Can someone explain this in more detail?

[Autoblemike]

NBC is done?

https://www.iwantmynbc.com/comcast

[dwp49423]

The left pocket doesn't want to pay the right pocket?

[MWmetalhead]

It's typical posturing from greedy broadcasters. WOOD-TV doesn't get a penny from viewers who watch via antenna, yet they want to collect ransom payments from cable and sat viewers.

Any fees broadcasters charge to cable companies for retransmission get passed along straight to the cable subscriber. Of course, Nexstar doesn't want you to know that.

Retransmission fees are essentially handouts to telecasters who feel competition from cable-only networks makes their own business less economically viable. They want recompense for having to deal with competition for viewership from cable networks.

[TC Talks]

And how is ota providers content less valuable than basic cable content? They are getting paid too.

I dealt with rights management for years, and when someone else sells my content I get a share, regardless of what I choose to do with it myself.

Look at the how the NFL licenses games sometime.

[MasterB]

Comcast & Nexstar agree on a new deal I saw the message warning about the stations going dark taken off the front page of Wood TV's website. I have never seen a warning message saying to demand a rebate either which was on the website only, WPIX is also back on Comcast NYC DMA as that went dark on Dec 3 I knew that Comcast filed a complaint with the FCC wanting WPIX going with Nexstar making them going over the cap which I knew about in 2021. I didn't know Spectrum also filed with the FCC also about WPIX in 2021 just only knew Comcast and that Nexstar sued Comcast and they will drop Comcast from the suit.

I think Spectrum is now on the clock to get a deal done with Nexstar in the next 2 weeks will not know until the scroll with the warning shows up on Wood TV, WOTV & WXSP.

[Graham Wellington]

And how is ota providers content less valuable than basic cable content? They are getting paid too.

I dealt with rights management for years, and when someone else sells my content I get a share, regardless of what I choose to do with it myself.

Look at the how the NFL licenses games sometime.

What benefits are cable subscribers who are forced to pay for the local channels receiving versus those that watch for free OTA? If the OTA content is so valuable, why are broadcasters giving it away?

Should TV antenna installers be forced to make payments to local channels? They are making money off local TV stations.

[MWmetalhead]

I'm not necessarily opposed to local broadcasters receiving some payment from cable companies, especially in instances where the signal is delivered via fiber optics lines paid for by the broadcaster, but the way companies like Nexstar communicate how retransmission fees work is very misleading.

Every extra penny per subscriber per month that Nexstar squeezes out of Comcast, Spectrum, whomever will lead to a direct increase in pricing paid by subscribers of that cable system. Nexstar wants you to believe that said cable company will simply "eat" the extra cost, which is untrue.

Companies like Nexstar also scream that the cable & sat companies are either screwing or trying to screw them, which is silly. The same companies that own the major broadcast networks with whom Nexstar, Sinclair, Scripps and others have affiliation agreements are the companies that own many of the cable & sat networks and streaming services that exist that directly compete with local TV stations for viewership. So, perhaps the broadcasters should be bitching to Viacom, Disney, NBC Universal and FOX / News Corp. Of course, they won't do that - as they do not want to jeopardize affiliations, so they'll just continue to gouge cable & sat customers and continue to use deceptive P.R. campaigns in the process.

[TC Talks]

And how is ota providers content less valuable than basic cable content? They are getting paid too.

I dealt with rights management for years, and when someone else sells my content I get a share, regardless of what I choose to do with it myself.

Look at the how the NFL licenses games sometime.

What benefits are cable subscribers who are forced to pay for the local channels receiving versus those that watch for free OTA? If the OTA content is so valuable, why are broadcasters giving it away?

Should TV antenna installers be forced to make payments to local channels? They are making money off local TV stations.

You are an idiot.

[TC Talks]

I'm not necessarily opposed to local broadcasters receiving some payment from cable companies, especially in instances where the signal is delivered via fiber optics lines paid for by the broadcaster, but the way companies like Nexstar communicate how retransmission fees work is very misleading.

Every extra penny per subscriber per month that Nexstar squeezes out of Comcast, Spectrum, whomever will lead to a direct increase in pricing paid by subscribers of that cable system. Nexstar wants you to believe that said cable company will simply "eat" the extra cost, which is untrue.

Companies like Nexstar also scream that the cable & sat companies are either screwing or trying to screw them, which is silly. The same companies that own the major broadcast networks with whom Nexstar, Sinclair, Scripps and others have affiliation agreements are the companies that own many of the cable & sat networks and streaming services that exist that directly compete with local TV stations for viewership. So, perhaps the broadcasters should be bitching to Viacom, Disney, NBC Universal and FOX / News Corp. Of course, they won't do that - as they do not want to jeopardize affiliations, so they'll just continue to gouge cable & sat customers and continue to use deceptive P.R. campaigns in the process.

I guess we should weep for the cable companies? Even when streaming services like News On rebroadcasting streaming content from local stations, the station is getting paid. News On just adds commercials. I think we all know the cable model is being challenged by streaming. But I'm still paying the cable company for my internet service.

Cable subscribers still have the option of receiving local television stations for free. I can still listen to radio for free but I choose to stream Spotify and pay for it. That's up to the subscriber to decide, but it doesn't give the cable company a free ride on content.

[Graham Wellington]

And how is ota providers content less valuable than basic cable content? They are getting paid too.

I dealt with rights management for years, and when someone else sells my content I get a share, regardless of what I choose to do with it myself.

Look at the how the NFL licenses games sometime.

What benefits are cable subscribers who are forced to pay for the local channels receiving versus those that watch for free OTA? If the OTA content is so valuable, why are broadcasters giving it away?

Should TV antenna installers be forced to make payments to local channels? They are making money off local TV stations.

You are an idiot.

Please enlighten me then as to what about my questions was idiotic? Otherwise, I will assume you have no logical response, which is usually the case.

[MWmetalhead]

We definitely should not "weep" for the cable companies, TC Talks. The OTA broadcasters hardly have their viewers' best financial interests in mind, though.

[TC Talks]

We definitely should not "weep" for the cable companies, TC Talks. The OTA broadcasters hardly have their viewers' best financial interests in mind, though.

After working in the business side of broadcasting for decades, I assure you viewers and listeners are just numbers on a report.

Newspapers continue to do a good job keeping the product and sales separate but broadcast (outside Public media until the 2000's) has always been ruled by squeezing the extra dime of everything.

[MWmetalhead]

Absolutely. It's patently obvious during these retrans disputes.