The Dean Posted October 26, 2008 Author Share Posted October 26, 2008 I do not know where YOU are getting your information from. The old agreement between TW and Lin was the "free" agreement. Lin would not charge a cent, but intern, TW had no choice but to carry WIVB and had no choice but to put them on a lower tier, basic cable available station. By Lin opting for the "pay" choice, TW does not have to carry them, does not have to put them on a lower tier channel, and does not have to make them available to basic cable subscribers. That's not the info I have. I will check into it (not today, obviously). You do realize that geting a fee does not = getting a bad spot in the lineup. Every negotiation I was involved with resulted in a fee for the station, yet the station remained in the lower channels (usually their OTA channel number) on the cable systems. i trust you arent' inferring that, because WIVB is on Ch 4 that they aren't getting a fee...because that isn't the way it usually works. Still, it makes little difference, in the situation. Lin has every right to ask for, and get, a small fee to carry their channel from TW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 That's not the info I have. I will check into it (not today, obviously). You do realize that geting a fee does not = getting a bad spot in the lineup. Every negotiation I was involved with resulted in a fee for the station, yet the station remained in the lower channels (usually their OTA channel number) on the cable systems. i trust you arent' inferring that, because WIVB is on Ch 4 that they aren't getting a fee...because that isn't the way it usually works. Still, it makes little difference, in the situation. Lin has every right to ask for, and get, a small fee to carry their channel from TW. Well, Lin has every right to ask for it. It only has a "right" to get what it can get. Sad as it may be, this is about cash, not principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 26, 2008 Author Share Posted October 26, 2008 Well, Lin has every right to ask for it. It only has a "right" to get what it can get. Sad as it may be, this is about cash, not principles. It is definitely about cash (for both sides). There are also many principles involved, and they are steeped in history. Can't really explain it all here. Suffice it to say that, without local broadcast stations, cable tv wouldn't have had a business, for many years, and they managed to build a business without paying one dime to their main content providers. But, it's game day, friends. i need to get Dad set up on the computer, and get myself to a bar. Go Bills! I hope you all find a way to watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I do not know where you recieved your information from, but any agreements that were reached in the past, with those providers, were before Lin-TV wanted all this money per subscriber. Now that Lin-TV wants money paid to them, they will have the same problem in the future with these providers. Like I said in my original post, they ALREADY MADE AN AGREEMENT with DirecTV - therefore, no risk of pulling the plug for years. See, here's a link and everything: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6568348.html So, more investments in more equipment. Just what the average person wants do do. Just because you don't LIKE the choice doesn't mean you don't have one. As Rush says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Like I said in my original post, they ALREADY MADE AN AGREEMENT with DirecTV - therefore, no risk of pulling the plug for years. See, here's a link and everything: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6568348.html Just because you don't LIKE the choice doesn't mean you don't have one. As Rush says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Just out of curiousity, is that the sh------- political commentator or the sh------- Canadian band? (trying to add some levity here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Just out of curiousity, is that the sh------- political commentator or the sh------- Canadian band? (trying to add some levity here) Levity by insulting a band that most people on the board (probably) love...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Interesting thing was Times Warner advertising heavily during radio broadcast of Bills when they can not carry the Bills due to contract dispute. I think the advertising hurts more than helps for it reminds people Warner is not carrying the Bills and many were listening to radio because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonInBuffalo Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I may have gotten off on the wrong foot with The Dean in a previous thread on this subject, possibly in part because one or both of us didn't include the sort of "it's just my opinion" disclaimer such as he did in the initial post in this thread. As best I understand the business argument at this point, of course simplifying it to a great degree, here is what the two sides are arguing: TW: It's costs you nothing to provide this service to us, as we're just pulling in your signal and retransmitting it. In fact, we make you money by providing your signal to a larger viewing audience. So we don't want to pay a fee. Lin: All of that is true, but you also make more money because you're carrying our channel, and we feel we're entitled to compensation for that, because it costs us money to produce that signal, even if there are no additional costs associated with transmitting it to you. As a consumer, I feel caught in the middle. I'll repeat a question I posed in a previous thread, but clarify it to avoid misunderstanding this time. Let's assume the only thing I watch on cable is ESPN and Sabres games. (not far from the truth) If Lin charges TW a fee, that fee will no doubt get passed along to me. Why should I essentially pay a fee to Lin so I can watch ESPN and Sabres games? From my perspective, it's just corporations colluding to find yet another way to charge me money for providing absolutely nothing. At the very least, I should have the option of opting out of this service/fee, if I prefer to get the channel OTA or not watch it at all. IMO the arrival of HDTV has added a big new wrinkle to this whole issue. Previously, cable subscribers were virtually certain to receive a much higher quality signal for analog local channels via cable vs. OTA. Since the consumer is receiving a tangible value-added, he doesn't mind paying a small fee for that value. Now with HD, many consumers can receive essentially the identical signal for free that they now are being asked to pay a (indirect) fee for. I'm not sure if this is just coincidence, but from my experience WIVB has probably the weakest signal of all the local stations. For example, watching the game today, on my TV with a cheap pair of rabbit ears I bought at Target, the signal was repeatedly dropping out. Fortunately, I had a convenient alternative. I also have a capture card on my computer, and a nicer Terk antenna hooked up there, and got the game without any problems. From a logic/business perspective, I'm guessing WIVB has nothing to gain during this standoff by improving the quality/strength of their OTA transmission, in fact probably quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 I do not know where YOU are getting your information from. The old agreement between TW and Lin was the "free" agreement. Lin would not charge a cent, but intern, TW had no choice but to carry WIVB and had no choice but to put them on a lower tier, basic cable available station. By Lin opting for the "pay" choice, TW does not have to carry them, does not have to put them on a lower tier channel, and does not have to make them available to basic cable subscribers. Lin choosing this option is a set up to fail. Lin has the most to lose, and are foolish for going this route. I wanted to let you know that I didn't forget about this. I have yet to hear from any of my sources, it may actually take a little time. The info that I have (that I probably shouldn't have) does not include a copy of the agreement between TW and Lin. A spreadsheet (cheatsheet) of various agreements indicates that the old Lin/TW agreement was not "must carry", but was a negotiated retransmission consent agreement. There have been some minor issues with this sheet before, so I can't rely on it 100%. I can tell you (I suppose) that Lin was a client of mine, at one time, and I did some early work on their agreements, that definitely involved compensation. I left well before the agreements were reached, though. With that said, it should be noted, as Time Warner remains the lone holdout among carriers of Lin Broadcasting stations. That usually tells you SOMETHING about who is being unreasonable. And, just to be sure we all understand this is not comparing cable carriage to satellite carriage, Lin reached agreement with Comcast (often the hardest negotiator) in all their markets, many months ago: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6569974.html Why is it that only Time Warner can't seem to make a deal with Lin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6569974.html Why is it that only Time Warner can't seem to make a deal with Lin? Could be taking the role of the bad guys of the industry for future negotiations. You sure that the fight is only about the retrans fee, and doesn't involve must carry provisions of multi-cast? As more broadcast viewers are turning to TiVOs & Internet bypass, cable guys are saying that the fees are a bit excessive since they're providing more of the value. Plus, the locals are simply airing stuff that's provided by the networks. What's the chance the broadcasters survive without government backing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Levity by insulting a band that most people on the board (probably) love...? The outrage is deafening. And I still don't know which one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 Could be taking the role of the bad guys of the industry for future negotiations. You sure that the fight is only about the retrans fee, and doesn't involve must carry provisions of multi-cast? No, I'm not sure, but I have yet to see that brought up as the issue. I remained, mostly, on the fence about this, for a long time, because I thought there might be more to this than meets the eye. Nothing has been offered, so far, to suggest it is about anything other than the retrans fees. Even TW spokespeople have pointed to the fee, as the sticking point in the situation. They reverted to the worst of arguments (but one that sounds good to those with no background in the area) that they shouldn't have to pay for what is free. While I don't expect the Buffalo Snooze to get the facts straight in this one, I do expect Variety to understand the issues, and that article linked earlier didn't mention multicast as an issue, at all. Even this cable-centric article cites the retrans fees as the issue, and suggests that TW simply does not want to pay retrans fees: http://cable.tmcnet.com/topics/cable/artic...pute-with-l.htm Based on what I know (and I understand that you may have info that has not been made public), TW is most definitely playing the role of the "bad guy". If you think that they are the bad guy, but that the Bills' fans should not hold them responsible for not being able to see the games on the only cable system available to them, then I would love to hear another side to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarkLessWagMore Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 LIN and TWC settled as of this morning. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 Beautiful. Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 LIN and TWC settled as of this morning. link Yes, I was watching the early show this morning and took a minute to realize it was WIVB. I called TW last week and asked what they would do to retain my service and they gave me a new customer deal. Something like $89.99 for cable, phone, and Internet. With some additions, such as DVR and Showtime, it was a bit more, but still a lot less then I was paying previously. I had to sign a two year price lock contract, but DTV couldn't install at my houst due to tree's and FIOS is not available yet, so I really have no alternatives anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 LIN and TWC settled as of this morning. link It only took a month. I suppose TW will throw this in our faces the next time they feel the need to raise the rates. Except for key sporting events, wivb is dead to me and FIOS will still be going in as soon as it is available in my area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 It only took a month. I suppose TW will throw this in our faces the next time they feel the need to raise the rates. Except for key sporting events, wivb is dead to me and FIOS will still be going in as soon as it is available in my area. Pretty much same here. The only reason I'm still with TW is because I don't want DSL for internet access. But very glad to learn that I can watch the game at home on Sunday. I'm very curious as to the terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Pretty much same here. The only reason I'm still with TW is because I don't want DSL for internet access. But very glad to learn that I can watch the game at home on Sunday. I'm very curious as to the terms. You can get DirecTV or Dish for television and keep TW for cable internet. That's what I do (except I have Comcast). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 It only took a month. I suppose TW will throw this in our faces the next time they feel the need to raise the rates. Except for key sporting events, wivb is dead to me and FIOS will still be going in as soon as it is available in my area. Your welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 Your welcome. I take it barged into the meetings (with my posts in hand, of course) and demanded they get their s#it together and give you back your Bills! Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Channels 4 and 23 return to Time Warner Cable Channel 4 and Channel 23 returned to Time Warner Cable around 7 this morning, several hours after the stations' owner and the cable company reached a national deal to end the 26-day standoff that kept them off the system here. The deal between LIN TV and Time Warner was hammered out at midnight after five or six days of round-the-clock-negotiations at the national level, according to Chris Musial, Channel 4's general manager. He didn't have any details and didn't expect any to emerge because a confidentiality clause is included in the deal. The standoff concluded the day before the November sweeps start, though Musial said he didn't think that was an impetus for the deal. http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/477544.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGimp Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Thank god now we can all sleep at night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Thank god now we can all sleep at night Damn and I had just convinced a bunch of friends to go to DTV maybe they will still go since HD content is what I sold them on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Damn and I had just convinced a bunch of friends to go to DTV maybe they will still go since HD content is what I sold them on When they get the bill, they'll be looking for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Your welcome. What should I give thanks for? Two corporate entities, one more greedy than the next, who finally decided after a month that there is enough money for both of them. I can't decide who I should thank first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 When they get the bill, they'll be looking for you. usually cheaper than cable unless ya want to compare it to 22 channel cable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 BOOOOOOYA!!! me and my slingbox are back in business baby!