Charter droped cbs hdtv

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

I say Charter is trying to resale someone
elses content without paying for it.


Like a tavern, charging a fee at the door to watch a
bootlegged "paid for view" championship fight.

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:02:03 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

This brings up several interesting possibilities.
OTA supposedly makes their money from advertising which is why it's
free and not subsidized either.

There is the "must carry" rule which the cable company must abide by
and I'd assume that the local stations are bound as well. If they are
currently broadcasting analog and Charter carries it then both have
met the qualifications, but what happens when all goes digital?

If the station broadcasts in multiple resolutions then I'd assume that
Charter is under no obligation to carry the higher resolution for
free.

OTOH the stations have things a bit backwards and may end up hurting
themselves. Cable is free distribution for them as is satellite. It
appears to me as if they have every thing to gain and nothing to lose
by letting the cable company carry their signal.

We have Charter here, but only the basic package and that is only
because it came bundled at a good price with high speed Internet.
I was going to say most of the programs we watch are OTA or Satellite,
but it'd be more correct to say it's rare for us to watch any programs
off cable except the local city channel which broadcasts city and
county commission meetings.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:43:46 -0500, Roger wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:02:03 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

This brings up several interesting possibilities.
OTA supposedly makes their money from advertising which is why it's
free and not subsidized either.

There is the "must carry" rule which the cable company must abide by
and I'd assume that the local stations are bound as well. If they are
currently broadcasting analog and Charter carries it then both have
met the qualifications, but what happens when all goes digital?

The must carry rule is a one way street. if a local station doesn't want
to provide a feed to the cable/sat provider, they are not required to.
OTOH, if they decide they do want to be carried, the cable/sat co. must
carry them. At least that's what I think I read here. It appears most use
the retransmission consent portion of the must carry rule. This way they
can negotiate a fee from the cable co. Under must carry, there is no fee
afaik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

If the station broadcasts in multiple resolutions then I'd assume that
Charter is under no obligation to carry the higher resolution for free.

That's still up in the air I think, but if the local wants to feed it to
them for free, I think they have to carry it.

OTOH the stations have things a bit backwards and may end up hurting
themselves. Cable is free distribution for them as is satellite. It
appears to me as if they have every thing to gain and nothing to lose
by letting the cable company carry their signal.

It would appear that way on the surface, but I think it's more that the
locals want to compete against locals for viewing time. On cable, they
have to compete with hundreds of channels for viewer time.

We have Charter here, but only the basic package and that is only
because it came bundled at a good price with high speed Internet. I was
going to say most of the programs we watch are OTA or Satellite, but
it'd be more correct to say it's rare for us to watch any programs off
cable except the local city channel which broadcasts city and county
commission meetings.

I've never had cable or sat. Not that I'm not familiar with it. I traveled
extensively for years and it was in every hotel room I had. Didn't watch
it much then either.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:44:09 +0000, Rick Brandt wrote:
Sorry but totally wrong. The local affiliate is not in competition
with Charter.

You think not? If everyone goes to cable and/or sat, they have no
market at all. IOW's they go out of business, or they are left to the
whelms of the cable co. No, I'm not wrong.:-)

How do you figure this? I have Charter AND I watch that local channel "on Chart
er". It is not a question of watching that channel OR watching Charter. It is
only a question of how that channel's content gets to my set. Your argument
would only make sense if the local channel was charging for OTA signals and that
would be revenue that is lost when people subscribe to cable. It makes ZERO
difference to an OTA channel's revenue how that signal comes into the viewer's
home.

Yes, Charter provides more channels making it more likely that I will watch some
other channel so the cable industry does represent a lowering of ratings for
local OTA channels, but that situation is not altered by removing the HD content
for that channel from Charter's line-up. Does the local channel think that
people will drop Charter because they can't get that one channel's HD content?

It is in competition with all the other things viewers can choose to
watch besides their station. Their revenues come from ads, period.

Right, and that is the competition you just said there was none of.:-)

But that competition is not *Charter*. It is other stuff that people might
watch. Charter is only the means of delivering that stuff. The local channel
is making the claim that being part of that content on Charter costs them money.
It MAKES them money.

"Rick Brandt" wrote in message
. net...
Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:44:09 +0000, Rick Brandt wrote:
Sorry but totally wrong. The local affiliate is not in competition
with Charter.

You think not? If everyone goes to cable and/or sat, they have no
market at all. IOW's they go out of business, or they are left to the
whelms of the cable co. No, I'm not wrong.:-)

How do you figure this? I have Charter AND I watch that local channel "on
Chart
er". It is not a question of watching that channel OR watching Charter.
It is
only a question of how that channel's content gets to my set. Your
argument
would only make sense if the local channel was charging for OTA signals
and that
would be revenue that is lost when people subscribe to cable. It makes
ZERO
difference to an OTA channel's revenue how that signal comes into the
viewer's
home.

Yes, Charter provides more channels making it more likely that I will
watch some
other channel so the cable industry does represent a lowering of ratings
for
local OTA channels, but that situation is not altered by removing the HD
content
for that channel from Charter's line-up. Does the local channel think
that
people will drop Charter because they can't get that one channel's HD
content?

It is in competition with all the other things viewers can choose to
watch besides their station. Their revenues come from ads, period.

Right, and that is the competition you just said there was none of.:-)

But that competition is not *Charter*. It is other stuff that people
might
watch. Charter is only the means of delivering that stuff. The local
channel
is making the claim that being part of that content on Charter costs them
money.
It MAKES them money.


Ever see the phrase "rebroadcast without express written consent". It's
their product to do with as they wish. Your perception, correct or not,
doesn't matter.

If your cable company drops a network affiliate, do you think the value of
their service is reduced? What if they dropped all of them? How much would
you be willing to pay for cable without any of the OTA networks? The same as
now? I wouldn't. Don't think many would. Now that I'm getting all the
networks OTA with digital quality, dropping cable is something I consider
just about daily. Few people are aware of the quality & quantity of digital
OTA.

Rick Brandt wrote:
Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:35:47 -0600, wrote:

Charter dropped Cbs hdtv here in st. Louis. cbs wants charter to
pay to broadcast it. and charter don't want to pay for channel that
is free ota. no more csi in hd for me

Why don't you hook up an OTA antenna?

My perspective on this is simple. Charter is pay TV. They charge
their customers to use their service. Why would they expect their
competition to give them something for free that they can turn around
and sell. What Charter has been doing by selling it without paying
anything for it is the same as if I had free lunches delivered from a
charity orginization to my place of business and sold them. Great for
me. Bad for the chraity, and bad for the customer in the end since he
could have gotten the free lunch too.

Sorry but totally wrong. The local affiliate is not in competition
with Charter. It is in competition with all the other things viewers
can choose to watch besides their station. Their revenues come from
ads, period.
What they are in effect saying to viewers is "We would like you to
watch our local news instead of the other guys. We would also like
you to watch CBS instead of any other network (because that allows us
to sell more ads). However; we have just made a decision that will
make it a LOT harder for a large segment of our market to watch us".

They are shooting themselves in the foot and Charter knows it. They
are calling the affiliate's bluff and will likely prevail.

Don't count on it; my local Fox station just got dropped from Mediacom's
lineup in an identical scenario. I really couldn't care less; I get it OTA.

--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply

T Shadow wrote:
Ever see the phrase "rebroadcast without express written consent".
It's their product to do with as they wish. Your perception, correct
or not, doesn't matter.

Yes, and if I rebroadcast content in the context you are describing then I am
charging or selling ads so I am making revenue off of someone else's content.
When Charter distributes a local channel the ads are still the local channel's
as is the revenue from those ads. It is completely different than someone
pirating content and making money from it.

If your cable company drops a network affiliate, do you think the
value of their service is reduced? What if they dropped all of them?

The value of the cable service has nothing to do with whether those stations
being carried hurts or costs the local affiliate. It pays and helps the local
affiliate because they can charge more for their ads based on more people seeing
them.

How much would you be willing to pay for cable without any of the OTA
networks? The same as now? I wouldn't. Don't think many would. Now
that I'm getting all the networks OTA with digital quality, dropping
cable is something I consider just about daily. Few people are aware
of the quality & quantity of digital OTA.

The dish companies were forced to carry local channels. Why is that? Because
the local affiliates wanted (needed) those viewers to be able to see their
content. It was in the interest of the local channels to be carried by the dish
companies, not the other way around.

Sure they can use a dish PLUS an OTA antenna, but the local stations knew that
many would not bother with that and their ratings would suffer. Charter should
be charging the locals rather than the reverse.

snip
You can disagree all you want that doesn't change the facts. You say CBS
is trying to double dip. I say Charter is trying to resale someone
elses content without paying for it. Do you think the local station gets
the broadcast for free from CBS? Do you think the producers just give the
shows to CBS? And I suppose you think that all the actors don't get paid
either? yes, there are lots of cost, and Charter needs to pay their share
if they want to broadcast it just as they'd have to pay for peanuts if
they wanted to give you all a pack of peanuts a month. Which IMO, is about
all a month's worth of cable would be worth.:-)


All of the above have been paid by the advertisers; the local station,
the network, the writers, producers, studios, actors, etc. In return,
the advertisers want their message to be seen by as large an audience as
possible. If the advertising message is seen by only 15% or so of the
potential audience (15% is one of the estimates of the size of the OTA
audience), do you really think the advertisers are going to put up with
that? The broadcast program at this point essentially belongs to the
advertisers, they have paid the local station and network for it.

If a viewer can receive CBS OTA for free, more power to them.


Thanks, I receive all the networks plus some independents free ota.

If they can't, then it is to CBS's advantage to make the signal
available to the viewer without trying to double dip.

So, you think Charter should benefit from the fruits of the labors and
capitol investments made by the local station, without themselves having
to spend a dime? Charter pays for HBO, and all the other cable channels.
Please explain in reasonable terms why they should not have to pay one
company for providing content when they pay all the rest. I think you are
just a little misguided.

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:16:31 +0000, Rick Brandt wrote:

The dish companies were forced to carry local channels. Why is that?
Because the local affiliates wanted (needed) those viewers to be able to
see their content. It was in the interest of the local channels to be
carried by the dish companies, not the other way around.

And how many customers do you think the dish co.'s would lose if they
didn't carry the local stations? I'd guess about half. I remember years
back when the dish/cable customer all complained about not having the
local stations. Don't fool yourself, it benefits the dish/cable companies
far more than it benefits the local OTA stations.

Sure they can use a dish PLUS an OTA antenna, but the local stations
knew that many would not bother with that and their ratings would
suffer. Charter should be charging the locals rather than the reverse.

You've got this completely backwards. Cable/sat customers would drop like
files if they couldn't get the local stations. And it's happening now in
certain areas where that is happening. And the fact is that local stations
rarely choose to use the must carry rule. So must carry is really a mute
point. Under must carry, the stations can not charge the other provider a
dime and they even have to furnish the feed right up to that providers
head. If the cable/sat companies don't want the local stations then why
are they raising such a stink? They are the only ones that really benefit
from being able to provide the local stations to their customer base.
Don't fool yourself to think otherwise. Suggest you read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:44:09 GMT, "Rick Brandt"
wrote:


Sorry but totally wrong. The local affiliate is not in competition with
Charter. It is in competition with all the other things viewers can choose to
watch besides their station. Their revenues come from ads, period.

What they are in effect saying to viewers is "We would like you to watch our
local news instead of the other guys. We would also like you to watch CBS
instead of any other network (because that allows us to sell more ads).
However; we have just made a decision that will make it a LOT harder for a large
segment of our market to watch us".

They are shooting themselves in the foot and Charter knows it. They are calling
the affiliate's bluff and will likely prevail.

Here is another scenario where the local stations would be making a
big mistake. If they end up getting yanked from a cable company or
DTV in my area I would be forced to get an OTA antenna system. I live
in an area where I am slightly closer to Baltimore than I am to
Washington. DTV will NOT give me the Washington stations, either in
addition to the Baltimore stations or instead of them. If I am forced
to get the networks feeds by getting an OTA antenna system, I will get
one that I will be able to get both markets, and when that happens,
the Baltimore stations will lose about 50% of my viewing time of
network shows. So far, the effort of putting up such as system has
not been worth it, but they could always get me to change my mind.