Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857

    Fox Retransmission fees articles

    Fox TV demands share of stations' retransmission fees

    The network wants local affiliates to pay it a percentage of the money they get from local cable operators that retransmit their signals.

    February 12, 2011|By Joe Flint, Los Angeles Times

    The Fox TV network, looking for new sources of revenue, is demanding that its affiliates hand over a percentage of the money they receive from local cable operators that retransmit their signals.

    And if they don't hand over the cash, Fox is threatening to yank the local station's network affiliation and find another outlet in the market.

    That, in a nutshell, is the situation now unfolding between Fox and local TV stations around the country that carry the network's programming. It also points to the complicated and often conflicting relationships among media companies — local TV stations, broadcast networks and cable systems — as they jostle one another for a cut of the money pouring into local cable and satellite companies from customers.

    At issue is the money — called retransmission fees — local Fox stations get from cable and satellite operators to carry their signals. Fox, which already gets retransmission fees for TV stations the network owns including KTTV-TV Channel 11 in Los Angeles, is pressuring its non-owned affiliates for a big cut of the revenue.

    Broadcasters used to be content with the money they took in from advertisers, which supported "free" over-the-air television. But in recent years as broadcasters have lost viewers to cable and advertisers are shifting to the Internet, stations have been seeking new sources of revenue by demanding payment from cable and satellite companies for the right to retransmit their programming.

    News Corp.'s Fox is not the only network seeking a slice of its affiliates' retransmission fees. CBS, ABC and NBC are also negotiating for a percentage. However, there is a consensus that Fox is being the most aggressive of the networks. None of the Big Three has yet threatened to drop its local affiliate if it doesn't get the money.

    While the corporate skirmishing is waged far above the heads of TV viewers, it is likely to have a real-world effect on households that pay for cable or satellite service — about 90% of all TV-watching homes in the country — in the form of higher monthly rates as local providers look to make up the difference.

    Neither Fox nor its affiliates would talk about how much money the network is seeking. But people familiar with specifics said the rates start at 15 cents and peak at 50 cents per local cable subscriber over the course of the contract depending on various factors including the size of a station's market.

    In a letter it sent to stations this week, Fox Affiliate Sales President Mike Hopkins said the network recognized that its "proposal may not work for every company" and "if that should be the case, Fox will pursue different distribution channels ... we don't want that to sound like a threat, but it is a fact."

    Fox station owners said they understood the financial pressures networks face in a media world where viewers now have myriad choices, and said they were comfortable with sharing their retransmission revenue with the network. Affiliates already pay the network for programming through a swap of advertising inventory.

    However, Fox's current demands are seen by affiliates as highly aggressive because it requires them to wrangle more in retransmission fees out of cable and satellite companies — and if they fail, reach into their own pockets to make up the difference.

    About 30 Fox affiliates do not have a long-term deal with the network. An additional 80 stations will see their agreements expire by the end of the year.

    "They appear to have no regard for the value your station brings to the network.... They are prepared to destroy someone's business to make their point," wrote Brian Brady, president and chief executive of Northwest Broadcasting and chairman of the Fox affiliate board, in a letter to other Fox stations.

    Fox counters that it provides the bulk of the programming and thus the bulk of the value to its affiliates, arguing that it needs to capture some of their retransmission revenue to continue paying for the costly comedy, drama and sports programming that stations and viewers expect.

    One concern among local affiliates is that they do not have the leverage to negotiate big enough fees from cable operators to cover Fox's demands.

    As a result, some local stations think that if Fox so badly wants a slice of affiliates' retransmission revenue, then the network should negotiate on its stations' behalf directly with cable and satellite operators.

    There is a precedent. In the 1990s, when Congress first gave TV stations the right to negotiate for retransmission fees, Fox affiliates handed the network a proxy to cut deals. Fox used that proxy to bargain in lieu of cash for channel space on cable TV systems to launch the cable network FX.

    This time around, however, Fox is not interested in pursuing such a scenario out of concerns that such a move would raise eyebrows in Washington, people close to the network said.

    Lawmakers and regulators are becoming increasingly angry about contract disputes played out in public over retransmission consent that lead to channels going dark, leaving viewers fuming. And the last thing Fox wants now is to give Washington another reason to scrutinize it more closely.

    Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb...iates-20110212
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Viewers will pay if Fox TV gets affiliates to give up more revenue

    The fight could mean more local blackouts if Fox decides to play hardball. It could mean less public-interest programming on your local station and higher cable and satellite bills.

    March 01, 2011|Michael Hiltzik

    The squabbling between television networks and cable companies over broadcast fees had a brief heyday as a source of suspenseful entertainment for the viewing public. Will ABC cut off the Oscars for Cablevision subscribers as the first spiked heel hits the red carpet? Will Fox black out the Super Bowl for Time Warner customers? Tune in and find out!

    The warring parties typically pull back from the brink before pulling the plug — but not always. And for most pay-TV customers, the thrill of being pigeons caught in a video industry crossfire disappeared faster than Charlie Sheen's reputation for self-denial.

    But now the networks are sticking their hands deeper into another pocket — that of their own broadcast affiliates.

    What's at issue are the "retransmission fees" that cable and satellite companies pay local broadcasters for the right to carry the latters' signals on their systems. The fees generally come to 10 to 20 cents per pay-TV subscriber per month, industry executives say.

    In other words, if you're a local TV station and your local cable company has 1 million subscribers, it will pay you $100,000 to $200,000 a month to feed your broadcast to its customers.

    All four major networks have been hungering for a piece of the local affiliates' action, arguing that much of what the affiliates are feeding the pay-TV systems is network content.

    But local stations say Fox has taken a far more aggressive stance toward its 186 independently owned affiliates than the other networks have.

    CBS, for instance, has reportedly asked for half the local affiliates' take from cable and satellite. Fox wants a flat rate — starting at 25 cents per subscriber per month in the first year of a four-year deal it is pressing its affiliates to accept, and rising to 50 cents in the fourth. That's for stations in the top 125 TV markets; the rate is less for smaller operations.

    That makes a direct comparison difficult, but affiliate owners say that demand is so stiff that the toll could amount to more than some stations actually collect from pay TV. And Fox is threatening to drop affiliates that don't pay up.

    To put it more precisely, Fox told the affiliates it would "pursue different distribution channels to receive fair value for our programming" in cases where it doesn't get what it asks.

    "We don't want that to sound like a threat, but it's a fact," Fox's affiliate boss, Michael C. Hopkins, told them in a Feb. 4 letter. (Actually, it sounds like a threat, not a fact.)

    What's more, the network has the upper hand — local stations need Fox's top-rated programs, such as "Glee" and "American Idol," more than the network needs any individual station or group.

    The conflict between Fox and the stations involves broadcast content, not cable channels like Fox News, which are subject to separate network deals with cable and satellite providers. Nor does it involve Fox's wholly owned affiliates, including KTTV-TV Channel 11 in Los Angeles. (Fox also owns KCOP-TV Channel 13, but it carries non-network programming and is not involved in the dispute.)

    But the stakes are still high for you, the television viewer.

    The fight could mean more local blackouts if Fox decides to play hardball with its own affiliates. It could mean less public-interest programming on your local station, if it compensates for its higher network fees by cheaping out on news. It could mean higher cable and satellite bills, because the local affiliates will have to negotiate more aggressively with pay-TV providers to try to recoup their higher expenses. Who pays if your local station charges your cable provider more for its signal? You do.

    It's certainly a reminder of how dumb it was for the Federal Communications Commission to wave through NBC's merger with the cable company Comcast in January. Fox has almost all the leverage in its dealings with its affiliates, even without owning a cable operation. The merged Comcast-NBC will be even more powerful than that.

    "Their current ask is not anything I've found that an affiliate would consider acceptable," Perry Sook, chief executive of Irving, Texas-based Nexstar Broadcasting, says of the Fox proposal.

