Comments on: More On Mediacom Vs. Sinclair

By: More On Mediacom Vs. Sinclair

More On Mediacom Vs. Sinclair — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:45:45 +0000

[...] More On Mediacom vs. Sinclair [...]

By: Judy

Judy — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:38:51 +0000

I don’t think it is fair to make people choose Dish when they/I am happy with Medicom. I have had dish and you know darn well that when it snows, storms, rains or is extra windy the dish doesn’t come thru for crap!!!!! And to make me choose between a crap dish and Mediacom, no brainer “Mediacom”. This is a hands down choice, I don’t watch your station that much to change carriers. To bad you think you need all that money from Mediacom and then they have to pass the price hike to us the consumer, sorry not worth the hassel with Sinclair. And besides, if I had just an antenna – would you make me pay for that? HUMMMMMMMMMMMM?????????????????? I don’t think so I would get ride of the antenna, and just buy DVD’s. Think about what you are loosing here Sinclair. Good luck and to bad I won’t be watching 4 shows you have daily. Oh well, hope your happy to loose some consumers.

By: Mr Moto

Mr Moto — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:48:04 +0000

OK, folks, lots of good stuff, but here’s the bottom line:

1. McLeod cable isn’t going bankrupt. It’s probably the only profitable venture they have. It doesn’t fit their profile they’re moving ahead with (data), hence the pending sale to (guess who?) previous McLeod chairman Steve Gray and partners!

2. This argument all revolves around who gets to keep the biggest slice of the “profit pie”. Regardless of all the bickering between Mediacom & Sinclair, it’s all about who keeps the money. If Sinclair charges Mediacom more, Mediacom has two choices…they can pass it on to the customer or take a hit to their profit margin (either partially or in whole). So Mediacom’s real statement to the consumer when they state “Sinclair will cause a rise in your cable rate” is equal to “we’re going to maintain our profit level by passing on any of this increase to you, Mr. Consumer”.

McLeod has announced they signed their retransmission deal with Sinclair. I hope they rip Mediacom’s heart out here in CR and use this to their best advantage, then turn around and build out the rest of the city and truly equalize their service level and coverage to Mediacom’s to get TRUE competition. I’m tired of unchecked rate increases because there’s noone else competing.

By: Douglas

Douglas — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 23:30:18 +0000

Let me see if I understand this situation…

A media company is saying you have to buy a whole package of channels and you can not pay for them a la carte. If you don’t buy the whole package, you don’t get any…

This is what Sinclair is doing?

Is this what Disney/ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Lifetime do?

Is this what Mediacom does to the end user?

If you want this problem to stop, write your congressman to get legislation for a la carte cable pricing…it would solve this whole mess.

By: don

don — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:10:12 +0000

i need to say if you get those 76 stations for 45 dollars a month you are still being taken . in waterloo its 58 dollars a month and 15 of those stations are useless and atleast 8 more are the same thing for weeks at a time . mediacom is a rip off .the sinclair deal is just another ploy to get more money for less service . let them close the doors . pack up and get out i for one am tired of being taken advantage of. if and when they offer something worth 60 dollars a month i still wouldnt go back to them for . t v

By: Even More on Mediacom Vs. Sinclair at T. Longren

Even More on Mediacom Vs. Sinclair at T. Longren — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:32:52 +0000

[...] My last post on this topic garnered quite a few comments. Geoff commented with some actual numbers about the deal: [...]

By: David

David — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:33:57 +0000

You folks all need to do some more research. This is not just Iowa. It reaches as far as Florida. Some areas CBS, some Fox, some ABC. McLeodUSA cable is also a local off shoot of McLeodUSA. Their main business is telecom and data services to businesses. The cable has been bought by former McLeodUSA president Steve Gray pending approval anyway. If Sinclair gets away with this cable rates could raise dramatically. Other large media moguls will jump on the bandwagon and soon for $50 bucks a month you’ll be back to watching 3 or 4 channels like the “old days”. I have no love for Mediacom and if Gray gets going I will switch but Sinclair SUCKS! They are trying to set a precedent and if they win watch your rates soar.

By: Jamon

Jamon — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:18:00 +0000

I just heard that kdsm is going to cut its advertising prices in half so that they can still gain support but i doubt it will work since over fifty percent of its viewers are on cable.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:28:49 +0000

I agree with the mediacom supporters. What Sinclair is trying to do is outrageous. I’m not PAYING FOR A FREE STATION on my cable bill. This is wrong and I hope mediacom holds out . In fact, maybe mediacom should refuse to carry them after this mess. Screw Sinclair!

By: Geoff

Geoff — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:42:58 +0000

Well, the other thing which you need to think about, not just with Sinclair, but with any other broadcast company, is are cable customers really paying for local broadcast networks? People get cable to get ESPN, the Disney Channel, HBO, etc. so it makes sense if they have to pay for those, but we tend not to get cable for stations that we can get with an antenae. For this reason, I think that the local affiliates should not be getting the same amount of money as any cable network gets. All Mediacom is doing with them is rebroadcasting a publicly broadcasted signal. Unlike with other networks, Mediacom doesn’t even get blank ad space with broadcast networks, so they can’t even sell ads like they can with cable networks, which helps them reduce some of the costs to customers. If they want an ad on a broadcast network, they have to pay for it.