We all have seen disputes between these media services and then the local channel goes blank cut by the streamers/cable. You're mad, you want that station back. Who is really at fault ? The local station will ask for more cash from the streamers and cable. Streamers/cable say local stations asking for too much. Isn't it advantageous for the locals to get listed on a streaming service for more viewership thereby they can ask for more money from advertisers. And yes the streamers would like a bigger variety of channels for their customers to view. What's the deal here ?
Local tv stations vs streaming/cable blackouts
- Thread starter secondasky
- Start date
The venn diagram of IGW and MCM hating the monopolistic tendencies of cable and local news providers is a perfect circle.
IGW?
Or the easier to buy and install version
Become ungovernable
Providers are betting you won't cancel over one channel. Of course, there is some give and take on that with the number of options out there. They use that theory to negotiate paying less to broadcasters.
Once ESPN splits into its own service, I'm probably done with any catch all service provider. The last issue for me will be TNT for NBA games, but if it truly matters, I can go out for that. Plus, I have the NBA package each year, so West coast basketball is on every night.
Fortunately there are no IUFB games exclusively on Peacock this fall.
I'm assuming you're talking about Direct TV and CBS/FOX in Indy...especially given our game is on CBS this Saturday?
I was hoping football season would put an end to this stalemate...maybe it will take the NFL.
Missed most of the Women's World Cup live (in English, at least), and have had to resort to watching Sunday night replays on the Golf Channel for PGA.
I was hoping football season would put an end to this stalemate...maybe it will take the NFL.
Missed most of the Women's World Cup live (in English, at least), and have had to resort to watching Sunday night replays on the Golf Channel for PGA.
Got one of those years ago. But that's not the question.
Or the easier to buy and install version
Become ungovernable
IGW?
it's 100% the govt's fault for ever allowing this monopolistic absurdity that violates every monopolistic anti trust law ever written by any country.
A), whether one does or doesn't want to subscribe monthly to WTTV/CBS or WXIN/Fox or any network at what they are asking, should be the choice of the subscriber themself, not the provider.
B) no one should ever have to buy 50 items they don't want, in order to buy an item they do want, from any seller.
you can't get any more monopolistically abusive than that, especially when contractually mandated by each of the 50 items owners..
C), as to pricing, what could possibly totally pervert the price someone pays for something, more than if they literally have to purchase it regardless of price, and regardless of if they want it or not, to buy anything else in the store they need or want, and when EVERY store has that policy by contract..
as for the station/network owners, ie ESPN, WTTV/CBS, TNT, History, etc, vs the providers, ie AT&T Directv/Uverse, Comcast, You Tube, Hulu, etc, while it may seem they are in an adversarial relationship at first glance, they are absolutely partners in crime here.
let's also realize pay tv and internet are effectively utilities and necessities.
and while this specific dispute will eventually seemingly be resolved, in reality it will only quickly move to the next channel and the next provider in an endless loop.
Last edited:
expired monopolistic contracts that are totally illegal for blatantly obvious reasons in literally every other industry, to be exact.
and they effectively violate all US anti trust laws, though just not enforced.
not sure the point you're trying to make, other than that money CAN buy off govt to the extreme detriment of all, other than those doing the buying and those being bought.
Last edited:
networks are in the past
streaming services are getting us closer to your B) above every day
Well....
....they first have to be deemed a monopoly by the courts. The I'vegotwinners Clause only works in the I'vegotwinners house.
The government made a deal with service providers that if they laid down the infrastructure they could control the market. That is slowly changing, and it drastically changed with DirectTV and Dish Network. Then it finally changed changed with the internet, as I no longer need cable TV to get TV, and it's going to change again as MetroNet allows me to have more internet options.
In a lot of places (if not most), the main if not only internet provider are cable company or the original landline telephone company. I can DSL from ATT, which is hot garbage, or coax from Spectrum. Until MetroNet comes to my neighborhood or ATT upgrades to their gigabit service, I'm stuck with Spectrum.
That said, I don't mind their Internet packages at all.
So can you not get an Internet connection only from Spectrum and dispense with their TV offerings?
streaming services are just a conglomeration of networks, or a network themselves..
and other than where the streaming service is a network itself, streaming services are beholden to and part of the same monopolistic practices that cable and satellite are.
let us know when you or i can buy just WTTV 4 or WXIN 59 or ESPN or TNT, or any combination of those you chose without having to pay for an entire bundle not of your choosing, and including many thing things you don't want to pay for, on any streaming service.
and if you think that day is coming soon, it isn't, and won't/can't happen absent a govt gun to the head of the services and the networks.
the second one can buy NEXSTAR's WTTV 4 and WXIN 59 as stand alones on any streaming service, the extortion of satellite and cable and You Tube TV customers that's going on now between NEXSTAR, (owner of WTTV/CBS and WXIN/Fox), and Directv/UVerse, ends that instant.
Last edited:
If you force streaming services to carry WTTV, we'll all have to pay for it. I switched from Verizon to YouTubeTV and saved about $60 per month. Cut out about 100 channels I've never watched. Constantly looking for a better, cheaper fit though (monopolies hate that).
streaming services are just a conglomeration of networks, or a network themselves..
and other than where the streaming service is a network itself, streaming services are beholden to and part of the same monopolistic practices that cable and satellite are.
let us know when you or i can buy just WTTV 4 or WXIN 59 or ESPN or TNT, or any combination of those you chose without having to pay for an entire bundle not of your choosing, and including many thing things you don't want to pay for, on any streaming service.
and if you think that day is coming soon, it isn't, and won't/can't happen absent a govt gun to the head of the service and the networks.
the second one can buy NEXSTAR's WTTV 4 and WXIN 59 as stand alones on any streaming service, the extortion of satellite and cable and You Tube TV customers that's going on now between NEXSTAR, (owner of WTTV/CBS and WXIN/Fox), and Directv/UVerse, ends that instant.
you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. (so exactly why are you chiming in when i have said nothing remotely credibly arguable, and you have zero knowledge of the subject).
it isn't that the courts don't recognize the monopoly, it's that the govt exempts and doesn't enforce it.
it would be impossible not to see the over the top monopoly abuse here, even for the courts.
even for you.
so why does the govt allow the blatant over the top monopoly abuse that costs the subscriber huge bucks every month?
plain and simple, because the cable companies and network conglomerates literally pay the politicians and regulators the big bucks to allow it. (DUH).
BIG BUCKS!!!!
and no such deal as you referenced was ever made between the infrastructure providers and the govt, so you're just making stuff up now. (question is, why are you making stuff up).
when cable first started in earnest, and for decades after, it was regulated down to the price and customer service standards.
as to your statement "with internet your not needing cable tv to get tv", (i'll assume you mean pay tv), you just don't get it, do you.
the cable company literally IS the internet company, and everything is coming in on one wire..
it's just a matter of how things are parsed out on your bill, (or between your cable internet bill and your streaming bill), and Comcast and many other "cable companies" cable service, like UVerse, is an IP technology today.
when cable started you didn't pay anything for the channels.
you just paid for the line, just as now with the internet you are paying the cable company for the connection only. (HBO became the exception when it came along, because it wasn't ad supported).
when Metro hits your neighborhood, yes, you will have a third option for wired internet besides cable and the phone company.
is that a good thing? would 10 options for wired internet be a good thing?
it will give you another option, but competing unregulated providers is a totally asinine way to do wired internet, and significantly less cost efficient with each competitor added..
reality is, you would be far better off with one monopoly wired internet option that was heavily regulated, including price, for the same reason you are far better off with one regulated water/sewer company and one natural gas provider and one electric company.
the bulk of the cost of providing wired internet is the wired infrastructure itself and maintenance of, and every time another provider hits your area, you divide the number of households paying for that infrastructure and maintenance of.
we would all be much better off with one correctly regulated, including price regulation, monopoly wired internet provider.
much of the rest of the world has faster internet for less than we pay in the US, because they treat it as a utility. (as it obviously is and should be treated here).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
strange how whenever i post anything Wall St would object to, no matter how blatantly obvious and unarguable by anyone sane, how the white corpuscles come out of the woodwork here to fend me off, even when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and i have said nothing credibly arguable or even controversial..
So IGW can use capital letters….all the more interesting.
Yes, I can. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I cancelled cable last April. I get YouTubeTV as the NFL season nears and keep it through the NBA playoffs. Although this year, with FIBA World Championships, I re-upped last week. Otherwise I just pay for 10 months of YTTV.
@bloom since you don’t appear to be leaving I’d like to introduce you to IGW
You've @'d me a few times when I've just happened to see it, but I have . after my user name. Thank the early days of Rivals (pre-Peegs) for that.
I know of IGW.
They whacked ESPN right before kickoff last night. Had a message about how hard they've tried to get a deal for me, their valued subscriber, but Disney is mean and doesn't like me.
Last edited:
We still have the local ABC channel. Just checked to see and some soap opera is on. It looks like some don't though.
From Spectrum's website:
Disney-owned channels and stations impacted:
ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Deportes, ESPNU, ESPN News, SEC Network, ACC Network, Longhorn Network, FX, FX Movie Channel, FXX, Freeform, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, Nat Geo Mundo, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, BabyTV
ABC On Demand programming and the following local ABC stations: ABC7 Chicago, ABC7 Los Angeles, ABC7 New York, ABC7 San Francisco, ABC11 Raleigh-Durham, ABC13 Houston, ABC30 Fresno.
We were trying to finish season 1 of Wrexham and it let us finish the one we were watching, then it just went dark. Didn't even show up on the search.
providers like Spectrum, Directv, Comcast, ect, for the most part don't "cancel" stations.
the stations themselves withdraw the provider's right to carry them.
the station/network owners themselves remove the channel, not the cable, satellite, streaming provider.
if ESPN is off Spectrum, then Disney removed Spectrum's right to carry it until Spectrum pays Disney's ransom demand.
if ESPN is off Spectrum in Carmel, then i'd assume it is off all Spectrum systems in the country, as those are usually negotiated on a national basis.
Last edited:
Broadcast channel deals, I believe, are contracted with whomever owns the station.
you wouldn't recognize a monopolistic business model, if you were literally staring right at it.
wake up.
You Tube TV does carry WTTV and WXIN, as no doubt do some other streaming services.
if you don't live in a designated WTTV viewing area zip code, which i assume you don't, you aren't able to receive WTTV on You Tube or another streaming service even if you wanted to.
you can only get CBS from the local affiliate that has the rights to the zip code you live in.
And you see them everywhere. The only barrier to entering the video services market today is financing. There's more of a public interest argument for internet access today than for "television" programming.
you and anyone else can start your own streaming service tomorrow.
but you better own your own content to put on it.
good luck getting a non totally monopolistic carriage agreement with any needed content rights holders to be anything but a nitch service, with no major sports, college or pro, and no local network channels, and none of the major network brands...
the fact you're too blind to see the blatant monopoly abuse right in front of your face, doesn't mean it isn't there.
or perhaps, and more likely, you're just trolling.
ESPN is losing thousands of viewers a day. The "network" model is dying. Why should I pay for access to watch them maybe 12 times a year?
yes...YouTube TV carries local TV stations. Thank you for confirming what we already knew.
The more serious answer is, most streaming services that offer linear network content offer local channels, no different than cable TV offerings. Today, thanks to streaming services, the monopolies you keep beating us over the head with are far less substantial than they used to be.
Right now I have access to seven (or more) different services that I can get linear programming which included local channels. Kind of hard to pound your chest repeatedly about monopoly as the market offerings have more than tripled in the last five years.
Spectrum - cable
ATT - cable
Direct TV - dish
Direct TV - stream
Dish Network(?)
YouTubeTV
Hulu Live
Fubu
The process of which service offers what is like a shell game. Once the NBA season rolls around I'll likely switch over to Fubu, since they have Bally's for Pacer games.
Of course in this instance, the ESPN/Disney/ABC spat with Spectrum has ZERO to do with local ABC networks not owned by Disney. Not all ABC affiliates are owned by Disney. The ABC affiliate in Indianapolis isn't.