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Your point of view is just that, a point of view. What many people forget (as pointed out by a previous poster) is that WIVB's signal can not reach Time Warner's full viewing audience. By Time Warner carrying WIVB, they increase WIVB's viewership, thus allowing WIVB to charge higher rates to their advertisers. That increased revenue because of this is payment enough in my opinion. Options that just are not there for cable channels. I have a friend that works at WIVB. WIVB was financially sound up to this point. Now, things are not going well for them. Many part time employees and news reporters have been laid off. Local advertisers are pulling their adds, or not paying their bills because they were charged based on how many customers their adds would reach. Without Time Warner, WIVB can not reach those customers. With each day that passes, according to my friend, WIVB's managers are becoming more and more frustrated with executives at Lin-TV. With the weak Buffalo market, WIVB may reach a point of no recovery financially. WIVB may cease to exist. If that happens, no one is to blame but Lin-TV. Currently, Direct TV, Dish Network, and Verizon FiOS are not paying for, or paying next to nothing to carry WIVB. When those carriage agreements expire (most within the next year), everyone that is jumping ship on Time Warner will have the same problem all over again. A problem you will not be able to do anything about because you either have too much money invested in equipment (Direct TV or Dish Network), or can not get out of your contract (Verizon). I have enjoyed posts on both sides of this topic. I'm responding to this one because I had a shockingly similar conversation with some far more astute than I tonight. I had heard that 4 was taking a beating financially, and that morale among the rank and file was wavering. My thought was that 4 needs TW more than TW needs 4 because without access to TW's system, 4 couldn't penetrate households during the critical sweeps periods. The conversation then turned to whether lesser networks such as HGTV, the Food Network, etc. should be paid or pay for access to cable and dish networks (I won't bore everyone with that). In any event, not like it matters anymore because the game will be seen on Sunday, but a few final thoughts: 1. One of the more recent rumors was that LIN wanted $.01/month per subscriber for BOTH 4 and 23. That request for 23 is absolutely asinine; it may be more reasonable for 4. 2. The fact this deal was finished the day before sweeps suggests that LIN caved. 3. The deal is probably (confidentiality makes this a tough one) based on advertising with a small amount of money changing hands. 4. One can wish that the folks at TW and LIN settled this one over a nice, tasty dinner at the Hamburg China King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 I have enjoyed posts on both sides of this topic. I'm responding to this one because I had a shockingly similar conversation with some far more astute than I tonight. I had heard that 4 was taking a beating financially, and that morale among the rank and file was wavering. My thought was that 4 needs TW more than TW needs 4 because without access to TW's system, 4 couldn't penetrate households during the critical sweeps periods. The conversation then turned to whether lesser networks such as HGTV, the Food Network, etc. should be paid or pay for access to cable and dish networks (I won't bore everyone with that). In any event, not like it matters anymore because the game will be seen on Sunday, but a few final thoughts: 1. One of the more recent rumors was that LIN wanted $.01/month per subscriber for BOTH 4 and 23. That request for 23 is absolutely asinine; it may be more reasonable for 4. 2. The fact this deal was finished the day before sweeps suggests that LIN caved. 3. The deal is probably (confidentiality makes this a tough one) based on advertising with a small amount of money changing hands. 4. One can wish that the folks at TW and LIN settled this one over a nice, tasty dinner at the Hamburg China King. #2 is the only one I fully disagree with. Lin was asking for about twenty fine cents for EACH of their channels, but they knew, going in, there was no way they would get that. My guess (as I stated earlier) is they probably were hoping for about 10-15 cents...a quarter for both would have closed the deal before they went off the system, IMO. Up until recently, all reports were that TW offered NOTHING. So, as the deal was made, and it is not a must-carry deal, Lin and TW negotiated a real deal...the way it should have been done from the start. As GG noted, there may have been other issues (multichannel carriage) at play, too. I won't know what actually went down, until one of my (ever dwindling) contacts gets to me with some rough detail. As for #3, advertising may well have been involved (that's pretty typical for these deals, and is expected from the get-go), but there will be enough money involved for Lin to offset their losses during the period they were off of TW. It is chump change for TW, but will make a difference to WIVB's bottom line. If I had to guess what went down (and I do), TW basically decided to not negotiate in good faith until Lin was desperate to make a deal more favorable to TW. As GG noted, they were also likely trying to show other stations (who have to negotiate with TW later) that they were willing to play hardball. TW was getting a lot of political pressure to start negotiating, from what I hear, and if they held out much longer, their leverage would decline. If this were ever forced to go to arbitration by local and state politicos, they would lose badly. So, in a way, TW probably won a better deal than they would have negotiated (if they were actually negotiating in good faith) a month ago. But, if you look at what both sides SAY they were asking for, then both sides won some, and lost some. It's a shame that TW screwed Buffalo Bills fans to soften up a business deal, and set the table for future negotiations. And make no mistake about it, that's what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 #2 is the only one I fully disagree with. Lin was asking for about twenty fine cents for EACH of their channels, but they knew, going in, there was no way they would get that. My guess (as I stated earlier) is they probably were hoping for about 10-15 cents...a quarter for both would have closed the deal before they went off the system, IMO. Up until recently, all reports were that TW offered NOTHING. So, as the deal was made, and it is not a must-carry deal, Lin and TW negotiated a real deal...the way it should have been done from the start. As GG noted, there may have been other issues (multichannel carriage) at play, too. I won't know what actually went down, until one of my (ever dwindling) contacts gets to me with some rough detail. As for #3, advertising may well have been involved (that's pretty typical for these deals, and is expected from the get-go), but there will be enough money involved for Lin to offset their losses during the period they were off of TW. It is chump change for TW, but will make a difference to WIVB's bottom line. If I had to guess what went down (and I do), TW basically decided to not negotiate in good faith until Lin was desperate to make a deal more favorable to TW. As GG noted, they were also likely trying to show other stations (who have to negotiate with TW later) that they were willing to play hardball. TW was getting a lot of political pressure to start negotiating, from what I hear, and if they held out much longer, their leverage would decline. If this were ever forced to go to arbitration by local and state politicos, they would lose badly. So, in a way, TW probably won a better deal than they would have negotiated (if they were actually negotiating in good faith) a month ago. But, if you look at what both sides SAY they were asking for, then both sides won some, and lost some. It's a shame that TW screwed Buffalo Bills fans to soften up a business deal, and set the table for future negotiations. And make no mistake about it, that's what they did. Good insight as usual; can't say I disagree with anything you're saying, although your point about TW's leverage seems to at least suggest that LIN moved more than TW ("caved" may have been excessive on my part). Any idea what TW lost (to date) in terms of its sub base? It's probably too early to tell, because the hard feelings will eat at the base for the next few months. The more I think about it, the more it seems 23 is a freebie or really, really close to it, and they just worked on a number for 4. 23's ratings (per Alan Pergament, who knows as much about ratings as do I about rocket science) were apparently worse than awful in the past month. I can't think of one show that airs on 23, aside from the 10p news with Lisa Flynn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 Good insight as usual; can't say I disagree with anything you're saying, although your point about TW's leverage seems to at least suggest that LIN moved more than TW ("caved" may have been excessive on my part). Any idea what TW lost (to date) in terms of its sub base? It's probably too early to tell, because the hard feelings will eat at the base for the next few months. The more I think about it, the more it seems 23 is a freebie or really, really close to it, and they just worked on a number for 4. 23's ratings (per Alan Pergament, who knows as much about ratings as do I about rocket science) were apparently worse than awful in the past month. I can't think of one show that airs on 23, aside from the 10p news with Lisa Flynn. By doing a deal for both stations, you get paid for one and you get the other carried...which is really what you are looking for. Some broadcasters try to do deals that gets carriage for any stations they might come to own, start, etc. That can get messy, as you might imagine. The ratings for 23, I'm sure aren't very good (although I haven't seen the Buffalo overnights in some time). But, I bet they are as high, or higher, than some cable nets that TW gladly pays decent money to carry. Other than during an NHL game, do you think VS gets any viewers? Does anyone actually watch BET? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 BOOOOOOYA!!! me and my slingbox are back in business baby!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 It's a shame that TW screwed Buffalo Bills fans to soften up a business deal, and set the table for future negotiations. And make no mistake about it, that's what they did. That's a little harsh, -b. Don't forget that LIN owns multiple stations within TW's NY market. For example, WBNG in Binghamton. WBNG has had an HD signal since 2 Super Bowls ago. We still can't carry it. Maybe that will change now......hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 By doing a deal for both stations, you get paid for one and you get the other carried...which is really what you are looking for. Some broadcasters try to do deals that gets carriage for any stations they might come to own, start, etc. That can get messy, as you might imagine. The ratings for 23, I'm sure aren't very good (although I haven't seen the Buffalo overnights in some time). But, I bet they are as high, or higher, than some cable nets that TW gladly pays decent money to carry. Other than during an NHL game, do you think VS gets any viewers? Does anyone actually watch BET? Totally agree. I think I phrased it very poorly in a prior post, but I heard that LIN wanted .01/day/sub for 4 and .01/day/sub for 23. If I'm TW, the demand for 23 is a non-starter and may have slowed the process. Your point re: fees for some of the "filler" TW carries is well-made. I could make a case for novelty programming on some nets (i.e., VS has a handful of home-market NHL games per year, Discovery has Deadliest Catch, etc.), but the point re: BET and similar nets is right on the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 BOOOOOOYA!!! me and my slingbox are back in business baby!! Of course, now that my slingbox is back up and running with channel 4, the Bills/Jets game is a national game. First Bills game televised in NC this year. Not that I'm complaining, because I get to watch in HD this week!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 That's a little harsh, -b. Don't forget that LIN owns multiple stations within TW's NY market. For example, WBNG in Binghamton. WBNG has had an HD signal since 2 Super Bowls ago. We still can't carry it. Maybe that will change now......hopefully. If I'm wrong on the details, it might be a little harsh. But, typically in these negotiations, if the negotiations are proceeding in good faith, a deal can be made to keep the station on the cable system. Because all the info I have suggests that TW was offering NOTHING in compensation for Lin stations, I believe it was a strategy employed by TW to hurt Lin (remember, the Lin station in Green Bay has some Packer games, too) and soften them up for when they finally decided to negotiate. GG's comments (he probably has more details about this than I do, but he isn't saying much) that TW was playing the bad guy, for a purpose...and the insinuation in several articles that TW is getting ready for negotiations with the other station groups, suggests a calculated strategy. In an active negotiation, where the sides are agreed in principle that there will be some compensation, and are just negotiating the price, I honestly believe they agree to keep the channel on, so as not to hurt the viewing public. That clearly didn't happen here. My guess is, that was orchestrated by TW, with full knowledge that it would cause many people to miss their favorite programs, including Bills' games. I will continue to believe that, in these situations, both parties are inevitably responsible, to some degree. So, let me try this: Lin pissed on the Buffalo Bills fans in WNY. Time Warner took a dump on them. Izzat better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 GG's comments (he probably has more details about this than I do, but he isn't saying much) that TW was playing the bad guy, for a purpose...and the insinuation in several articles that TW is getting ready for negotiations with the other station groups, suggests a calculated strategy. No comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 No comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I blame the Founding Fathers for not having the vision to envision television and not including a cap on the cost of cable television in the Constitution, even though having cable television or satellite television is a choice of the individual's decision for vision. Alliteration... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 When they get the bill, they'll be looking for you. I've referred several people at work over the past three months (nothing to do with WIVB/Linn), and they're all looking for me after seeing the bill -- to thank me and ask themselves why they didn't switch sooner. And half the people I've referred have since referred 1-2 people themselves. It's turning into quite the pyramid scheme... Except nothing trickles down to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts