Posted In Noteworthy

Attention Mediacom: Leave Sinclair Alone

Please See 12/01 Update With More Info

Mediacom, my cable internet and TV provider, is in a legal battle with Sinclair Broadcasting, the owner of my local Fox affiliate, KDSM Fox 17. The two companies have been in negotiations for the last year over the price Mediacom pays for the right to offer Fox 17 to it’s customers.

Now, the dumbass people in charge at Mediacom have decided to file an anti-trust lawsuit against Sinclair Broadcasting. Mediacom claims they’re simply watching out for the best interests of their customers. I call bullshit. Mediacom should know their customers won’t be happy at all if they drop Fox 17. I mean, they continue raising their cable prices anyway, why not just pass the cost of broadcasting Fox 17 on to the customer like they do for everything else? I for one would be willing to pay a little extra for keeping Fox 17 around. Mediacom simply doesn’t care, although they’ll care when their subscriber numbers in central Iowa tank.

From my past experiences, there’s only 1, high-level employee at Mediacom who gives a rats ass about his customers, I will not give his name. Were it not for him, I probably wouldn’t have internet service in my current apartment, and I know he’s helped a number of people I converse with also.

Basically, Mediacom is telling Sinclair that they’ll simply refuse to broadcast Fox 17. And Sinclair doesn’t seem to care, no matter how badly their ratings suffer. Now, Sinclair is probably asking for way too much money from Mediacom, so it’s understandable that they would negotiate for a while. But dropping Fox 17 all together shouldn’t even be an option for Mediacom. I just think Mediacom made a horrible decision, they need to think these things through. So, in the near future, no more Fox 17, cable channel 6, for Mediacom cable subscribers in the Des Moines metro area.

Anyway, Mediacom is going to suffer big time here in central Iowa because of this. Fox 17 has been scrolling a banner across the bottom of the TV today saying their service will likely be shut off by Mediacom on December 1st, 2006. Fox 17 is also urging viewers to call DirecTV, the satellite television provider. It’s either get satellite TV, watch Fox 17 with bunny ears, or don’t watch at all. Not watching isn’t an option for a number of reasons, mainly, Family Guy, American Dad, King Of The Hill, and The Simpsons.

So, I will be calling DirecTV tomorrow to schedule an installation. Mediacom can suck a nut, how the fuck can they alienate their customers like this? If anyone should be brought up on anti-trust charges, it’s Mediacom. Does half of central Iowa have any other option for cable services besides Mediacom? No.

Before it disappears, here’s the small little article about the situation from KDSM Fox 17:

Mediacom and Fox 17’s Parent Company in Legal Battle
As soon as December 1st, Mediacom customers may have to switch to antenna or satellite to watch Fox 17. KDSM’s parent company Sinclair Broadcasting says its been in negotiations with Mediacom for the past year to settle on a fair price for the cable company to carry Fox 17. Now Mediacom has filed an anti-trust lawsuit saying they are looking out for the best interest of their customers and don’t want to disrupt service. Both companies say they won’t back down, and Sinclair says it is willing to be turned off of the cable signal even if it will lose viewers, who will have other options, like satellite and antenna.

Well, now what?

Work with Me

I'm available for hire and always taking new clients, big and small. Got a project or an idea you'd like to discuss? Startup plan but no developer to make it happen? Just get in touch, I'd love to see if I can help you out!

Leave some Feedback

Got a question or some updated information releavant to this post? Please, leave a comment! The comments are a great way to get help, I read them all and reply to nearly every comment. Let's talk. :) is proudly hosted by DigitalOcean

About these ads
  • Yeah, over here in Eastern Iowa we’d lose CBS (KGAN). As stupid and annoying as this is, I can live without CBS. But when I saw that Des Moines would be losing FOX I wasn’t jealous. I’d switch to DirecTV if it weren’t for my cable Internet. I don’t have a phone line (cell only ) so DSL isn’t an affordable option for us. Stupid Mediacom.

  • Pingback: More On Mediacom Vs. Sinclair at T. Longren()

  • Cali

    This has to be the stupidiest thing I have ever heard. I am a “24” junkie and not to mention the football games (including the superbowl) that we will not be able to see if they dont come to an agreement. Sucks balls. I too am considering switching to satellite. Never been happy with Mediacomm anyways. I have a 80 special with internet and cable, but every month my bill ends up over $120. I dont get it.

