— 2008-12-31 12:00: Update: I have come to an “understanding” with KAKE’s station manager, so I will not be forced to remove Channel 10 from the lineups at midnight tonight. I agreed to pay them what they’re asking, and they agreed to extend the negotiations to remove some unduly burdensome language from the contract. The messages I documented, below — which were uncalled-for and unnecessary — have been removed from KAKE’s on-air schedule and web site.I very much regret the confusion they caused among some of my subscribers, especially with the digital transition so close at hand. Just to be really, super, mega clear, this issue was not related to the digital transition in February, and, the digital transition will not cause you to lose any channels you currently receive.
As I’ve discussed with customers, city council members, and others... the local television stations, realizing that they essentially hold all the cards, have decided that the mandatory carriage on cable that they’ve enjoyed for years under “must carry” is not enough… no, now they want money… from me (which really means from you, my subscribers – after all, the cable company doesn’t have any other source of income… just “subscriber revenues” – a sanitized way of saying, “your money”) for the privilege of having their signals on the cable system.
Never mind the fact that you can get them with an antenna for free.
Never mind that cable makes it more convenient for you to receive their signals.
They know they’ve got the goods and they want us to pony up the dough.
Fine. I’m not an unreasonable person. Realizing that I’m over a barrel – it’s not illegal, after all, for them to demand payment, and it doesn’t seem like I have much (if anything) in the way of alternatives… so I made it my business to attempt to negotiate the best deal possible from them, for you.
…even though I’m feeling like David, but without the benefit of the slingshot.
Fortunately, some of the stations have been somewhat reasonable in their dealings with me on this. I have arrangements with some of the stations, and although I don’t think any payment is fair or appropriate, at least the personnel involved were cordial and acted as if they were negotiating in good faith.
The same thing can’t exactly be said for KAKE-TV.
You tell me if this is negotiating in good faith. I’ve communicated with them several times, at least once including a list of questions and discussion points (hey, I thought we were negotiating) and at least once with a marked-up copy of their proposed agreement, including requests for clarification. None of these drew any cogent responses – all I ever really got was a restatement of their original proposal; no explanations, no discussion.
Responding both to the rapid approach of January 1, 2009, and a letter I received – the tone of which implied that I had not been attempting to “negotiate” all along – I spoke to the station manager yesterday – one of numerous contacts I’ve made and attempted to make – and made him an offer.
I let him know that I did not believe this to be a fair price – I believed it to be more-than-fair, but in the interest of moving ahead, this was my (most recent) counter-offer and was one that I would stand by, even though I didn’t like it. Further, I gave him a very specific, numeric explanation of how I had arrived at that offer.
Today, at 2:19pm, I received an e-mail. Because I am not a vindictive person, I have removed the contact details… but you will get the idea.
From: {administrative assistant}
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:19 PM
To: 'Michael Ezzell [BSC]'
Cc: {station manager}
Just want to let you know we have received approval for {{ price }} for your retransmission agreement.
{{ signature }}
{{ direct phone number }}
That’s all well and good, except for the fact that the price was over 125% of the price I proposed yesterday. So they got approval… but not for what I counter-offered them. Personally, I would have preferred to at least have them say, “we’re sorry, we can’t meet your proposal, but here is our next offer.”
The problem is, they really don’t seem to see it this way. They do not appear to be interested in “negotiating.”
If this were all there was to my grief, you could probably still see both sides. But given the fact that – at least as far as I can tell – the “negotiations” are still underway, what follows is wholly inappropriate.
I received a call from one of my subscribers, saying there was a message on Channel 10 about how the station might not be available on Blue Sky Cable. At first, I thought it was a message related to the digital transition in February. But no, it wasn’t... it was quite specific.
This was tonight at 6:16pm on the 6:00 news. In case you can’t see the video, it says:
**** If you are a Blue Sky Cable subscriber, you may not receive KAKE-TV after 12/31/08. To ensure that you will continue to receive KAKE-TV’s news, weather and programming, call DirecTV at 1-888-777-2454 or DISH network at 1-888-825-2557. ****
Now this, my friends, falls outside the bounds of good faith negotiations.
If KAKE-TV is not on Blue Sky Cable after 12/31/08, it will not be because Blue Sky Cable refused to come to the table and wash their feet.
Surely I can’t be the only cable company that hasn’t acceded to their demands. Could I?No. From the KAKE-TV web site:
“If you are a Blue Sky Cable, Epic Touch, Pioneer Communications or United Comm cable subscriber, you may not receive KAKE or KUPK after 12/31/08. To ensure that you will continue to receive KAKE/KUPK's news, weather and programming, call DirecTV at 1-888-777-2454 or DISH Network at 1-888-825-2557”
(You can click the image at the right to see what their web site looked like when this entry was posted.)
Oh… well, how about that? It appears I’m not the only cable company that they’ve failed to reach an agreement with. For whatever reason, they’ve decided I need to be made an example of, on-the-air, I suppose. The implication of the message on the screen is that they know something about Blue Sky Cable that my customers don’t know. I resent that implication.
Let’s be super, super, clear about this: one party to these negotiations – Blue Sky Cable – has been attempting to negotiate to avoid a disruption and to avoid a rate increase. The other party has been ... not. I frankly am shocked by this kind of hardball over a few dollars a month.
Also to be clear: I do not have any desire to drop Channel 10 if we can reach something resembling a fair agreement. On the other hand, I will have a technician on hand at 11:59pm in both Bentley and Marquette to flip the appropriate switches as circumstances dictate.
— 2008-12-30 22:10: ETA: Ironically, nobody in Marquette has seen these messages... not for the last several hours, anyway... Channel 10 was off the cable due to a failed demodulator. Tech went out and replaced it a few minutes ago.
