Local channels

[rt123]

All keep hearing lately now customers may loose there local Fox and ABC stations i know ATT U-Verse settled the Viacom issue i know U-Verse would not that dumb to  let ABC and Fox stations go dark .

[rt123]

Her in Georgia i have not seen any message pop up about Fox 5 Atlanta or channel 2 action news or even seen anything about it in AJC .

[rt123]

What is going on with local channels its turning out to be a PR nightmare for U-Verse its seems like you here something new every few hours about somebody loosing there local channels .

[jbdet313]

Because people are too LAZY to look for the answers on their own. And others start threads like this one.

Golly ........ the things people get worked up about. Especially with channels that can get the temporary work-around by putting an antenna on the TV if they're "lost" for a day or two.

[rt123]

Hey look there is not a problem in my state of Georgia i have been fortunate not to have any messages pop up i agree that these customers are to worked over nothing .

[gregzoll_1]

First, how many threads are you going to open regarding this? And second, I have already stated twice that this is a issue with the local ownership of the stations, not ATT.

If you want to yell at someone, Call the owners and yell at them.

[rt123]

I just wounder if this thing with local channels is a problem with smaller or mid size cities becuse i have heard from any big cities like Atlanta or Dallas or New York it like these are isolated cases .

[kryptonite]

It must be something with Sinclair. When Sinclar's contract with AT&T is up, I think it affects all Sinclair-owned channels. I think WTTE and WSYX were also up for renewal, but I just didn't hear anything about it from the channels.

[rt123]

I guess i have been fortunate with my local channels because there has not been any messages at all in my area which is close to the Atlanta area .

[jbdet313]

Local channels, in the big scheme of things, bring relatively NO value to a pay TV operator. The reason that local broadcast networks are even carried on "cable" is because back in those old, old, prehistoric days 30-40 years ago, in some areas it was one of the only ways to get a reliable signal. Remember those old top-of-the-roof antenna days?

Remember back in the early days of satellite when there was no such a thing as having your local channels? Why did they change that? Out of convenience, for the most part.

Once Congress changed the field in 1992, "must-carry" rules basically went out the window. I would venture, out of all of the OTA channels nationwide, maybe only 10%, maximum, have it worked out with their cable operator where they opt for the "must-carry" over being paid per subscriber.

Just think for a minute ...... if you're paying for U200, are you selecting that service tier for the "cable" stations, or your local broadcasters? In my case, I get U300, and the only time I turn on the locals is pretty much for the local news. I've still got an antenna hooked up for getting one of the OTA subchannels, since Uverse doesn't have it. If local channels weren't available, I'd still get U300, for all of the channels that are available on that tier. If I want OTA, and that's my primary viewing, why would I bother with any type of cable?

[rt123]

I don't know if reason we are good shape with are local Atlanta channels is maybe they are not apart of Sinclair .

[dhascall ACE - Master]

---

jbdet313 wrote:

Local channels, in the big scheme of things, bring relatively NO value to a pay TV operator. The reason that local broadcast networks are even carried on "cable" is because back in those old, old, prehistoric days 30-40 years ago, in some areas it was one of the only ways to get a reliable signal. Remember those old top-of-the-roof antenna days?

Remember back in the early days of satellite when there was no such a thing as having your local channels? Why did they change that? Out of convenience, for the most part.

Once Congress changed the field in 1992, "must-carry" rules basically went out the window. I would venture, out of all of the OTA channels nationwide, maybe only 10%, maximum, have it worked out with their cable operator where they opt for the "must-carry" over being paid per subscriber.

Just think for a minute ...... if you're paying for U200, are you selecting that service tier for the "cable" stations, or your local broadcasters? In my case, I get U300, and the only time I turn on the locals is pretty much for the local news. I've still got an antenna hooked up for getting one of the OTA subchannels, since Uverse doesn't have it. If local channels weren't available, I'd still get U300, for all of the channels that are available on that tier. If I want OTA, and that's my primary viewing, why would I bother with any type of cable?

---

I believe that U-300, 450, U-Basic or whatever applies to all of the channels, not just the "cable" ones.  Luckilly, Indianapolis isn't a Sinclair market. 

[rt123]

The problem just seems to be in 3 states Alabama , Arkansas and Ohio which could be Sinclair .

[rt123]

I saw on the list that it was only Peactree TV and WUVG 34 i have watched WPCH and there been no messages so far that is one i want to keep WUVG 34 is a latino channel would not be bummed about that just  glad its none of the ABC , FOX , CBS, or NBC affilates in Georgia .

[jbdet313]

Sinclair Broadcast Group is NOTORIOUS for this type of stuff. They've gone up against Time Warner, Comcast, Mediacom, and this one against Suddenlink.

And for all of you thinking AT&T is the problem, read this one to get your panties out of that wad against AT&T, and knotted all over again against SINCLAIR:

In the summer of 2006, Charter Communications streamlined its operations, which included selling off portions of its cable system which were "geographically non-strategic". Charter accounts in the Huntington-Charleston, West Virginia market area were purchased by Suddenlink Communications. Sinclair requested a $40 million one-time fee, and a one-dollar-per subscription per month fee from Suddenlink for retransmission rights of both WCHS-TV and WVAH-TV on the Suddenlink cable system.[16] This led to a protracted media battle and smear campaign between the two companies, and Sinclair pulled the two stations off the air on cable systems covering the neighboring Beckley, West Virginia market.

After several weeks of negotiations, the two companies reached an agreement which allowed WCHS-TV and WVAH-TV to continue transmission over the Suddenlink cable system. The terms of the agreement were not released to the public.[17]

[Mad As Hades!]

All I know is that local channels are supposed to be FREE and that I should NEVER be denied access to them.  So AT&T BETTER find a way to keep them, or else.

[Mad As Hades!]

And just so you know, local channels owned by Hearst TV are also threatened.  So it's not just Sinclair.  And you've got Viacom too.  So maybe AT&T IS the problem- that's a lot of companies that are having trouble keeping their channels on AT&T.

[Please keep it courteous]          

[Bandit5160]

I am trying not to worry, but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't.  All this talk about losing channels is stressing me and putting a black cloud over my Christmas and New Year's Day celebrations.  That message just flashed across WYFF-4 again.  If they can't get new deals done right away with all the companies they are currently negotiating with, I hope they at least extend the current deals while they continue to negotiate. 

[jbdet313]

---

Mad As Hades! wrote:

All I know is that local channels are supposed to be FREE and that I should NEVER be denied access to them.  So AT&T BETTER find a way to keep them, or else.

---

TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY FALSE, for any COMMERCIAL TV station! Read ALL of the following, by clicking on the appropriate links:

When the US Congress started meddling with the cable industry under their 1992 "improvement", they opened the door to EITHER - OR programming agreements. EITHER the local station could be carried by the cable provider, OR the local station could negotiate a RETRANSMISSION AGREEMENT with the cable provider. There is no combination of the two.

The assurance of increased availability of cable television to the public was achieved through making the carriage of local commercial television signals an obligation for cable operators. The legislation states that each cable operator must carry the signals of local commercial television stations and qualified Low-power broadcasting stations.

WAIT! DON'T GET ALL EXCITED! That is the EITHER part of the equation! The next red section descibes the OR part:

Carriage of additional broadcast television signals on such system was stated to be at the discretion of such operator. In detail, a cable operator of a cable system that had 12 or fewer usable activated channels were required to carry at least three local commercial television stations’ signals. Here, the local commercial television station refers to any full power television broadcast licensed station and operating on a channel regularly assigned to its community by the commission that is within the same television market as the cable system. Television stations could opt out of cable carriage by invoking retransmission consent.[8]

In contribution to diversifying channel selection for the public, the section 5 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 also requires each cable operator of a cable system to carry the signals of a qualified Non-commercial educational television stations.[8]

THEREFORE, as I said in a previous post, by any stretch of the imagination, around 90% of the broadcast channels in this country would fall under a retransmission agreement. WHY? Because it gives them a steady stream of income. Local channels are only "free" if you choose to pick up their terrestrial signal via antenna. And guess where the money to put that signal up in the air comes from? Yep, that's right ....... from FEES they charge the cable providers by those retransmission agreements AND by advertising time they sell. The ONLY mandated-carriage is of the market's PBS station(s).

Now about those RETRANSMISSION AGREEMENTS:

Retransmission consent is an option granted to US television stations as part of the law that granted such stations the option to elect must-carry rights. Under retransmission consent, a full-power US television station may elect to negotiate with a cable system operator for carriage of its broadcast programming. A station may propose that the cable operator pay cash to carry the station or ask for any other form of consideration. The cable operator may refuse the broadcaster's proposal and not carry the station or offer a counter-proposal. Broadcast stations have similar privileges with respect to DBS television providers like DirecTV and Dish Network. The current retransmission consent rules took effect in 1994 as part of the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act.

[oufanindallas]

---

Mad As Hades! wrote:

And just so you know, local channels owned by Hearst TV are also threatened.  So it's not just Sinclair.  And you've got Viacom too.  So maybe AT&T IS the problem- that's a lot of companies that are having trouble keeping their channels on AT&T.

[Please keep it courteous]          

---

Absolutely NOT TRUE.  There have only been two chanels lost from UVerse in the last two years, Hallmark and the NHL network.  When you see the contract negotiation sites, those are there because the law requires it.  Any time a contract has not been signed within 30 days of it's expiration.  Many times a contract will go unsigned but the channels remain in place while the two sides work it out. In the case of Crown Media and the NHL both of them said no they could not continue to air so AT&T was forced to pull them.

[oufanindallas]

---

Mad As Hades! wrote:

All I know is that local channels are supposed to be FREE and that I should NEVER be denied access to them.  So AT&T BETTER find a way to keep them, or else.

---

You want free, get an antenna.

[rt123]

I am not going to say anything else and just take wait and see mode talking about it does not do anybody any good with something we have no control over .