KUTV to be sold again

[levoix]

As reported on News Utah: www.newsutah.org/utah/kutv-to-be-sold/

KUTV 2, along with other Four Points TV properties, will be sold to Sinclair Broadcasting for $200,000,000.

[seattlefollower]

That's a shame. Sinclair always seems to be fighting on retransmission fees and (similar to KSL) pre-empts programming it doesn't agree with on a political/values spectrum.

[levoix]

Yeah, I hope they don't implement any "cost cutting measures".

[CAwasinNJ]

Is there really all that much on CBS that's subject to preemption due to content concerns? I can't think of anything offhand. The other networks, yes to some degree. Not so much CBS. I'm also of the opinion that retransmission fees for broadcast stations are ridiculous, so I'm glad there are those who are trying to keep them in line.

[kenglish]

What's wrong with (reasonable) Retrans Fees? If somebody wants to be a retailer (like Cable and satellite), they should pay the wholesaler (stations/affiliates) and the manufacturer (the networks and syndicators).
Simple economics.

And, you're already paying for every other channel in the lineup. Why not the ones that the most people watch?

[CAwasinNJ]

Broadcast stations give away their product for free. In fact, I believe KSL-TV even states this in their sign-off message. I don't subscribe to cable or satellite and I don't pay a penny to any of the broadcasters for any of the programming. Why should my neighbor, who has a different pipe to get the programming, have to pay for it? The argument broadcasters use is that the cable/satellite providers make a profit. Very true. But what you're paying for there is a pipe that gets what is let loose in the air for free over to the end user. The pipe is what you're paying for. I installed an antenna and cabling for it. That's my "cable system". Doesn't make sense that I should pay KSL for that. It's being given away free to anyone. The stations/affiliates are not wholesalers. They're retailers. The cable/satellite companies are resellers of the already finished end product. If I buy a used GM car from a private used car lot, do I send another check to GM for what they sold 2 years ago? Of course not. That would be insane. This is no different. Another argument is that cable/satellite pays the "cable networks" per subscriber and there doesn't seem to be much fuss about that. Distribution of those services is considered private communication by the FCC. That's why Howard Stern can say anything he wants on SiriusXM and there can be hard core porn on Cinemax. Those aren't broadcast services and aren't regulated as such. Broadcast stations are designated as free to the public and always have been. I believe there is some provision in the ATSC digital TV spec for subscription services on broadcast channels and if that were to be used (I'm not aware of any today) and the cable/satellite providers paid to allow their subscribers to see it, that would be a different story. That is by definition not a public broadcast. Anything that's being given away freely in one distribution channel should not be charged in a different one. I know you disagree Ken and I understand why. You see someone using what you and the others there produce without getting paid for it. The problem is that the broadcasters are intentionally giving it away free. That's where the retransmission consent model doesn't stand up in my opinion.

[kenglish]

I guess things will be very different when the broadcasters are gone, the spectrum is sold, and everybody pays full price .

Actually, though, I don't see where it's any different than any other business model, where people who use a product to enhance sales of their own product, have to pay for it. I have friends who own a local newsweekly. They pay for their content, either through buying syndicated content, by paying freelance journalists, or by paying their own staff reporters to investigate a story. The end result, the newsweekly, is distributed free on street-corner boxes and in various businesses and clubs.
Shouldn't the daily Deseret News have every right to use material from that "free" newsweekly in their own daily newspaper? And, how about the bigger paper, The SL Tribune? They would certainly increase the exposure of the newsweekly and it's stories. So, why pay for it, if it's already been distributed freely?

Like the old adage that "businesses don't pay taxes, their customers pay the taxes", every transaction adds to the costs of business. Whether you buy a loaf of bread, a car, a house, or TV programming, there are costs added, and the customer pays. True, the Cable and satellite providers could absorb the costs of OTA programming, calling it a "loss leader" or something. But, they don't. They pass along all their costs, just like (nearly) everybody else. So, while you are writing your check for TV every month, you pay for both local CBS and ESPN, both local NBC and Disney, both local ABC and MTV.

The Cable and Satellite companies could easily afford to eat those Retrans costs if they wanted to...local stations (especially major network affiliates) help them gain and keep $ubscriber$, and that's what they need. The broadcasters, on the other hand, rarely get to raise their rates, and have never made a penny on the Digital conversion and HDTV. It was all done as a requirement to stay on the air. Without some fair compensation (the key word is "fair"), many stations would be far less likely to keep giving away any programming to anybody.