’d be really curious to see the exact amount DirecTV, Dish, and everyone else pays for LIN’s signal. If LIN is asking the same price from TWC, then we will know who is at fault in this little situation.
I don't think we'll ever
I don't think we'll ever really know how much LIN gets from the other providers, as those details are typically not released to the public.
From what I've been told, it wasn't like TWC forgot about this contract coming up for renewal. Negotiations didn't start a week before the deadline. They just couldn't come to a mutual agreement, that's all.
TWC must have known that
TWC must have known that they weren't going to reach an agreement or had no intention of reaching an agreement. Otherwise how do they explain the fact that the very next day after the channel is pulled, they have thousands of antenna's available for customers. Overnight shipping is fast but not that fast, and overnight shipping is very expensive, again unnecessary overhead costs by TWC.
I don't necessarily think
I don't necessarily think they "ordered out" for these antennas. I believe -- but don't quote me -- that they contacted local suppliers to procure these things. I think they had to know that they needed to prepare for the eventuality that a deal couldn't be reached. I don't know if it was necessarily a willful desire to NOT reach a deal, but why not at least prepare for such a happening?
Mark, local retail rep from
Mark, local retail rep from TW came into Best Buy on Friday to check on our antenna supply. I asked him where TW got the antenna's they were handing out but he didn't know at the time, said he would ask and get back to me. He also told me that TW has definitly seen a decrease in new sign ups since WLUK was dropped. On a side note, the more I use an antenna the more I hate it. I don't know how you get by.
The unofficial rumor I heard
The unofficial rumor I heard was that at least some of the antennas they gave out were from local electronics suppliers. Can't verify that firsthand, but I don't know necessarily why it would make a difference where they got them in the first place.
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't know how I get by with an antenna some days either. Having to put up a 40-inch outdoor antenna in my apartment's spare bedroom seems a lot less easy to do than Mr. Zollar made it sound in his site's blog post. Not everyone has his fortunate location and local topography, I guess.
LIN/Time Warner battle is
LIN/Time Warner battle is happening in over a dozen other markets.
http://tinyurl.com/3vrrxd
Other cities affected are Buffalo, NY and Indianapolis just to name a few.
I think all locals will go for fees from cable companies in future. If the cable companies were forward thinking they'd allow TV feeds to go through your computers. With advent of Hulu and other sites, they could tap into a new market and increase their broadband coverage.
As for the antennas they're giving out at TW, they're pretty crummy. Same goes for the A-B switches provided. Anyway after February 2009, these antennas are worthless anyway since they're not digital.
There's no such thing as a
There's no such thing as a "digital antenna," no matter how emphatically the salesman at Radio Shack tells you there is.
Digital broadcasts happen now on the UHF band, and will in 2009 on the VHF band as well, so ANY antenna can pick up digital (ATSC) broadcasts, you may just need a better antenna or a higher-elevated one to pick up signals strong enough to use.
Dean...my parents got one of
Dean...my parents got one of those "crummy" antennas and let me tell ya. The picture quality is AMAZING if you have an HDTV. We didn't need to use the A/B switch as with HDTV's there's no need for one. HOWEVER, if you have hooked up an antenna to your HDTV you need to go through the ANTENNA Wizard, so the TV will scan for the Digital Signals. Believe me, if the TW antenna wasn't going to work, I was going to build one for them (as stated in my blog on this site).
Now you might be wondering WHY TW would give our A/B switches? Well my friend there's no way to assume someone if someone has a HDTV or not. Many people tend to not know what they have.
So, if you or anyone out there has an antenna with your HDTV and you are getting the "crummy" channel 11 picture. Then your HDTV has NOT gone through the antenna wizard to pick up 11-1 (some models shows as 11.1) which is FOX HD feed.
Not all HDTV's have separate
Not all HDTV's have separate cable and antenna coax jacks. Both of mine don't (a newer RCA LCD and an older Insignia tube-style). Not sure if you meant that HDTV's have dual coax jacks (some do) or factoring in a cable box.
Hey Mark, I'm not sure how
Hey Mark, I'm not sure how your setup is. I have a Toshiba and my parents have a panasonic. Our HD DVR's are hooked up with component cables, our dvd/blu-ray players are hooked up through HDMI cable. Both tv's have only one coax hook up and that's what the antenna is connected to.
OK, I misunderstood your
OK, I misunderstood your point before. I thought you were saying all HDTVs had two coax jacks, thus negating the need for an A/B switch. If someone doesn't use a cable box and connects to cable directly, they would need the A/B switch.
In Regards to HD Antennas: I
In Regards to HD Antennas:
I bought an HD antenna from Best Buy last year for the Superbowl, and it works so great at picking up channel 11 in HD. I live off of Prospect St. in Appleton, so I can say that that area picks up Fox HD well on my Samsung HDTV
Post new comment