    Sook, whose company counts eight Fox affiliates among the 34 stations it owns, told me he's especially irked that the network is trying to grab revenues that the affiliates obtained through their own hard negotiations.

    Hopkins' letter was designed to answer an earlier letter to the affiliates from Brian Brady, CEO of Michigan-based Northwest Broadcasting and the head of the Fox Affiliate Board. His Jan. 28 letter accused Fox of playing "divide and conquer" — refusing to sit down with the board but trying to negotiate with each affiliate company. This strategy bore fruit in January, when Fox cut a special deal with Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group, which with 20 Fox stations is its largest affiliate group.

    "Fox believes that no station or group alone can withstand their assault," Brady wrote.

    Hopkins, in response, called Brady's letter "offensive" and dismissed his crack about divide-and-conquer as "unfortunate rhetoric." He said he was concerned about "the effectiveness of negotiating with a large body instead of each station or station group individually." That sounds a bit like a factory boss saying it would be "more effective" for him to negotiate individually with 1,500 employees than with a single union committee. In a way, of course, he's right. But it's not very likely that the individuals will come out ahead.

    Fox and the other network owners — CBS, Walt Disney Co. and NBC Universal — already get retransmission and other payments from cable and satellite firms. These fees cover the signals from both the networks' wholly owned local stations and their specialty cable channels, such as Disney's ESPN, NBC's CNBC and Fox's FX and Fox News. They come to about $30 billion a year, according to authoritative estimates. By contrast, the local broadcasters collect about $1 billion a year.

    Sook says Fox and its affiliates should be cooperating in trying to pump up that $1-billion pie. Fox is playing "a silly zero-sum game of 'you have it, we want it,' " he says. "The discussion should really be about how to make it a $7-to-$8-billion pie."

    Fox says it won't talk about what it calls "confidential" discussions with affiliates. But its executives — like those of the other networks — are determined to remake their business into one that more closely resembles the cable industry — that is, collecting two revenue streams, advertising and subscriber fees. They talk about traditional network economics, based mostly on advertising, as "unsustainable" — though you can't tell that from Fox's financial results.

    Its parent, News Corp., reported an operating profit from television of $220 million last year on revenue of $4.2 billion, but it doesn't distinguish between results from its network and its 17 company-owned affiliates, which are in major cities (including Los Angeles). Its cable channels are reported separately, and are much more profitable. In any case, News Corp. has enough spare cash to be paying $675 million to buy Shine Group, a TV production company owned by News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth.

    That suggests that Murdoch is the kind of dad who loves to embrace his family in a bear hug. Fox's TV affiliates must belong to a different branch of the family; he's inviting them to a knife fight.

    Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar...ltzik-20110301
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Retransmission fees at root of Fox's change in affiliates
    Fox moving from KSFX to lesser known KRBK.
    12:00 AM, Jun. 26, 2011

    It's all about the money.

    That's how two media analysts described the sudden switch of Fox television affiliates in Springfield, from the well-known KSFX to virtually unknown KRBK.

    "Over time, the Fox network has climbed to be the most-watched network among adults 25 to 54 in the Springfield market," said Rich Nichols, a media marketing consultant in Springfield.

    "Those are the people advertisers most want to reach. What I find most shocking and interesting is that the No. 1 most-watched network is now moving to a new home on Sept. 1."

    Nichols said KSFX's parent company, Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc., battled with Fox over the sharing of lucrative "retransmission fees" that Nexstar receives from cable and satellite companies that carry Fox programming.

    "Fox is saying to the franchises 'we should be compensated for the programming we provide you'," Nichols said.

    "Fox and Nexstar got into uncomfortable discussions about sharing retransmission money and they let it become a breaking point."

    Fox negotiated for nearly a year with Nexstar, before announcing Monday that it was no longer going to be affiliated with KSFX in Springfield.

    Harry A. Jessell, editor and copublisher of TVNewsCheck, a New Jersey-based company that writes about the broadcast industry, said Nexstar began receiving retransmission fees from cable and satellite companies in 2005.

    "From then on the Fox affiliate got all that dough," Jessell said.

    But when Fox and Nexstar began negotiating a new four-year affiliation agreement in June 2010 for the Springfield KSFX station, neither side would yield, Jessell said.

    "Fox was wanting 25 cents per (cable or satellite) subscriber in the first year, escalating to 50 cents in year four," he said. "Nexstar took a hard line with Fox, and Fox took a hard line with them."

    In a February business column, Jessell wrote about two letters he had received between a Fox executive and an affiliate board chairman "that exposed in unusually strong language the disintegration of the retrans sharing talks between the Fox network and its affiliates."

    Jessell has written several stories in recent months about the conflict.

    It's likely that KRBK owner Ted Koplar agreed to share the retransmission revenue stream with Fox, and thus won the Fox affiliation for the 33-county Springfield market, Jessell said.

    He acknowledged he didn't know the contract terms that Koplar and Fox accepted.

    The affiliation switch will be a challenge for KSFX to overcome, Jessell said.

    "To lose your Fox affiliation is a blow to any station," he said. "We're all looking to see what Nexstar is going to do for programming."

    It's not the first time Nexstar has butted heads with Fox over retransmission fees.

    The company gave up its Fox affiliations in Evansville, Ind., and Fort Wayne, Ind., this year rather than pay higher retransmission fees to Fox.

    Jessell said other networks also seek retransmission fees from their affiliates, but none have been as aggressive about it as Fox Broadcasting.

    "What Fox is doing sends a signal to everyone else in the industry," he said.

    Nexstar officials didn't return calls for a comment.

    Source: http://www.news-leader.com/article/2...nge-affiliates
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Fox, DirecTV in Latest Carriage Dispute
    Fox Wants 40% Hike on Carriage Fees
    by Karl Bode

    Fox and DirecTV are the latest companies to get engaged in an ugly carriage dispute, News Corporation running ads in major papers telling readers they'd be unable to see major sporting events unless DirecTV agrees to pay more money for Fox channels. DirecTV has warned News Corporation they'll pull all Fox channels from their lineup on November 1 if a new deal can't be reached, launching a new website (http://www.ourpromisetoyou.com) with a CEO message to subscribers. According to DirecTV, Fox is seeking a carriage fee hike of as much as 40%. As we've discussed many times in the past, consumers lose either way these deals shake out, paying higher rates regardless of who "wins," with some added service disruption and annoying advertising added for good measure.

    Source: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/F...Dispute-116715
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Idaho Station KXTF and Fox Part Ways
    Fox looks for new affiliate in DMA No. 191

    By Michael Malone -- Broadcasting & Cable, 5/21/2012 4:44:01 PM


    Fox affiliate KXTF, located in Twin Falls, Idaho, is splitting with the Fox network over network compensation. The divorce is final July 1.

    KXTF is part of Intermountain West Communications. KXTF general manager Shelley Goings said in a release that the network's affiliation demands exceed what KXTF can afford to pay to be part of the Fox affiliates body.

    Fox confirmed KXTF's departure, and said the network had not made a decision on a new partner in Twin Falls. One Twin Falls TV insider said the affiliation may go to a subchannel of KMVT; KMVT General Manager Chris Pruitt said he could not confirm that at this time.

    KXTF becomes part of a growing group of former Fox affiliates, including Nexstar's former KSFX (now KOZL) Springfield (Mo.) and WFFT Ft. Wayne, and Block Communications' KTRV Boise, that parted ways with the net over affiliation demands.

    http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art..._Part_Ways.php

    ==============

    Sister station KFXP in Pocatello, Idaho, will also lose it's affiliation. They'll both affiliate with ThisTV.

    Since the publication, Twin Falls MyNetworkTV affiliate KTWT-LP, owned by Neuhoff Family Limited Partnership, have been chosen to be the new Fox affilaite. It is still broadcasting in analog, but on July 1st, they'll start broadcasting on digital channel 14, affiliate with Fox and dump MyNet syndicated programming at 10pm.
    Last edited by InMontreal; 06-30-2012 at 09:59 AM.
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,053
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/news-...nnel-1.1229635
    ...Fox broadcast network on Monday threatened to convert the network to a pay-TV-only channel if Internet startup Aereo Inc. continues to "steal" Fox's over-the-air signal and sell it to consumers without paying for rights. Anyone with an antenna can pick up a TV station's signals for free. But cable and satellite companies typically pay stations and networks for the right to distribute their programming to subscribers...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,494
    Rather, the appeals court said that Aereo enabled its subscribers to do what they already could on their own with their own antenna and video recorder.

    If they could already do it on their own, why are they paying a minimum of $8/month for somebody else to do it?

    Not all of the Aereo subscribers can do it on their own.

    If a larger percentage of Canadians had convenient and reliable access to OTA channels, wouldn't it be more tempting to cut the cord? How many more Canadians would cut the cord if Aereo was available in Toronto? Apartment dwellers would be a good target audience.

    Last edited by PokerFace; 04-16-2013 at 04:33 AM. Reason: Oops ... It's Aereo, NOT Aero (chocolate)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    If they could already do it on their own, why are they paying a minimum of $8/month for somebody else to do it?
    Let's say you wanna do the same thing in Toronto.
    You setup dedicated servers for re-encoding and compression ($$$), you need 100 Gbps connections ($$$), you need an interface, you're offering "recording" option so you need a huge amount of Hard Disk space ($$$), and the system doesn't replace or intrude advertisements into the stream, so who's gonna pay for the equipments and service ? And the lawyer fees ?
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Fox affiliates 'on board' with pay TV plan
    By RYAN NAKASHIMA | Associated Press – Tue, Apr 9, 2013

    LAS VEGAS (AP) — Television stations that relay Fox programming are "on board" with a threat to transition the over-the-air network to cable and satellite TV if Internet startup Aereo keeps reselling Fox's signal without paying for rights, the chairman of a Fox group said Tuesday.

    Fox's parent company, News Corp., owns just 27 of the 205 stations that carry Fox shows such as "American Idol" and "Glee." The rest are affiliates that are independently owned or are part of chains of station owners. Steve Pruett, the chairman of the Fox affiliate board of governors, spoke about the stations' support in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday at the annual gathering of broadcasters, the NAB Show.

    Chase Carey, the chief operating officer of News Corp., raised the threat Monday amid a legal battle with Aereo. Carey said that if courts can't stop Aereo from taking its signals for free and reselling them to customers, the company would have to make Fox a subscription-only network.

    Pruett said that TV stations could send out two signals — one to cable and satellite providers and another out over the free airwaves. Premium Fox programs could be reserved for paying customers, while the free-to-air broadcasts could be of lesser quality. Pruett said it was too early to go into details.

    Continue and source : http://news.yahoo.com/fox-affiliates...201602883.html
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,494

    Aereo New York ... AKA: The Big App

    Yesterday, I ate an Aero chocolate bar and was able to pick up Fox with my teeth. One tap on the inside of my left molar starts the recording feature (I had a nasal cavity recorder installed by Nestle, just last month), but when I brushed my teeth this morning, I accidentally erased last night's episode of Bones. I also have to be extra careful with my tongue and how I chew food, but overall, other than connecting my iPad to my left nostril, I like the service a lot. Just don't sneeze or you'll lose your connection.

    I'm also interested in perhaps trying out the upcoming Areola Adult service that uses nipple technology to stream SD-quality content to your boob tube. It might be a bit embarrassing to change channels and tune the audio with your nipples, and although the technology currently won't work for pregnant women (breast milk clouds the picture), it is hoped that future advances in breast reconstruction will one day alleviate this problem.

    The real Aereo (not the chocolate bar) currently has a special deal if you signup for the whole year ... it's only $80 and you also get the max of 40 hours of recording time.

    Aereo roundup:

    Last edited by PokerFace; 04-16-2013 at 06:06 AM. Reason: typo
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,494

    Can the Internet be tamed?

    I assume that Aereo will soon be spending even more time in court, but for now, Fox and CBS will have to wait for their last laugh.

    http://techcentral.my/news/story.aspx?file=/2013/4/9/it_news/20130408172821&sec=it_news

    [Changing state of TV, or just a temporary blip in the system: Aereo and The Hopper (a DISH DVR that zaps some commercials)]

    http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-...service=mobile
    [Aereo ... Alas Canada, another great TV idea we’ll never see]

    More than 10 years ago, a Canadian startup known as iCraveTV tried something similar, grabbing Canadian and U.S. TV signals and distributing them over the Internet. But it attracted the ire of the Hollywood studios and shut down after a few months under legal pressure. Later, Ottawa clarified the Copyright Act to ensure no similar service would rise again.
    --------------------

    Aereo demonstration:

    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    If Fox was to become a cable channel would that impact us here?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    If Fox was to become a cable channel would that impact us here?
    Well, from related articles, Fox affiliates would still operate but with low-class programming (such as Touch and some syndicated reruns), while the cable channel would get the high budget productions (such as American Idol and Glee).

    Fox already splitted FX in two, one for dramas and FXX for comedies, which is a sign of expansion. Unless Fox sacrifices one of their existing authorized-in-Canada specialty channel (unlikely), CTV and Global would have nothing to simsub, so they'd use one of their specialties to cover some of the Fox cable shows... or FX Canada gets all the glory !
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    If Fox was to become a cable channel would that impact us here?

    In the extremely unlikely event FOX does this it wouldn't change anything in Canada. CTV, Global, and City would still own the rights to FOX programming and still air FOX programming on their conventional networks. Not being able to simulcast FOX programming would not mean they wouldn't air it. FOX would still sell conventional rights of their programming at conventional rights prices. It would make zero sense for any Canadian network (especially Global, which airs the most FOX programming and would have major scheduling holes without it) to move FOX shows to specialty just because they can't "simsub" them anymore. Cable programming airs on specialty because it usually pulls in a smaller audience, FOX programming does great in Canada. It's not a bad thing for Global if Global is the only channel to view FOX programming in Canada. If the hypothetical very unlikely FOX cable channel continues to offer big budget programming you currently see on FOX it will remain on conventional networks.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    924
    In all honesty, I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of US Networks in Canada. As we begin to transition away from traditional television delivery; the US networks will likely become unavailable to most Canadians.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    If Fox was to become a cable channel would that impact us here?
    That depends. If Fox series remain on Canadian conventional stations; they'll have the freedom to air Fox series without the need to subsim, but we'll be at the mercy of Canadian conventional networks if they want to wait a day, week or even a month before releasing it to Canadian audiences. Another problem is Fox may not want Canadian conventional stations to air any Fox programming. As TVViewer pointed out, Global carries a lot of Fox programming and most American border cites like Buffalo, Detroit and Seattle can pickup Global signals better than CTV, CBC or even City. They might not want American viewers having easy access to their programming like that.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,494
    Those American border cities already have access to Global's OTA feed and Global isn't charging Americans, or Canadians to view the Global OTA signal.

    Global pays Fox for the Canadian broadcast rights, and Fox accepts the fact that some Americans are currently watching Fox programming on Global, even though they can also watch the regular Fox OTA broadcast. However, Fox isn't worried about the few OTA viewers who are currently non-cable subscribers. Fox is more concerned about having its signal distributed by Aereo without compensation. It also makes it easier for even the dumbest Americans to cut the cord and have consistent delivery of US OTA signals to their homes, along with the ability to DVR content. Aereo isn't Netflix, but it's yet another convenient alternative that makes cord cutting easier to do. And the more subscribers Aereo gets, the more likely it will be to launch its own original programming (hello, Netflix).

    Much (but not all) of the US cable content that airs in Canada is quite often at least one day late. So, if Global decided to increase the number of shows it airs after the US broadcast premieres (hello, The Good Wife) because of no Fox simsub possibilities, Canadians would get used to that too.

    ---------------------

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,3247583.story
    [Barry Diller says broadcasters are bluffing about going cable]

    Media mogul Barry Diller said he thinks his Aereo, the startup company that distributes broadcast signals via the Internet, could eventually end up with 20 million to 30 million subscribers. Speaking at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills on Monday, Diller said once Aereo gets a significant subscriber base, it can become an outlet for original content as well as broadcast programming from CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox.

    Broadcasters are trying to shut Aereo down because, unlike cable and satellite operators, it does not pay them to transmit their programming. So far, Aereo has survived legal challenges from the big broadcasters accusing it of copyright theft.

    Diller added that he thinks the courts will continue to side with Aereo but said he fears broadcasters will push Congress to take a stand against the company. In recent weeks, both Fox and CBS suggested they would drop broadcast TV and become cable channels if the courts continue to side with Aereo. Diller dismissed that as an empty threat. "I think there is literally no chance," he said, adding that the local TV stations that the networks own are still big profit drivers.

    But Diller didn't fault the networks for fighting Aereo. "What fool wouldn't resist change if change would take away a real neat situation?" he said. The neat situation Diller was referring to is the money broadcasters get from pay-TV distributors to carry their signals, known in the industry as retransmission consent.
    -------------------------------

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,4681713.story
    [Fox could become cable channel, News Corp. COO Chase Carey says]

    If Fox opted to become a cable channel, it may be able to charge more than it currently gets from pay-TV distributors. Because Fox and other broadcast networks are still free to anyone with an antenna, cable and satellite companies have been reluctant to pay them the same rate that cable-only channels such as TNT or ESPN get. There is still roughly 10% to 15% of the country that does not subscribe to pay TV. That could mean lower ratings but it may not hurt ad revenue. Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Todd Juenger noted that those without a pay-TV subscription are not "a highly coveted group for many advertisers."

    A move to cable would raise questions about the future of the local TV stations that Fox owns, including KTTV-TV Los Angeles. If Fox were to pull its network programming off the air, the local stations would have to fill 15 hours of prime time a week. Besides its own stations, which reach about 40% of the country, Fox also has affiliates that count on the network for content. Carey said any move to cable would be done in partnership with the network's affiliates. Another issue would be whether Fox could contractually move all its content to cable.

    There could be concerns from lawmakers about even more football and baseball games moving from broadcast TV to cable. An NFL spokesman said, "We are committed to our partnership with Fox." Carey is the first broadcaster to go public with the cable-only idea but others are thinking it too. "It’s not what we want but if we’re forced into it, then we’ll do it," said the executive of another broadcast network who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

    Carey said he expects Fox to prevail in court against Aereo. It also is unclear how much of a consumer appetite there is for Aereo. It charges about $8 a month for the broadcast networks and a virtual digital video recorder.
    ------------------------------------

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...3.story?page=1
    [Fox's threat to go cable-only won't mean much to most viewers]

    But for all intents and purpose, Fox is already a cable channel and has been for a long time. Yes, about 10% to 15% of the country's TV consumers still get Fox via antennas, but everyone else receives its signals from a pay-TV provider such as Time Warner Cable or DirecTV.

    Initially, cable and satellite companies were loathe to pay broadcasters to carry their channels. After all, they had been carrying them for free for decades. Furthermore, broadcasters used the public airwaves, which meant anyone with an antenna could get their signals for free anyway. Of course, that didn't stop pay-TV companies from charging their subscribers a fee to get broadcast signals. The pay-TV guys held their ground and said they wouldn't pay for an over-the-air TV channel. So the broadcasters, in a stroke of genius, decided to launch cable networks and package them with their broadcast properties. News Corp. created the FX channel. NBC launched a channel that would ultimately become MSNBC. Walt Disney Co., parent of ABC and ESPN, developed ESPN2, a sister channel. This was a solution that worked for the pay-TV side. They rationalized that they were not paying for Fox, but rather for FX. If some of the money they paid News Corp. for FX ended up going to Fox, that was fine. The system worked for many years. But as programming costs continued to rise and ratings for broadcasters declined because of all the media fragmentation, Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC wanted cold hard cash for their own programming. Cable channels have two revenue streams -- subscriber fees and advertising -- and broadcasters wanted that too.

    The pay-TV industry resisted but ultimately agreed to cough up some bucks. Retransmission consent has become a key revenue stream for broadcasters. According to SNL Kagan, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, CW and Univision will take in a combined $1.7 billion in fees from pay-TV companies in 2015.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    That depends. If Fox series remain on Canadian conventional stations; they'll have the freedom to air Fox series without the need to subsim, but we'll be at the mercy of Canadian conventional networks if they want to wait a day, week or even a month before releasing it to Canadian audiences. Another problem is Fox may not want Canadian conventional stations to air any Fox programming. As TVViewer pointed out, Global carries a lot of Fox programming and most American border cites like Buffalo, Detroit and Seattle can pickup Global signals better than CTV, CBC or even City. They might not want American viewers having easy access to their programming like that.
    So American nets going cable more or less could mean Canadians could see there programs they like moved to cable netsworks as well such as Showcase/Mystery etc?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,053
    Some of us who use an antenna to directly see Fox affiliates that broadcast from near the Canadian border (Buffalo, Detroit, etc.) to avoid the Canadian cable simsubs, might then have to find another way to watch Fox shows, like maybe on Global. No joke, I don't remember the last time I watched something on Global. At least the other Canadian broadcast networks/channels occasionally have something I watch that's not just aired to be a simsub, like Ed the Sock on CHCH, or a different NFL game from the ones on the Buffalo stations.


    Is Fox saying that all or most of their present individual affiliate stations would continue to exist as local cable-only channels? Why? Wouldn't it make more sense for Fox to just have one more national cable channel? Either way, it does raise the question of what would happen to them in Canada, but I suppose they would probably be removed.


    If or when OTA broadcasts start disappearing in the U.S., I'd guess it wouldn't be too long before it started happening in Canada. If all of the Canadian cable and satellite companies were still completely separate entities from the broadcast networks, it might have started happening already.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 05-01-2013 at 02:52 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,494
    Global still has Psych (yes, I know it's already airing on the USA Network) and various other US cable programming that has/had an exclusive Canadian home on Global.

    If Fox decides to go the cable-only route, Fox might sell some of its locally owned channels like KTTV-TV Los Angeles, or perhaps use the airwaves for other things like wireless ventures.

    Fox, CBS and Univision know that this is a complicated issue and would prefer to simply destroy Aereo before it gets more popular. I have to assume that Aereo will indeed eventually be destroyed, one way or another.

    http://movies.yahoo.com/news/les-moo...234208628.html
    [Les Moonves Says CBS Could Go To Cable In “A Few Days” If It Loses Aereo Suit]

    Les Moonves is out to get Aereo by any means necessary, but he “doesn’t lose sleep over it,” the CBS Corp president and CEO told the Milken Institute’s Global Conference today. “Barry Diller has done what he likes to do, disrupt things,” Moonves added. However, the CBS chief did say that if the situation couldn’t be resolved in the courts, he is more than willing to take CBS to cable. “We can do it in a few days. If we go to cable, if we are forced to, then about 10% of America will not get our signal and I don’t think they will like that,” Moonves said Tuesday. The CBS chief said that with around 2,000 subscribers in NYC, the “illegal” Aereo won’t hurt the network but that he still intends to shut them down. “We will go after them in the courts and if that doesn’t work there are other remedies. There are financial remedies; there are congressional remedies.” On Monday at the conference, IAC CEO Diller said that CBS and the other broadcasters suing Aereo want Congress to save them if their copyright infringement suits fail. Fox and Univision have also threatened to move to cable if Aereo prevails.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •