Jump to content

Welcome, Guest!

Sign In or Create my Account to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
tyrannical bastard

Retransmission Consent squabbles

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

The simple solution may be for Sinclair to walk away from the Deerfield stations they provide services for, and shoehorn their programming onto their owned stations. 

 

In Mobile/Pensacola's case, as long as Sinclair can wrangle away the NBC affiliation from WPMI,  it could live on as a subchannel of WEAR or WFGX.  Same goes for WJTC, which is an independent station that is mostly second runs and the usual low-budget daytime TV drivel..  This way, Sinclair is back to having a "legal" duopoly, since WFGX is far outside of the top 4.  Deerfield can make WPMI (and WJTC) repositories of all of the subchannels that could be displaced in such a move.

 

Half the Deerfield issue may lie in their botched partnership with Duane "Doppler Dead Zone" Lammers, and his alleged misappropriation of retrans data in an attempt to negotiate with AT&T on Deerfield's behalf.

The only station where programming wouldn't move to the subchannel would be WPMI and WHAM, the rest of the Deerfield chain could assume their respective affiliations or in the case of WJTC, independent status.

 

Send WPMI to either Gray, Hearst, or Tegna while WHAM could go to either Cox or Tegna.

 

I think it'd be more appropriate to address the future of the Deerfield stations in the Speculatron thread and perhaps in it's own thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the outcome is between the Sinclair shells and AT&T, it's probably going to bite them come license renewal time...even though it's a pay TV issue.  If they have indeed been dealing with bad faith, that could be bad news...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tyrannical bastard said:

Whatever the outcome is between the Sinclair shells and AT&T, it's probably going to bite them come license renewal time...even though it's a pay TV issue.  If they have indeed been dealing with bad faith, that could be bad news...

And all signs point to negotiations being in bad faith which I think we all can agree that this is a bad look for Sinclair itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 2:35 PM, tyrannical bastard said:

Whatever the outcome is between the Sinclair shells and AT&T, it's probably going to bite them come license renewal time...even though it's a pay TV issue.  If they have indeed been dealing with bad faith, that could be bad news...

 

On 10/20/2019 at 4:18 PM, oknewsguy said:

And all signs point to negotiations being in bad faith which I think we all can agree that this is a bad look for Sinclair itself

 

I don't agree. I don't think the FCC can control business negotiations between two parties. That's just the way business sometimes works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 3:18 PM, oknewsguy said:

And all signs point to negotiations being in bad faith which I think we all can agree that this is a bad look for Sinclair itself

 

Sorry to seem like a noob, but what exactly qualifies as "bad faith negotiations"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially what Deerfield has been doing, as explained in this GIF.....

 

AT&T....Hey Deerfield, your contract is up...

Deerfield:

 

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dalekusa said:

 

Sorry to seem like a noob, but what exactly qualifies as "bad faith negotiations"?

For one Deerfield is not willing to negotiate a fair deal to restore their stations on the AT&T services such as U-Verse and DIRECTV. 

Secondly, Deerfield is essentially holding AT&T hostage by not willing to negotiate with AT&T

 

That's what I consider to be bad faith negotiations and the longer Deerfield holds AT&T hostage the more of a chance that it'll go against the license qualifications when the license renewal time comes so if Deerfield doesn't want to be forced to liquidate it's assets they need to come to the negotiating table (AT&T should as well) and negotiate a fair deal to restore it's stations to AT&T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, oknewsguy said:

For one Deerfield is not willing to negotiate a fair deal to restore their stations on the AT&T services such as U-Verse and DIRECTV. 

Secondly, Deerfield is essentially holding AT&T hostage by not willing to negotiate with AT&T

 

That's what I consider to be bad faith negotiations and the longer Deerfield holds AT&T hostage the more of a chance that it'll go against the license qualifications when the license renewal time comes so if Deerfield doesn't want to be forced to liquidate it's assets they need to come to the negotiating table (AT&T should as well) and negotiate a fair deal to restore it's stations to AT&T

 

Two more questions, then:

  1. Why wouldn't Deerfield want to negotiate a fair deal? Are they trying to tie their deal to Sinclair's? If not, it seems very counter-intuitive as they would be losing money out of this whole ordeal.
  2. Is there any way to take "bad faith" negotiations to court, or at least to an arbiter of some sort? I would imagine that if this was true, then, say, the Pac-12 conference could complain against or sue AT&T for not carrying their networks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dalekusa said:

 

Two more questions, then:

  1. Why wouldn't Deerfield want to negotiate a fair deal? Are they trying to tie their deal to Sinclair's? If not, it seems very counter-intuitive as they would be losing money out of this whole ordeal.
  2. Is there any way to take "bad faith" negotiations to court, or at least to an arbiter of some sort? I would imagine that if this was true, then, say, the Pac-12 conference could complain against or sue AT&T for not carrying their networks.

1. If Deerfield is trying their deal into those of Sinclair's that could have significant consequences especially given the prior issues Sinclair had that has already been addressed.

2. AT&T can take Deerfield to court but knowing that Deerfield is not the operator of the stations what good would that do to take a company that has no operational control over their own stations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, oknewsguy said:

1. If Deerfield is trying their deal into those of Sinclair's that could have significant consequences especially given the prior issues Sinclair had that has already been addressed.

2. AT&T can take Deerfield to court but knowing that Deerfield is not the operator of the stations what good would that do to take a company that has no operational control over their own stations? 

 

Couldn't they sue Sinclair as well, and potentially challenge Sinclair's whole shell company stratagem as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dalekusa said:

 

Couldn't they sue Sinclair as well, and potentially challenge Sinclair's whole shell company stratagem as well?

Short answer, no. I would prefer if AT&T did but in reality unless it's legal for them to do so then no they can't sue Sinclair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, oknewsguy said:

Short answer, no. I would prefer if AT&T did but in reality unless it's legal for them to do so then no they can't sue Sinclair

Going back to an earlier question, why wouldn't Deerfield want to give AT&T a fair deal if they can't tie it into Sinclair, and knowing if they did, they might just drag them into another RKO General situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dalekusa said:

Going back to an earlier question, why wouldn't Deerfield want to give AT&T a fair deal if they can't tie it into Sinclair, and knowing if they did, they might just drag them into another RKO General situation?

The short answer to that is they have to get a fair deal somehow, someway. Even though this was a different case Northwest was just as bad as Deerfield is right now with AT&T and if Northwest can get a deal done so can Deerfield.

 

It's up to Deerfield whether they want to get a deal done and bring back the likes of WPMI and WHAM to AT&T or it'll take until new ownership groups to come in before we see any of the Deerfield stations return to AT&T. So far it's been the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be a myriad of factors.   But money may be the holdup.

 

Being a smaller company, they don't have the clout of larger broadcasters like Sinclair. (Even though they physically run the stations, programming is indeed separate aside from newscasts and shows produced by the SSA partner).   Deerfield has to pay Sinclair to run the station, and they probably have to cough up money to the networks for programming costs.   Now if they get a portion of the station's sales that Sinclair sells, that should provide a stream in which to operate from. 

 

Now if sales are down and programming is too expensive, Deerfield may have no choice but to ask for more money to carry the station.  AT&T is driving a hard bargain and isn't budging with their price.   Bottom line, this imbalance could upset the apple cart and make the arrangement unprofitable and could be insolvency waiting to happen.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tyrannical bastard said:

It could be a myriad of factors.   But money may be the holdup.

 

Being a smaller company, they don't have the clout of larger broadcasters like Sinclair. (Even though they physically run the stations, programming is indeed separate aside from newscasts and shows produced by the SSA partner).   Deerfield has to pay Sinclair to run the station, and they probably have to cough up money to the networks for programming costs.   Now if they get a portion of the station's sales that Sinclair sells, that should provide a stream in which to operate from. 

 

Now if sales are down and programming is too expensive, Deerfield may have no choice but to ask for more money to carry the station.  AT&T is driving a hard bargain and isn't budging with their price.   Bottom line, this imbalance could upset the apple cart and make the arrangement unprofitable and could be insolvency waiting to happen.... 

Of course it's all about the almighty dollar. Quite frankly I think the STELAR Act needs to be repealed and replaced with something that makes it fair for both the broadcaster and the cable operators not something that tips the favor towards the broadcasters and not something that tips the favor towards the cable operators.

 

I firmly believe that Congress will do something about the STELAR Act and hopefully prevent future lengthy disputes such as Deerfield's and Northwest's disputes with AT&T from happening again.

 

Speaking of the STELAR Act, Senators are taking a closer look into the STELAR Act and signs are pointing towards a renewal in that act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JCB4TV said:

That just leaves the Sinclair sidecars to be resolved.

Let's just put it this way chances of AT&T and the Sinclair sidecars reaching a fair agreement is getting slimer and slimer as each week passes by I mean we're only nearly TWO full months away from the calendar turning to 2020 and neither side is any closer to any form of an agreement. 

 

I think it's gonna be a miracle if something gets done between the two sides by the end of the year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, oknewsguy said:

Let's just put it this way chances of AT&T and the Sinclair sidecars reaching a fair agreement is getting slimer and slimer as each week passes by I mean we're only nearly TWO full months away from the calendar turning to 2020 and neither side is any closer to any form of an agreement. 

 

I think it's gonna be a miracle if something gets done between the two sides by the end of the year

Yep. Time to get that antenna sorted. This one is gonna be a long one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yankees4life said:

Yep. Time to get that antenna sorted. This one is gonna be a long one.

If you live in places like Mobile and Rochester, NY it'd be a good idea to get an antenna because (and I hope I'm wrong and this dispute gets resolved soon) I see no end in sight with this ongoing dispute

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, oknewsguy said:

If you live in places like Mobile and Rochester, NY it'd be a good idea to get an antenna because (and I hope I'm wrong and this dispute gets resolved soon) I see no end in sight with this ongoing dispute

 

YouTube TV has the affected stations with the exception of WJTC (ind/Mobile), KNSN (MyN/Reno), and KMEG(CBS/Sioux City)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, oknewsguy said:

If you live in places like Mobile and Rochester, NY it'd be a good idea to get an antenna because (and I hope I'm wrong and this dispute gets resolved soon) I see no end in sight with this ongoing dispute

Would there be any scenario where the parties involved could declare the dispute unresolved and permanent? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting reports that Mobile's WPMI and WJTC have been restored to DirecTV, so the impasse between Deerfield (and the other shells) & AT&T could be coming to a close.....

 

UPDATE: 

Official confirmation from WPMI:

https://mynbc15.com/news/local/att-and-directv-customers-nbc-15-is-back

WHAM:

https://13wham.com/news/local/directv-deerfield-media-reach-agreement-for-rochester-tv-market

 

No word on KMTR and KMEG appears to still be off, as well, since they are separately owned but still run by Sinclair.

 

 

Edited by tyrannical bastard
WPMI / WHAM confirmation
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FCC Has Ruled in Favor of AT&T In a Bad Faith Complaint Over a Contract Dispute With Smaller Local Broadcasters

 

Stations still in dispute from May 30th and June 10th are:


Howard Stirk Holdings
WWMB-CW Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
WEYI-NBC Flint, Michigan


Mercury Broadcasting Company, Inc.
KMTW-MNT Wichita, Kansas


MPS Media, LLC
WNBW-NBC Gainesville, Florida
WTLF-CW Tallahassee, Florida
WSWB-CW Wilkes Barre/Scranton, Pennsylvania
WFLI-CW Chattanooga, Tennessee


Tennessee Broadcasting
WNAB-CW Nashville, Tennessee


Roberts Media, LCC
KMTR-NBC Eugene, Oregon


Waitt Broadcasting, Inc.
KMEG-CBS Sioux City, Iowa

Edited by JCB4TV
AT&T HSH, MPS Deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.