• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Cox 25 Boston pulls itself off FIOS

The banner on the WFXT web site is probably very effective, though deliberately misleading: "Verizon FiOS has dropped FOX 25". Browsing the FIOS forums seems to show that the average viewer thinks that this is all one-sided - Verizon just dropping the station to save money.
 
Why is it, in nearly all of these carriage disputes, they rarely mention that the station is available over-the-air with an antenna for free? The article does touch on that, but irritatingly says "high definition" antenna.

As for the owners of WFXT-TV, I completely forgot the station is no longer a FOX O&O.
 
The article says people are urged to complain to the FCC......the FEDS don't get involved with contract stuff. The FCC doesn't have anything to do with regulating cable/phone companies on these issues. They would be more productive pounding sand.
 
KML-224 said:
Why is it, in nearly all of these carriage disputes, they rarely mention that the station is available over-the-air with an antenna for free? The article does touch on that, but irritatingly says "high definition" antenna.
Click to expand...

The station owner most likely assumes that the cable (or satellite) provider will give in soon and that the average viewer who doesn't already have an antenna, or is out of range for over-the-air reception, probably wouldn't get one hooked up before the dispute is over. So they play the game of being the poor innocent victim, surprised, and taken advantage of, by the big mean cable conglomerate. Since the customers only pay the provider, and most of them have pretty dismal customer satisfaction ratings, the tactic works.

This doesn't mean the providers are not at fault too. Their stubborn refusal to consider any sort of a-la-carte system, perhaps only for the stations opting retransmission consent, and for the highest priced cable networks puts them in this bind.

Verizon could absorb the cost increase to Cox, but if reports are correct, that would make WFXT the highest paid Boston channel on FIOS. If they win what they want, WBZ, WCVB, WHDH will then demand as much or more when their renewal comes around, and probably big increases for the co-owned WSBK and WLVI.
 
I was listening to the Patriots game on WBZ-FM yesterday and they kept running an ad warning that Dish Network customers could lose their CBS station incl football and other programs...
 
If Verizon gives Cox what they want, it will no doubt encourage the other Boston stations to push for increases. And not just with Dish.

The entire retransmission consent process has a shady feeling about it. In this case, Cox is deliberately deceiving the public, and Verizon is being fairly straightforward, but in other similar negotiations, the roles are often reversed. A minimal fist step by the FCC would be to require that the terms of these agreements be public record.


Verizon posted a YouTube video response to the the Cox terms last week:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llcnNUorv2A&feature=player_embedded


Also from last week from the Boston Business Journal explaining that Cox pulled the plug, not Verizon.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/b...izon-pushes-back-were-not-the-fox-in-the.html
 
At the risk of exposing how little I know about the industry is there a reason why Verizon couldn't pickup another Fox affiliate? WGGB in Springfield is owned by Meredith Corp. Couldn't this be at least a temporary solution so Verizon customers could at least watch NFL games and Fox Network programs?
 
wootown said:
At the risk of exposing how little I know about the industry is there a reason why Verizon couldn't pickup another Fox affiliate? WGGB in Springfield is owned by Meredith Corp. Couldn't this be at least a temporary solution so Verizon customers could at least watch NFL games and Fox Network programs?
Click to expand...

FCC regulations, backed by various federal laws, limit cable and satellite providers to carrying stations within the Designated Market Area, with a few exceptions. It is a bit arbitrary in practice, though, since the Providence stations, which include the Fox affiliate affiliate WPRI, cover much of the Boston market, but cannot be carried by local cable or satellite systems, yet southern New Hampshire, further from the most densely populated parts of the Boston market, is actually part of it.

The market limitation was put in place long before the big fees became an issue, and mostly was intended to protect small market stations from out-of-area large market stations.

It the rules were changed to allow temporary substitution of another affiliate, it would nearly eliminate the leverage a station has to get big fees, but really is not likely to happen. Also, if it were allowed, the local cable / satellite provider would have to black out individually any syndicated shows on the distant station that were carried on a local station other than the one involved in the dispute.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom