Greedy Broadcasters

[Capm]

WIBW of Topeka, Kansas is using dirty tactics to strongarm the small cable operators into paying exhorbitant costs to carry their channel. Months ago they strongarmed the major local cable operator (Cox Cable) into paying to carry thier channel, which as a local station freely available off the air with an antenna, has always been free of charge before. Now, WIBW is attempting to force the smaller local cable operators in the area to pay more than TRIPLE what they finally settled with Cox for, while, the telephone operators at WIBW that customers can call to voice their opinion about the matter will quote a different amount while lieing about how cable operators charge for the off-airs. Meanwhile they run ads across the screen attempting to scare cable subscribers with the possibility of the channel being dropped because they have not come to an agreement.

One of the local operators has put out an ad for rebuttal:



I encourage everyone to call the number and give these people a piece of their mind, whether you live in a service area or not. Because odds are, wherever you are, a similar battle has likely already began and a messege needs to be sent to greedy broadcasters.

Rainbow has also put together an FAQ on the matter:

WIBW Retransmission FAQs

Q: What has led to this dispute?

A: A combination of factors has conspired to create this dispute. Most importantly, federal
retransmission consent and network non-duplication rules have granted the broadcasters
both exclusivity in their market and the right to demand payment for their signal. The two
rules have given broadcasters extraordinary market power in their retransmission
consent negotiations with cable operators.
The Gray Television Group, WIBW owners, is abusing the market power that these rules
provide them by demanding substantial fees from our customers, and threatening to pull
their signal if we don’t accept their terms.

Q: WIBW just wants to be compensated for their programming – don’t they deserve
to be paid for their valuable programming?

A: We already compensate WIBW. We pay the broadcaster for the programming they
produce, and help them maximize their advertising revenue. First, our company pays
semi-annual copyright license fees to WIBW for the programming it produces, which
includes their local news any other local programming.
Second, in carrying the broadcasters’ signal on our system, we provide them additional
value. Cable operators increase the broadcasters’ revenue potential by extending the
reach of their over the air signal to households that otherwise would be not able to pick
up the channel using an antenna. Because broadcasters receive revenue from
advertisers based on the number of households that watch their programming, we play
an integral role in ensuring that their programming is watched by as many individuals as
possible, thereby allowing them to maximize their advertising revenue.
With regard to retransmission consent fees, we object to being discriminated against by
being charged more than affair market value, and more than the amounts being charged
by larger operators in the same market.
Moreover, keeping our customers’ rates as low as possible is our ultimate goal and there
is no way we can accomplish this by paying the exorbitant increase in fees that WIBW is
demanding.

Q: Don’t you pay carriage fees to ESPN and other cable networks? Why should
WIBW be any different?

A: We are willing to pay a fair market value for WIBW, but we object to being charged fees
that are disproportionately higher than the amounts paid by our competitors, and by
larger operators in the same market. It is not right for broadcasters to use their market
power to discriminate against smaller operators and their customers.

Q: Why are you dropping WIBW?

A: We are not dropping WIBW; they are threatening to drop us. The broadcaster is refusing
to grant us permission to continue carrying their signal unless we pay a substantial fee
per customer.

Q: If WIBW pulls its signal, will customers receive a credit?

A: We have always made WIBW available to our customers at no additional cost. Up until
now, we have absorbed any associated costs for our customers. For that reason, there
is no refund to offer. This is why we are fighting the The Gray Television Groupy – we do
not want to have to pass these fees on to our customers and raise your cable rates.

Q: If not via cable, how else can I get WIBW’s programming?

A: Many customers should be able to receive WIBW over the air with an antenna. You may
be able to also watch some of the local programming on WIBW’s website, and some of
the national programming from the network’s website.

Q: Why shouldn’t I switch to satellite?

A: At this point in time, it may seem appealing to switch to satellite to receive WIBW,
however, we expect that we’ll be able to reach an agreement with the broadcaster soon.
Moreover, by switching to satellite, you won’t be able to get video, broadband, and voice
services from a signal provider. Moreover, we are a local employer who is committed to
providing our community with local customer service. We can provide day service calls,
a local office where you can still speak to a real person.

[Kyouryuu]

I seem to recall something similar happening with Fox News and the cost of carrying that station on cable. When Fox News first went on the air some ten years ago, they locked themselves into contracts for about 25 cents per subscriber. A couple years ago, as those contracts came up for renewal, Fox decided to ask for 1 dollar per subscriber, a full 400% increase.

By that same token, Fox's recently launched business channel was part of a bundle. If the distributors decided to broadcast Fox Business, they wouldn't see the same increase on Fox News.

I don't really have an opinion on such moves. After all, there is a certain ironic hilarity in watching networks force cable companies into \"bundle and save\" deals. But at the end of the day, we're the ones footing the bill.

[shaktazuki]

Not me! No watchee TeeVee.

[Cuda68]

I thought everything was to go high def to free up the over crowded airwaves anyway.

[Capm]

where do you think they're broadcasting that hi-def? Most stations are going to stay on their original frequencies, they're just going to be broadcasting a digital signal instead of analog. Thats not what this is about though, this is about the broadcasters suddenly wanting to be paid for what has always been free.

[TechPro]

Yeah, broadcasting hi-def wouldn't free up broadcast space but would actually fill more space. What they are doing is switching from analog to digital signals.

See, the traditional broadcast method has been \"analog\" (smooth waves of signal, about the best I can describe in very brief terms). The \"new\" (and better) method is with digital broadcast. With digital, because it consists of data streamed in ones and zeros, the ones can be \"stronger\" while the zeros are \"softer\" thus making the difference in the data much more obvious to the receiving equipment ... the effect is that the signal is well received with minimal signal loss. Plus, it can be on a \"tighter\" portion of broadcast space, thus allowing different signals to be closer together without interfering which has the effect of making more broadcast \"slots\" available. They can also \"interleave\" the signals (mix them together) by encoding each signal. The receiver \"decodes\" the signal thus seperating the \"interleaved\" signals as if each was a seperate signal.

That's only some of the benefits of going digital. That is a pretty rough (and not very accurate) description, but I think it gets the idea across. Remember that while there are several advantages to digital, there are also some disadvantages (more receiver technology necessary, in some cases loss of distance on the signal, etc) but the benefits outweighs the disadvantages.