Home » Mediacom »Video » Currently Reading:

Mediacom vs. Sinclair: Consumers Stuck In The Middle As Companies Fight For Your Money

Phillip Dampier December 18, 2009 Mediacom, Video 3 Comments

One way or another consumers will pay more for their Mediacom cable service in 2010.  The undecided question is will Sinclair-owned television stations get a chunk of your wallet or will Mediacom keep it all for themselves.

Weary Mediacom customers have been through this battle before.  For the second time in three years, residents of Des Moines, Iowa face the prospect of losing access to their local Fox station, owned by Sinclair.

The ads are up and running.

Mediacom is running this spot, customized for each city impacted by the dispute, comparing Sinclair’s demands as another “bailout.”  This one is running in the Pensacola-Mobile market, where station WEAR is threatened with removal from Mediacom’s lineup.

Sinclair is demanding another price increase from the cable operator and Mediacom has a history of playing hardball and refusing to pay.  If the two sides don’t reach agreement by December 31st, 22 Sinclair-owned stations in communities served by Mediacom will be taken off the cable lineup.

Viewers aren’t happy, especially because they do not get a reduced bill from the cable company for the reduced channel lineup that results.

Both sides are waging campaigns to try and get viewers into the fight.  But in the end, it’s a battle of two corporate titans fighting over their portion of your money.

Back in January, 2007 Mediacom customers spent five weeks without Sinclair-owned television stations on their cable dial.  A nasty exchange between Sinclair and Mediacom was documented in this report aired by KCCI-TV Des Moines back on January 23, 2007.   (3 minutes)

The fallout from the 2007 dispute could be measured by disgusted customers who fled Mediacom for other providers, as KCCI found on May 4, 2007. (2 minutes)

WHO-TV Des Moines covers today’s dispute impacting Mediacom and the city’s Fox affiliate. (2 minutes)

KDSM-TV Des Moines is the Sinclair-owned Fox affiliate.  The station covers its own dilemma, warning viewers they might lose the station for the second time in three years.  (3 minutes)

In Cedar Rapids, Sinclair’s KFXA-TV covers the dispute with a decidedly pro-Sinclair point of view. (3 minutes)

WEAR-TV in Pensacola, Florida spends a great deal less “news time” covering the dispute. WEAR is the Sinclair-owned ABC affiliate for the Florida Panhandle. (30 seconds)


Currently there are 3 comments on this Article:

  1. Ian L says:

    This is why we need a la carte for TV, though I’m still scratching my head as to why a network that broadcasts their service over the open air would want to play hardball and lose eyeballs over a dollar amount that should be way less than they’re making on advertising…

  2. Dave Hancock says:

    It isn’t going to be solved by “a la carte”. Consideration of “a la carte” in the past has been limited to cable channels such as TNT and ESPN (why should I pay for ESPN when I don’t watch sports or why should a sports fan pay for The Food Network when they don’t watch that).

    The 1992 Cable Act (which is the root cause of these problems) sets up local channels as a special category – everyone should have them at the most basic tier. BUT, that act gave stations the right to deny a cable system permission to carry that channel (and also denied cable the right to import signals from out of town where the local station has denied carriage). If a cable system decided not to carry local stations, the qualifying local station can demand that the cable system carry them.

    There has been some (but so far minor) attempts to re-write that act to reduce the power of the local stations (or affiliated networks) to extract these funds from cable. The Time Warner “Roll Over or Get Tough” campaign may well fan the flames of changing the cable act (but I wouldn’t bet that will happen with all of the “influence peddling” that is going on.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • Elbert Davis: This is absolutely breathtaking in regards to the arrogance of the bill. Byron and the lobbyists/monopolies left absolutely nothing to chance. Kudos...
  • Roger: I wasn't aware of Esquire being spawned from Style, but I do remember that it was positioned as the replacement for G4, which catered to those interes...
  • Paul Houle: My take is that a "wireless recession" will soon be at hand. There are a number of stories talked about on this site that, I think, are connected w...
  • Keanyn Gray: frontier every month for the last 8 month for incorrect bills amounts, each time they tell me they will correct credit my bills to the agreed amount ...
  • JayS: Channels, before they were removed from Tv and used to start the cellular telephone networks, went up to 83. Due to technology limitations, UHF (...
  • Josh: As near as I can tell we've had broadcast TV spectrum stolen from us TWICE. (Once during the NTSC to ATSC transition, but apparently once before that...
  • Phillip Dampier: The retention staff in Syracuse actually stopped handling those types of calls in early 2016 and referred everyone to the national customer retention ...
  • T Nelson: I am a Twc customer in the Rochester, NY area. In November my special promotion program ran out. In the past I had dealt with a retention specialist...
  • Milan Gohil: Thank you for publicizing my ordeal, Phillip! I hope this report opens the eyes of consumers and Spectrum executives!...
  • LG: They should be taken into Federal receivership. They only care about cell phones, so we need to take that away from them. Make it a requirement to m...
  • Joe V: Six months ago I moved from San Francisco to southeastern Massachusetts 30 miles south from Boston. It is pathetic that on one side of my town they ...
  • Matt K: Does that 23% on fiber count only true FTTH or are they also counting crap like AT&T's Uverse?...

Your Account: