Nexstar, Sinclair, Gray and Scripps want streamers to be re-classified

[OneBigFan]

The big con continues. Nexstar Media Group (owner of 197 stations); Sinclair Media Group (owns 247 stations in 89 markets; E.W. Scripps (61 stations in 41markets) : Gray Television (180 stations in 113 markets) are playing the poor local guy card. The 4 multi-billion dollar corporations, they control 685 TV stations in the US.

Now they are claiming the deals that streaming channels like YouTubeTV, HULU, Fubo with the TV networks have left the "locall stations behind. They want their corporately own stations to wear their "local" hats so they can deal individually or I suspect each network making deals with each TV stations corporate owner.

Cry me a river.

https://cordcuttersnews.com/local-abc-c ... companies/


From the link:

“The problem is that right now streamers secure the right to carry local stations not from the stations themselves, but rather through deals cut directly with the national networks—which in some instances are outrageously owned by the same entity,” the group said in a statement on their website. “As a result, the networks decide both how much streamers pay for local stations and how much of that value actually makes it to local stations. This system only exists because streamers are not yet subject to the same regulations that require traditional pay-TV providers like cable and satellite companies to negotiate directly with local stations.”
If local TV stations win, it would dramatically change how the FCC regulates live TV streaming services. It would also force them to negotiate directly with the owners of local TV stations like Nexstar. If that change happens, Fubo, Hulu, and others wouldn’t be able to strike deals directly with Paramount for all CBS stations, for example. Instead, they will need to go to each individual owner of each local TV station. This is what cable TV companies have to do, and it is what live TV streaming services may have to do soon.

Sounds a lot like buyers remorse from 4 corporations buying up any TV stations that were for sale and like ESPN are very late waking up to the fact that the cable box and cable TV subscribers has declined in the last five years.

[TC Talks]

We could classify them as boilers or cauldrons.

[The Painted Horse]

This would especially make sense in Cleveland.

[sinklair]

Streaming services who want to carry local programming should absolutely have to negotiate with local station groups. Streamers want the local news, weather and sports content without paying for it. You want to know why local stations are dying — that’s because networks (which used to pay local stations to carry their entertainment programming) now have reverse comp where local stations pay the networks… and local advertising revenue continues its free fall. Now streamers want to cut out local stations bypassing them in talks directly with networks — who like Disney/ABC want to get out of the local game entirely.

Local stations provide valuable programming and streamers should pay for it.

However, local station groups like Nexstar will screw it up. Much like it’s ongoing disputes with cable and satellite companies, Nexstar/Sinclair/Scripps/etc. will get into rights fee disputes that will result in content blackouts that will alienate viewers.

But don’t equate local station groups to the greed that streamers and networks exhibit.

Nexstar operating revenue is $5-billion dollars. Sinclair’s is $4B. Tegna is $3B. And Scripps is $2B.

Networks: Comcast (NBC) saw operating revenue of $120-billion. Disney is at $87B. Paramount $30B. Fox $14B. Warner Brothers/Discovery (CNN) $41B.

Streamers: Google/YouTube operating revenue is $282B. Meta (Facebook) $120B. Netflix $32B.

Greed is there, but it’s not at the local station level. Streamers are padding their bottom line at the expense of local stations. It’s about time that they are forced to negotiate directly with local station groups.

[OneBigFan]

Could you define “local” sinklair?

Every network station in West MI except the PBS station at GVSU is owned by one one the broadcasting behemoths who are trying to act like a 21st Century sole owner.

Recently when WOODTV made the news when it’s now former news director sent out a controversial memo regarding content, a VP from Nexstar HQ flew into town for a resolution, not a sole owner meeting in an private office in GR.

If I can get WOODTV with an antenna at my residence as others do, why should WOODTV ownership charge streamers additional fees if the streaming entity is broadcasting the local commercials Nexstar sales generates? Right now except for news there isn’t any network programming I miss because I don’t have to watch TV8 or 3, 17 etc.

[Graham Wellington]

Greed is there, but it’s not at the local station level. Streamers are padding their bottom line at the expense of local stations. It’s about time that they are forced to negotiate directly with local station groups.

If these poor mom and pop local stations are barely getting by, why do they give away their product for free over the air? Maybe shut their transmitters off and make everyone pay if that is so important to their survival.

In reality, these "mom and pop" local stations have been grifting large fees from cable viewers for years, and are now pissed their gravy train is coming to an end. It's a matter of time before networks bypass them completely and offer their programming exclusively direct to consumers.

[sinklair]

I love the selective outrage…

Local broadcast TV is free to viewers. The business model is built on commercial advertising revenue. The same with (most) local news websites — we haven’t gone behind a paywall. But it requires ad revenue from businesses paying for display ads per page view.

Now why would local broadcasters allow an outside company benefit financially from their copyrighted work? Broadcasters pay for our facilities, payroll, program fees… but you expect them to give that program stream to cable and satellite companies, and to streaming services for free? At the same time that companies like Google, Meta, etc. are killing local broadcast advertising revenue?

That would be like Spotify telling Taylor Swift that they would be playing her songs without paying artist rights… just because a local radio station aired her music free over the air. They would be sued immediately by the artist and the radio station. And rightfully so since the radio station likely paid fees to play her music and Taylor deserves to get paid for the music she created.

I’m not sure why local stations would or should have any less incentive to protect and monetize its programming. In fact, local TV stations are one of the main reasons people sign up for cable and satellite— and more recently why people are cutting the cord, going to streaming only options, because they can still get local news/weather/sports on those platforms.

So at a time when streaming/cable/satellite companies are making record profits and raising their rates — you should be asking why — when they refuse to negotiate fair compensation with broadcasting companies to pay for some of their most sought and most viewed channels.

Stations should have the right to get fair compensation for the programming it provides, and in result the local jobs it provides, the local tax revenue it pays, the community involvement and charities stations support, etc.

If the way stations monetize continue with falling broadcast commercial revenue with no additional compensation from streamers, etc. you will see all local newsrooms cease to exist. And with it, the loss of local community news and weather.

[OneBigFan]

Whose payroll are you on Rip Van sinklair?

Two decades ago, 2 years after Lin TV who owned TV8 purchased purchased 41 they shutdown the Battle Creek newsroom and you watch TV8 news followed by ABC national new rather than TV8’s NBC national offering.

Sinclair is closing 10 local newsrooms and rumored to be closing more. In some major markets like LA the same people do the news on different channels owned by the same companies.

Sinclair, Nexstar and others have bet millions and now want to get the rules changed because they bet wrong. They want to switch horses to keep they gravy train rolling. Money for nothing and your interns for free might be over.

[sinklair]

OneBigFan: I’m on no one’s payroll (at least broadcasters’) anymore. But I’ve worked for both Nexstar and Sinclair (most recently). I’m no fan of either company. But I also believe broadcasters should be able to play on an equal playing field. The FCC rules for broadcasters seem antiquated when anyone can set up a cable company with zero restrictions.. but local broadcasters are limited to 40% reach of US homes.

[MasterB]

Did Uncle Perry Sook ever visit the station you worked for Sinklair? Did you tell him that there should've been a union at the Nexstar station you worked at? I agree that the rules for broadcasting are outdated and need to be changed, as I feel the cap should be upped a lot more than 39% of the country.

[sinklair]

If Perry did stop by, I would have tested his “no swearing” policy!