Retransmission Consent squabbles

[DirtyHarry 727]

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.

[dalekusa 0]

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"?

[tyrannical bastard 3931]

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

 

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

Deerfield:

 

[dman748 1256]

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

[dalekusa 0]

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.

[dman748 1256]

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? 

[dalekusa 0]

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?

[dman748 1256]

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

[dalekusa 0]

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?

[dman748 1256]

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.

[tyrannical bastard 3931]

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.... 

[dman748 1256]

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

[JCB4TV 347]

We missed this one, the Cowles/AT&T dispute has been resolved!

 

That just leaves the Sinclair sidecars to be resolved.

[dman748 1256]

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

[Yankees4life 558]

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.

[dman748 1256]

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

[tyrannical bastard 3931]

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)

[JCB4TV 347]

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? 

[JCB4TV 347]

AT&T Inks Altitude Deal

 

Yet, crickets from the Sinclair sidecars.

[tyrannical bastard 3931]

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 November 7, 2019 by tyrannical bastard
WPMI / WHAM confirmation

[JCB4TV 347]

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 December 3, 2019 by JCB4TV
Resolved

[Morphtato 43]

Looks like a deal was reached between AT&T and Howard Stirk Holdings.

 

[tyrannical bastard 3931]

Armstrong Williams points the finger at Duane Lammers, the agent most of these groups hired to negotiate on their behalf.

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/howard-stirks-holdings-at-t-strike-retrans-deal

 

A deal was only made after Howard Stirk used another negotiator and was able to work out a deal.  Deerfield and Gocom Media of Illinois likely did the same.

 

As for Waitt / Second Generation and Roberts, they're probably still in limbo under Lammers.

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by tyrannical bastard

[tyrannical bastard 3931]

Another group of the Sinclair shells are back....the MPS Media stations.

https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/att-re-adds-4-local-cw-nbc-affiliates-to-directv-att-tv-now/

 

That just leaves Second Generation of Iowa (KFXA), Waitt (KMEG), Tennessee Broadcasting (WNAB), Mercury Broadcasting (KMTW)  and Roberts Broadcasting (KMTR).

 

Interesting facts:

The Waitt company that owns the KMEG license has no ties to the company that once owned it.  One of their former stations, WFXL was once owned by the original Waitt who was acquired by Raycom, who divested it to Barrington when they merged with Liberty (since they owned WALB).

 

Mercury Broadcasting was the founder of WJTC in Pensacola.  They formed an LMA with Clear Channel who owned WPMI, then a FOX affiliate.  They became a legal duopoly in 2000, and BOTH were shelled to Deerfield in 2012 with their sale by Newport Television since Sinclair already owned WEAR and WFGX.

Back to Mercury, who Clear Channel recruited when Paramount wanted out of running KSCC (now KMTW) and ran them out of KSAS.  The arrangement lasts into this day through Clear Channel, Newport, and now Sinclair.

Edited November 18, 2019 by tyrannical bastard
correction

[JCB4TV 347]

As of November 15, KMTW is back on AT&T!