Cox may stop airing KOCO 5 and its Program

[Tydude]

http://www.koco.com/news/28733417/detail.html

OKLAHOMA CITY -- KOCO-TV (Channel 5) today announced that KOCO-TV may no longer be carried on Cox Communications cable systems effective September 1, 2011, if the parties are unable to conclude retransmission consent negotiations currently underway. The channels impacted are Channel 8, Channel 705, and ThisTV Channel 222.
Cable operators are prohibited by law from carrying broadcasters’ signals without their consent. The removal of KOCO’s signal from the Cox Communications system will only result if negotiations between representatives of Hearst Television Inc., KOCO’s parent company, and Cox Communications are unsuccessful in reaching a conclusion before September 1, 2011.
“We believe that we and Cox Communications can conclude our negotiations before September 1st, so as not to deprive any of our respective viewers and customers of our programming,” said Brent Hensley President/GM. “However, we want to advise our viewers and customers that the possibility of non-renewal of our current agreement exists. We will continue to keep our valued viewers informed of developments, on our air and our website, www.KOCO.com.”
Hearst Television, a national multi-media company, owns and operates 29 local television stations and two local radio stations, serving 30 U.S. cities and reaching approximately 18% of U.S. television households. The TV stations broadcast 60 video channels, featuring local and national news, weather, information, sports and entertainment programming, and local community service-oriented programs. The stations also host and operate digital on-line and mobile platforms that extend the company’s brands and content to local, national and international audiences. Hearst Television is recognized as one of the industry's premier companies, and has been honored with numerous awards for distinguished journalism, industry innovation, and community service. Hearst Television is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hearst Corporation. We will post updates as they become available.

hopefully they can come up with a deal on Sept 1st if not no more ABC for us

[RadicalModerate]

Is this a bad thing?
(Or does it simply mean that Cox will give me a 20% break on my bill?)

[Easy180]

Good lord it seems they play this game every other freakin year

[RadicalModerate]

Yup.

[venture]

Eh, let them stop carrying it. Then against I have DirecTV, so what do I care. Maybe they could pick up the Tulsa or Dallas affiliates...or the ones out of Lawton/Ardmore/Wichita Falls. LOL

[OKCisOK4me]

Thank God for free streaming over the air HDTV. Don't have to deal with Cox and can still choose to watch ABC when I want to (programming) or not (local news).

[Larry OKC]

What happened to the "Must Carry" rule (where cable stations were required to carry local over-the air broadcasts)?

ON EDIT, from the FCC:

The Communications Act prohibits cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors from retransmitting commercial television, low power television and radio broadcast signals without first obtaining the broadcaster's consent. This permission is commonly referred to as "retransmission consent" and may involve some compensation from the cable company to the broadcaster for the use of the signal. Alternately, local commercial and noncommercial television broadcast stations may require a cable operator that serves the same market as the broadcaster to carry its signal. A demand for carriage is commonly referred to as "must-carry." If the broadcast station asserts its must-carry rights, the broadcaster cannot demand compensation from the cable operator. While retransmission consent and must-carry are distinct and function separately, they are related in that commercial broadcasters are required to choose once every three years, on a system-by-system basis, whether to obtain carriage or continue carriage by choosing between must carry and retransmission consent.

So it sounds like the Cable co has to pay the broadcast station and consent to air but if the broadcast station demands they be carried, they don't have to be paid????

[ljbab728]

The likelihood that this will happen with football season fast approaching and with so many marquee games on KOCO is nil.

[SoonerDave]

This is nothing but a rehash of the same harum-scarum nonsense from about three years ago, when Cox was at war with Hearst over precisely the same retransmission rights. KOCO (well, its owner) has as much incentive to come to an agreement as Cox. They'll get it settled.

All that said, I probably find myself watching KOCO the least now as in any time I can remember, excepting for the delightfully guilty pleasure of "Wipeout!"

[JohnH_in_OKC]

http://www.koco.com/news/28733417/detail.html



hopefully they can come up with a deal on Sept 1st if not no more ABC for us

TV and radio stations were granted "FREE" licenses to broadcast in exchange for promising free access to the public, a certain amount of children's programming, public affairs programming and news. When I grew up ALL TV and radio stations had to broadcast news and public affairs programming. Sadly, Congress modified the Communications Act & we have lots of over the air stations with not much interest in satisfying their traditional obligations to the public.

Sinclair, owner of channel 25 and 34, is one of the most adamant companies trying to wring undeserved revenue from cable companies. Channel 5's owner, Hearst Television, is attempting to do the same. Broadcast stations should be mandated to not charge cable companies for carriage since we subscribers end up paying for a service that should be free. I subscribed to HBO, Showtime and Cinemax for years & paid a premium for NO advertising. I also don't mind paying for news channels, Discovery, Planet Green, History and the Travel Channel because these channels produce expensive programming that exceed their advertising revenues. Even though I love ESPN's networks, they may be overcharging most cable subscribers.

But if local TV stations want to indirectly charge us for their programming they should forfeit their broadcast licenses and see if anyone is interested in paying for their programming. My TV is setup to switch to antenna DTV if and when no agreement is reached by September 1. I just won't be able to use my DVR to record ABC network football games or replay items I find interesting on Channel 5. Obviously my support is with Cox on this issue.

John Hite, retired, Oklahoma City

[SoonerQueen]

It seems this always comes out during contract negotiations with Cox on all the local channels. They make you think that 4,5,or 9 won't be on the cable line-up and then they come to an agreement right before the deadline. No one wants the three major OKC channels to not be on the cable line-up. Bad for us and bad for Cox too. I predict KOCO will be on the Cox line-up.We just have to have our football.

[SoonerDave]

TV and radio stations were granted "FREE" licenses to broadcast in exchange for promising free access to the public, a certain amount of children's programming, public affairs programming and news. When I grew up ALL TV and radio stations had to broadcast news and public affairs programming. Sadly, Congress modified the Communications Act & we have lots of over the air stations with not much interest in satisfying their traditional obligations to the public.

Sinclair, owner of channel 25 and 34, is one of the most adamant companies trying to wring undeserved revenue from cable companies. Channel 5's owner, Hearst Television, is attempting to do the same. Broadcast stations should be mandated to not charge cable companies for carriage since we subscribers end up paying for a service that should be free. I subscribed to HBO, Showtime and Cinemax for years & paid a premium for NO advertising. I also don't mind paying for news channels, Discovery, Planet Green, History and the Travel Channel because these channels produce expensive programming that exceed their advertising revenues. Even though I love ESPN's networks, they may be overcharging most cable subscribers.

But if local TV stations want to indirectly charge us for their programming they should forfeit their broadcast licenses and see if anyone is interested in paying for their programming. My TV is setup to switch to antenna DTV if and when no agreement is reached by September 1. I just won't be able to use my DVR to record ABC network football games or replay items I find interesting on Channel 5. Obviously my support is with Cox on this issue.

John Hite, retired, Oklahoma City

Why should Cox, or any other retransmission agent, be allowed to make a buck off of whatever a local station creates, but not the actual originating station itself? That doesn't even make sense. Your argument about the free licenses doesn't even begin to apply, because local TV stations were making money from advertising long before cable TV became prevalent.

[MustangGT]

Frankly I could not care less if they disappear. I never watch the tripe on that network anyway.

[Jersey Boss]

There will be an agreement. This is nothing but posturing by COX.

[JohnH_in_OKC]

Why should Cox, or any other retransmission agent, be allowed to make a buck off of whatever a local station creates, but not the actual originating station itself? That doesn't even make sense. Your argument about the free licenses doesn't even begin to apply, because local TV stations were making money from advertising long before cable TV became prevalent.

TV stations are granted a free license. As part of that free license is the obligation to provide free access to their signals to the public. When broadcasters charge cable to carry their signal, the broadcasters are violating their promise to provide free access to the public for their signals. In my opinion, the FCC should threaten to seize the license of any broadcaster who demands money for carriage of their signal. --- John

--

[windowphobe]

TV stations are granted a free license. As part of that free license is the obligation to provide free access to their signals to the public. When broadcasters charge cable to carry their signal, the broadcasters are violating their promise to provide free access to the public for their signals. In my opinion, the FCC should threaten to seize the license of any broadcaster who demands money for carriage of their signal.

You'll need to take this up with Congress, then, because they passed the law that allows this sort of thing.

And there's nothing to stop you from putting up an antenna and grabbing the signal without giving the cable company (or whoever) a dime.

[Of Sound Mind]

Why should Cox, or any other retransmission agent, be allowed to make a buck off of whatever a local station creates, but not the actual originating station itself? That doesn't even make sense. Your argument about the free licenses doesn't even begin to apply, because local TV stations were making money from advertising long before cable TV became prevalent.

How is Cox making a buck off KOCO? From my view, Cox is providing a vehicle for KOCO programming to reach a wider audience -- i.e. those people, like me, who won't bother sticking up an antenna to catch KOCO's free over-the-air signal. KOCO benefits from having more viewers to help their ratings when it comes time to sell local advertising. Cox shouldn't pay KOCO a dime for carrying signal that is free over-the-air and that benefits KOCO as much, if not more, than it does Cox. Cox has plenty of other channels to offer its subscribers besides the broadcast networks. These networks, and more importantly their local affiliates, only make themselves more irrelevant when they demand revenue from the very utilities (i.e. cable and satellite TV companies) that brings them most of their audience.

[Jersey Boss]

TV stations are granted a free license. As part of that free license is the obligation to provide free access to their signals to the public. When broadcasters charge cable to carry their signal, the broadcasters are violating their promise to provide free access to the public for their signals. In my opinion, the FCC should threaten to seize the license of any broadcaster who demands money for carriage of their signal. --- John

--

Curious as to how you make the leap of equating a for profit corporation to the "public"? So if Best Buy charges for an antenea, that violates the free access? Does over the air broadcasters have to provide anteneas at no charge? Should the cable companies than be required to provide free access to a subscriber that only wants over the air broadcasters?

[JohnH_in_OKC]

Curious as to how you make the leap of equating a for profit corporation to the "public"? So if Best Buy charges for an antenea, that violates the free access? Does over the air broadcasters have to provide anteneas at no charge? Should the cable companies than be required to provide free access to a subscriber that only wants over the air broadcasters?

Actually, that's not a bad idea that cable/FIOS/U-Verse should provide their most basic service for free - which provides only local TV stations on their system or stations like WGN that wish to be included on Free local access. Free access to QAM service would also provide HD local stations' signals. There would have to be a fee added to provide for wiring for some homes or for homes needing installation/repair. This would be in the spirit of allowing FREE access to the public of the local stations that the government has licensed to provide FREE service to the public. Remember, even though Congress may have diminished our rights to FREE access of local broadcast signals, the government still owns most of the broadcast airwaves--and TV stations are still licensed at the will of the FCC.

Very basic Internet access should also be provided to families on food stamps or public assistance similar to the $1 landline phone service. Food, shelter, basic phone, local TV, and basic Internet are part of the federal government's responsibility to "promote the general welfare" of all its people (from the preamble of our US Constitution), in my opinion. A cable modem would still be required to be rented or purchased. The costs of Internet for the poor should be covered by a small fee added to all Internet connections.

[Thunder]

I do think that COX should provide free basic/local channels, but we are using their system, wiring, bandwidth, etc. Keep that in mind. A small fee for the use of their basic services is logical while the actual cost for channels to be free. As for the Internet....a basic package is usually all that people need while its still blazing fast, so I don't think it should be tossed away for free.

[Tydude]

well its the night we have about 1 hour till midnight and i haven't herd any news if they reach an agreement

[JohnH_in_OKC]

Channel 5 just announced on their 5 pm newscast that both Cox Communications OKC and Channel 5's parent company, Hearst Television, have reached an agreement for Cox to continue carrying Channel 5's signal. (I will bet Channnel 5's advertisers told Channel 5 to make an agreement or face losing their advertising business.)

Nothing has been posted as of 5:30 pm on Channel 5's web site (However Sarah Libby's name has already been removed -- fyi she is leaving for a job with Chesapeake Energy).

I am sure we will never know the details of what is in the new agreement.

[Thunder]

It was one of those extremely final last minute decision or that it was made the day afterward. I'm betting the statewide emergency with the fires was what COX allowed the channel to broadcast, because just prior to the midnight deadline, KOCO made a major push by keeping their chopper (and the only chopper in the state) in the air until 11pm bringing us amazing coverages. I bet it impressed COX and that they knew people need access to KOCO, so the channel wasn't cut off at midnight deadline. The day afterward, KOCO staff had no clue on the status, so I assume agreement was still in process of finalizing all the while COX decided to keep Ch5 active due to emergency. Just my opinion.

[SoonerQueen]

I'm watching it now, so all is good I guess.

[venture]

It was one of those extremely final last minute decision or that it was made the day afterward. I'm betting the statewide emergency with the fires was what COX allowed the channel to broadcast, because just prior to the midnight deadline, KOCO made a major push by keeping their chopper (and the only chopper in the state) in the air until 11pm bringing us amazing coverages. I bet it impressed COX and that they knew people need access to KOCO, so the channel wasn't cut off at midnight deadline. The day afterward, KOCO staff had no clue on the status, so I assume agreement was still in process of finalizing all the while COX decided to keep Ch5 active due to emergency. Just my opinion.

In a fantasy world...yeah Cox may have thought that. In reality, dollars do the talking. They had an agreement ironed out probably for over a week and signed the papers today. If Cox and Hearst didn't have an agreement in place, even if it wasn't signed yet, that would have allowed the deadline to pass with no interruptions. Cox, based outside of Oklahoma, doesn't get two turds about what KOCO is broadcasting at the time.