    Oh and Jason from Eastern Iowa, QWEST offers DSL without a seperate phone line hooked up. As long as you have the line and jack, you dont have to have seperate phone service anymore. Go to their website and check it out.

  • Story of Mediacom’s existence. Maybe it’s just the people I’m around, but in my experiences, probably 98% of Mediacom customers are unsatisfied with Mediacom as a company. Their cable internet is great, but that’s about it.

  • Kirk

    Mediacom is through in Iowa if they do this.

  • Rodney

    Why is this Mediacom’s fault? Why is Sinclair Broadcasting demanding so much money? TV stations are licensed by the FCC and must serve the public interest. This sounds like Sinclair is more interested in their own interests and not the public’s.

  • david

    I understand the negotiations are only about $1mil apart. If you divide that million by the number of cable subscribers, (514,000),it nets out around $2.00 apiece – over an entire year! How much would you pay to see the top sporting events?

    Seem crazy? The satellite providers are carrying the same Sinclair channels and we didn’t hear a fuss. It is basic supply and demand. Sinclair has the supply, consumers have the demand. If Mediacom doesn’t want to lose customers, it should have paid. That is how business is being done in their industry.

    I have High Speed Internet through Qwest, DirecTv on my Qwest bill and my phone works.

    This is a perfect scenario for the cable company to do what it does best – raise prices. Watch for the annual rate hike in February. This time, though, they will have sympathy from the public. Let’s see how much more than $2.00 it is this time.

  • Dave

    David (above) it’s not as simple as the math you describe above ($2.00 per subscriber). Everyone seems to be missing the bigger picture here. This issue goes far beyond Sinclair vs. Mediacom but cable vs. local television stations.

    Over the years there has been a formula that established a “standard” price cable paid local stations to carry programming. In this contract, Sinclair is asking for Mediacom to pay a higher price and for “potential” customers of Mediacom, not current customers.

    The outcome of this negotiation is being watched closely by cable and local carriers throughout the US. There will be a huge change Nationwide in local contract price should Sinclair come out on top here.

    So, this is much greater than Medicacom vs. Sinclair. It’s all about setting new standards in contracts

  • Geoff

    No, Sinclair is definitely the one to blame here. Mediacom was getting KGAN and most other Sinclair stations for free, then Sinclair changed some stuff with the FCC so that they could charge Mediacom. Then they asked for significantly more than any other broadcast company that has done the same. Additionally, with other cable companies, Sinclair has demanded payment for many years up front. Mediacom would have to pay for a good decade’s worth of these 22 stations right away. After taxes and fees, this would wind up being around $3-5 more per month for mediacom subscribers. Additionally, if Mediacom caves in to Sinclair, other broadcast channels will follow suit, which could raise it even higher.

    There’s also questionable legality of Sinclair charging some Mediacom markets, due to the whole 55 mile local market area thing.

    On the other hand, if Mediacom refuses to go along with this, Sinclair gets in trouble with the parent networks. They also lose a significant number of their advertisers in those markets.

    Mediacom can actually purchase another affiliate’s broadcasts AND buy rights to broadcast major sporting events for cheaper than Sinclair is demanding.



  • Matt

    Sinclair sucks.
    Moreover, I don’t see how you could accuse Mediacom of operating a monopoly. I’m trying to remember what KGAN has been scrolling across the bottom of the screen during NFL games over the past six weeks. . .something about Sinclair offering $$$ to Mediacom customers to switch to DirecTV?

  • More sense


    Did you know that anyone living in Dubuque can’t get ANY reception with rabbit ears? We went shopping the day we moved in and bought some with enough power to pull in stations from Chicago. The problem is hills. We have ’em. LOTS of them. How many stations total could we pull in with ’em? Answer – One.

    If you want to watch TV in Dubuque (and there are 90,000 people here believe it or not), you can’t do it without satelite or cable. Period.

  • cheymax

    My message:

    Sinclair sucks! Sinclair wants subscriber’s to change to satellite. Would if people cannot afford a dish or they rent their home and the landlord does not allow you to have one.

    Attention SINCLAIR: I will not change to a dish because you want Mediacom to drop some channels. I live in the state of Iowa and yes I rent and I cannot afford a dish. Oh one more thing Sinclair, if you do add your own channels I will not watch them!

    From a very mad cable viewer!

  • what I don’t understand about Sinclair is that they are asking for more money from Mediacom than other cable providers. what’s up with that???

  • Tom

    It may not be mediacoms fualt. But I have dvr & it does
    me no good to use a antena for programs I want to record.
    Though Iam curious how sinclair can cancel subscibers with
    the sport contracts they have. I would think those contracts were based on potential viewers. Though the only reason I do not change now is I have basic cable in other rooms & would prefer not to have more than those channels in those rooms.

  • Great comments everyone, thanks for making this a meaningful discussion. I know for a fact certain execs at Mediacom read my blog. So, just know that most of the comments here have been read by someone at Mediacom who cares.

    I realize many of you probably have a DVR (I know Tom does) from Mediacom and won’t be able to make use of it with Sinclair stations. That’s really unfortunate, but Mediacom should still be able to count on your support.

    There’s no doubt in my mind that Mediacom is actively trying to protect the best interests of their customers. It seems that Sinclair is just being greedy. Maybe the execs at Sinclair didn’t get the christmas bonuses they were hoping for. They gotta make up somehow… πŸ™‚

  • Yeldarb1983

    (just a quick note, i live in CR, so im involved in this mess before you ask ) i look at it like this : i have cable to watch CABLE TV if i only wnated broadcast, id have a bunny ears hooked up. whatever the dispute, it doesnt hurt me, cuz i can just turn off the cable to watch cbs (not that i actually WATCH cbs that much right now, mind you, but yeah). the REAL problem is both companies need to suck it up. (by the way, does anyone have any clue about what the actual numbers are?) anyway, i dont know what the deal is, ultimately, it’s us that are gonna lose, but hey, like i said, if i wanna watch cbs, ill hook up a bunny ears

  • Yeldarb1983, please take a look at this post. I posted some hard numbers there that I haven’t really seen anywhere else. All came from sources I trust.

  • Chuck

    C’mon folks, this is all about negotiating and posturing, so they can make a deal that’s satisfactory to both parties. Mediacom knows that if it caves to Sinclair, every other station will follow suit. David, you need to go back to grade school and take math all over again; your calculation is based on the DIFFERENCE,as opposed to the TOTAL cost.

    Mediacom has made a tremendous effort in the last few years to provide better service and bolster their image. I’ve had satellite and, trust me, you aren’t gonna call them and get a service man to fix your problem, IF you can get them on the phone. I just had some major problems with my cable here in West Des Moines and the service agent said he thought he fixed it. He hadn’t and I called again; they came back and discovered one of the mains one block away was faulty and had to be replaced. The service guy (the one that had been here before), was courteous enough to call the day the new main was being activated and let me know I’d be without service for about 5 minutes. You will NEVER, EVER get that kind of service from a satellite company!

    Mediacom has a business to run, and they, like Sinclair, have to make a profit. “Serving the Public interest” is secondary to profitabiity; it has to be. Capitalism is alive and well, and I am willing to hook up the rabbit ears that Mediacom sent me to watch House to preserve it.

  • Yeldarb1983

    sorry, tyler, i missed that post, but yeah. thanks

  • Kate

    I read in the Des Moines newspaper this morning (and in Chuck’s post above!) that Mediacom is sending free bunny ears to subscribers who request them, but they didn’t say how to go about requesting one. I’ve had problems with antenna reception in my apartment before so I’ll be damned if I’m going to go out and buy one. I tried to call about it but ended up on hold… and we all know how great Mediacom is with hold times. Does anyone know an easier way to request a free antenna than sitting on hold for an hour (an email address, for example, or could I just stop by the local office?)?


  • Yeldarb1983

    you know, youd think youd have a rabbit ears hanging around anyhow, or at the very least, a friend or relative would have one they could loan you, but they dont cost more than ten bucks if you know where to look…

    in any case, yes mediacom has long wait times, but ive found that if you call later at night, it’s not half as bad.

    hope this helps ^^;;;

    ps: another optin is to hook a line of stereo wire from your tv to a metal plumbing pipe, this might work better for you in an appartment, but i dunno

  • Kate

    Thanks, I may try the stereo wire (I have a stereo sitting in the closet that I might be able to scavenge from), and if nothing else I may call late at night (can’t say I’ve ever tried that before). No old rabbit ears sitting around though… I’ve never had a TV that needed them, as I’ve always had straight-up cable. And all my relatives live in Connecticut, and it seems like a waste to have them ship me a old, crappy antenna that’s been in the basement forever when I could have Mediacom spend their money to send me a new one for free. Any suggestions on where I might find a cheap rabbit ears? Those $10 ones “if you know where to look” would be doable… but as I’m relatively new to Des Moines “knowing where to look” for anything around here means I usually drive up and down University or Grand until I see something promising. πŸ˜‰ (I just moved from Cedar Rapids a few months ago, where–incidentally–I watched much less KGAN than I do FOX17 and would have much more willingly parted with…) Thanks again for your help! πŸ™‚

  • Chuck

    “The rabbit ears Mediacom was giving away was pretty high-end with a switch and cables. I called in for something and there was a “Press 1 for information on the Sinclair stuff”, which I did. About a week later someone from Mediacom contacted me and asked if I wanted a
    rabbit ears ….”

  • Yeldarb1983

    lol, no problem kate. besides, that’s probably better than an old coat hanger…

    but um, if what chuck says is true, i may just get a pair for myself anyhow… (lol)

    but yeah, since mediacom is mostly a U.S. provider, most complaints typically come in during the day for obvious reasons, so congestion isnt nearly as bad at night.

    im no expert, tho, so the suggestion i made may or may not work. i just know that it MIGHT work.

    as for where to look…try radioshack or maybe walmart…a rabbit ears isnt all that obsolete just yet…not everybody who doesnt have cable can afford an outside antenna

  • Lindsey

    The link below is from Mediacom and explains what to do with the rabbit ears and how to apply to get them.

  • Yeldarb1983

    k, thanks.

  • Billy Bob

    Yeah, well, who’s to say that Mediacom won’t pick up a Fox affiliate from say Madison or Omaha to fill in the gaps that Sinclair’s Fox stations cover. Then, with no customer base other than satellite subscribers (approximately 20% of the viewer market)maybe Fox 17 out of Des Moines will become a liability to Sinclair. How much money do they stand to lose then?

    Sinclair is greedy. They want the more money based on the fact that Fox carries the BCS Championship, the Superbowl, the World Series, and the Stanley Cup. Fox 17 comes in 4th out of 4 broadcast stations in the metro area. I watch Fox for the Sunday night line-up and football. I sure don’t watch it for the news (which is broadcast out of Cedar Rapids)so the rabbit ears serve me just fine.

  • Shawn W.

    i just wish you could order cable alacart.I dont watch the animal mating channel,espn,the history channel,jesus channel,or the golf channel. let me pick the individual channels, then aslong as cbs has CSI, I’d suscribe to CBS

  • Shawn, cable ala-carte would be awesome!!! Too bad companies like Sinclair would never let that happen. It would be stellar for the cable companies though. I know exactly what you mean, I have no use for 3 spanish channels and the 4+ religious channels. Mediacom should think of getting rid of a few of those if at all possible and replace them with something more appealing to everyone. I realize it’s often a “package” deal for Mediacom though, so often times they have to take the shit channels with the ones they really want. Maybe I’m way off, anyone know for sure?

  • ClonesR1

    MediaCom should pay Sinclair for the service. That said, if Sinclair is in the right as they say, why would they not want binding arbritration with a neutral third party? First, KGAN’s signal has always been weak, in Dubuque and right here in Cedar Rapids. (Also, the previous Dubuque argument is weak because Dubuque’s cable has carried the CBS affliate out Madison forever and a day, not to mention the CBS affliate out of the Quad Cities so they should not lose anything regarding CBS programming.) The two Sinclair stations share news anchors instead of paying for each. Of the other network channels here in Cedar Rapids, KGAN is the only one that does not do a HD broadcast. So, Sinclair riding on the coat tails of CBS, provides an inferior product and are asking a kings ransom, and will not agree to a neutral third party to assist decide the matter. I hope CBS decides to get involved and slap Sinclair down. I for one will pay as much attention to the advertisers on KGAN and not patronize them as long as they do business with Sinclair. Sinclair you have a right to do your business but we consumers also have a right to decide what to do with our money.

  • BobH

    The rabbit ears Mediacom gave away will not pickup Fox, they work fine for ABC,CBS,NBC etc, sorry, no Fox. They work fine on my 12″ TV but not on the big 27″ Anyone else got this problem?? I guess it must be 1970 again.

  • BobH, I found some rabbit ears I had packed away in a closet. Got them from Ace Hardware a couple years back. I’m in Nevada, 8 miles East of Ames, and I can’t get any KDSM Fox 17 reception. It’ll pick up all the other stations just fine though.

    Every now and then I’ll see part of an image behind all the snow on Fox, but that’s the best I can get. I thought KDSM Fox 17 had a larger broadcast range than they apparently do.

    Good thing Simpsons and all the good Sunday night Fox shows are available online soon after they air. Doesn’t look like I’ll be able to view KDSM Fox 17 until Sinclair decides their wallets are sufficiently padded already. Keep pushing them Mediacom, Sinclair will deal eventually.

  • BobH

    For the price we are paying Mediacom and I’m sure most of the rest of you too——we can get Direct TV, telephone and internet from Quest cheaper. I’m not a big fan of Qwest either but as far as I can see Mediacom and Sinclair are in a pissing contest and we are the ones suffering from it. Fox hasn’t been around as long as the other channels so I’m sure their signal isn’t as strong as the others. I say everyone cancel Mediacom and see where that gets them. Carolyn

  • BobH, switching may make sense for you, but for some of us it’s not an option. If I didn’t have Mediacom for internet, the fastest speed available to me would be 3Mbps down 512Kbps up, from a local internet provider. After having Mediacom internet for so long, I couldn’t go to anything slower. I’ve grown to used to having these wicked speeds.

    Personally, I stay away from Qwest as much as possible. In my experiences their service sucks as far as speed and stability goes. Also, Qwest isn’t available to me in Nevada, IA, although it is available in Ames. I’m sure Qwest has excellent voice services, but I have no use for a “home” phone.

    It just depends on what your needs are. Sounds like you’d probably benefit more from switching to a Qwest/DirecTV solution.

  • Chuck

    Listen, folks, if Mediacom backs down on this, every station will want the same thing and your cable rates will go through the roof. Is that what you want? And, as I’ve said before, if you think Mediacom’s service is bad, Direct TV has absolutely no presence here, not a single employee, so if you think that service will be better, you’re wrong!

  • Dave

    Just so you all know, it’s not just in Iowa. this is occuring/has occured in florida as well. The douche bags at Sinclair have apparently decided to hold all thier stations hostage with Mediacom. In my area, all Sinclair has is WEAR (an ABC affiliate), which I could do without. Unfortunately, the only local news station is, you guessed it, WEAR. Mediacom is without doubt being greedy. Sinclair is without doubt being MORE greedy. I don’t know how it works in Iowa, but here, it IS a monopoly. No two cable companies are able to operate in the same locality, and the only “affordable” hi-speed internet is cable. So, you settle for a crappy cable/internet company, or get a seperate really crappy satellite company (ever been in a hurricane?), and slow internet. I hate to say it, but bellsouth can’t get thier shit together on phone lines; I won’t pay them for internet. don’t know what’s gonna happen with Sinclair, but I guarantee you Mediacom will be just fine. The local broadcast stations will be about the only oes to really suffer — lost advertisers = lost revenue. Way to go Sinclair… briliant business sense.

  • Dave

    Been doing a bit more searching, and thought this might add fuel to the fire (from the Pensacola News journal):

    Ellis Bullock, president and chief executive officer of Pensacola advertising agency E.W. Bullock & Associates, thinks advertisers immediately will begin to re-evaluate what they’re willing to pay for commercials on WEAR.

    “The Pensacola statistical marketing area is Escambia and Santa Rosa counties,” said Bullock, whose firm represents high-dollar accounts like Baptist HealthCare and Pensacola Regional Airport.

    “Obviously, whether you’re selling cars or health-care services or financial services, your objective is to reach people who live in your region,” he said. “We’re not going to pay the current rates that we’re paying if they’re not able to deliver the number of households they currently deliver.”

    That impact could be even greater if the blackout stretches into February, the all-important “sweeps” period when stations use ratings to set overall ad rates for the coming months.

    Said Bullock: “Advertisers are going to go to Channel 3 and say, ‘You’re not delivering the number of viewers you historically have delivered, so are you going to make some kind of adjustment to your rate?'”

    Darryl Jones, a lecturer and attorney who teaches broadcast management at the University of West Florida, said WEAR may find that it is losing some of its most desirable viewers.

    “Santa Rosa County is one of the more-affluent areas, compared to Escambia,” Jones said. “If they’re losing that, you’re losing a large number of households with discretionary income, which are the primary target of programming and, more importantly, advertisements.

    “Ratings have gotten so (precise) you can break things down by ZIP code,” he added. “You can break it down by age, by race. You can almost break it down by city block.”

    Jones said he is surprised that the disagreement got to the point that the signal was pulled.

    “It’s a lose-lose situation all the way around. WEAR is going to lose the Santa Rosa viewers,” he said. “And Mediacom loses because why would someone need cable if they’re not going to get one of the big four networks?”

    For those reasons, he believes the blackout will be short-lived.

    “Once Sinclair realizes how much they are losing from their ratings in Santa Rosa County, I think they will come to a mutually agreeable solution,” Jones said. “It might take a few days, but I think they’ll realize it pretty soon.”

  • BobH

    This is all educational, but how come my free rabbit ears do not pick up FOX on anything bigger than a 12″ TV??

    Football game sucked.

  • Yeldarb1983

    bobh, it sounds like your 12″ tv has a better tuner or amplifier circuit (or maybe more transistors in the rf tuner? ) than your 27″ i dont know all the specifics about it, but the point is, your 12″ (i think that should actually be a 13″, if it has a 12 inch viewbale area, it’s actually a 13″ tv, dont ask, but that’s the way it works, i swear) is probably more suited to picking up over the air broadcasts than the other one. it’s also possible that something related to picking up over the air broadcasts isnt working in you 27″, but the point is, the size of the tv probably has very little to nothing to do with it.

    (not trying to be a know-it-all here, just trying to help ^^; ))

    incidentally, i just want to say that yes, ive never seen any cable company so willing to please as Mediacom

  • Kate

    Yeldarb1983: “incidentally, i just want to say that yes, ive never seen any cable company so willing to please as Mediacom”

    I’ll agree. I work at a retirement community and the local office got more than a few angry calls from some irritated elderly ladies and men the day Fox disappeared (as did our front desk… like we can fix it…). So Mediacom set aside 94 antennas for us when they were already running low! I was impressed, considering that they had people from all over the city swarming the office to pick up the free bunny ears.

    Although I will make a side note: I ordered my antenna from the website a week and a half ago and it still hasn’t shown up… siiiigh. I called and the guy I talked to said they would reimburse me up to $15 if I bought one myself and brought the receipt into the office, but that’s more effort than I care to put into it. πŸ˜‰ Plus I know that will be the same day my free antenna shows up in the mail. πŸ˜‰

  • John

    Actually, Mediacom didn’t choose to drop Fox, Sinclair forced them too, it is their station afterall. Mediacom was charging customers for the station that is free over the airwaves but wasn’t giving any of that profit to Sinclair.

    Mediacom was even shut down in court in their attempts to stop Sinclair from pulling the stations…that should tell you something there. I side with Sinclair on this one and I highly doubt any amount they would be asking for is too much for Mediacom. Spread across all of Mediacoms customers, that cost might add up to a few cents or a couple of dollars.

    Whoever you believe, Sinclair has every right to make Mediacom pay for use of their station. It may be free over the air with an antenna, but so is radio and you can’t broadcast a radio station over another station or television without paying for the rights.

  • John

    PS. This affects nearly 1,000,00,000 customers of Mediacoms. How much do you think Sinclair is asking for? $500,000 a year? One million? Sounds about right to me, so that’s .50-1.00 per customer. Listen to Mediacom tell it and you’ll think they are asking for billions of dollars.

  • Yeldarb1983

    still, it’s the idea that sinclair is asking for more than anybody else does, AND more than they asked anybody else. also, from what i understand, what sinclair wanted added up to as much or more than even hbo asks for, (hbo in my area is $5, what sinclair wants adds up to $5-$7 per customer, you tell me) and im sorry, but no network affiliate is worth more than a movie channel, especially when i can get it over the airwaves if i really care enough for a one-time price of the cost of an antenna

    by the way, this link was in a previous post and are where i got my numbers:

  • Pensacola Dave

    For those of you on the side of Sinclair, they are broadcasting over the air for free. Mediacom is using thier limited broadcast band to carry the signal. Mediacom is not charging sinclair for the “free” commercials that sinclair gets paid for, they simply re-transmit the whole shebang. Now you tell me who’s the most greedy whore in this picture?

  • JimShorts

    TV stations used to get paid to broadcast networks but since satellite in the mid 90’s came around and everyone could enjoy a 200 channel universe, the broadcast network’s ratings suffered and the networks started to charge the TV stations for their signals.

    When TV statons weren’t paying for it then it was OK for cable to also not pay for it. These days, the only people who don’t pay for the network signals are the over the air viewers and most cable companies.

    Satellite manages to pay for broadcast networks and their rates are reasonable. Why can’t cable do this since it’s also technically much less expensive for cable to include the local stations on their system.

    Broadcaster will not charge as much as they pay for the networks because if they do it opens up the door for the braodcast networks to become cable networks. The only reason this hasn’t happened is because cable and satellite have made no offer to those networks. If ESPN can get more that $2.00 per subscriber; what would the top four networks in the country ask for if approached directly? Cable and satellite should be happy to keep the broadcaster as the middle man to keep the costs down through local advertising dollars.

    The ideal arrangement is for cable and satellite to pay the local TV stations a portion of what the TV stations pay for the networks. Local advertisers can then cover the rest of the cost. This way the cable and satellite companies can aquire these signals more cheaply than dealing with the networks directly, TV stations can improve local services, viewers get the benefits of best possible prices, improved services and OTA viewers continue to get the top rated networks for free.

    Television viewers clearly demonstrate a willingness to pay for signals since 90% already do. This IS the reason that TV stations now pay for the networks and that cost will eventually have to be passed on to the consumer somehow. It always is.

    To think that cable won’t eventually pay something for broadcast network signals, when every other television signal business already does, seems silly. Consider that cable is also a direct competitor to the TV station for the local advertising dollar.

  • Yeldarb1983

    JimShorts, while you bring up a fair and honest truth, the real problem here isnt that Sinclaire is asking money for the stations, but rather theyre asking more than mediacom pays anyone else for a station, or in fact, more than Sinclaire has actually asked anyone else for it.

    now, you say that networks could charge more than espn, and maybe so, but more than hbo? (last time i checked, im paying $5 a month for the channel, and, according to the information available in this threadm what it would come out to is about $7.50/month that Sinclaire wants, per channel, per subscriber)

    im sorry, but i refuse to pay $7.50 a month for a channel that has almost nothing of interest to me and that, furthermore, is freely available over the airwaves.

    besides, in my personal opinion (open for debate), cable/satelite channels have more of interest to me than most of the stuff on the networks.(im sorry, but a prime time full of ‘reality’ shows that have nothing to do with the word doesnt interest me

    in short, let me put it this way;

    would you pay $7.50 per month for CBS?

  • brandon

    it’s May 6 and this debate is over. but now our dvr has messed up three times, all three we have to wait “until a guy comes out” to fix it, which means replace the box and lose all of our recorded things.

    here’s a story about dish network’s customer service: we used to have dish network, and we needed something fixed. they said over the phone the $99 charge for sending a guy out would not be charged to us. when our bill shows up…yep, sure enough a $99 charge. we said we refuse to pay it and would switch unless they took it off. they never did, and we switched to mediacom. now with a 3-time broken dvr all in two weeks, if it happens again, we’re going to switch to directv. mediacom is a joke.