Mediacom
- Thread starter cycloneworld
- Start date
Goodbye FOX and hello the local Mediacom channel (also on channel 22). I was hoping they were going to replace Fox with the Playboy channel but I guess I'm out of luck ... darn it. I will have to watch Fox in HD OTA, oh darn :biggrin9gp:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070106/BUSINESS/701060348/1001
I would be curious if Mr. Purcell or Mr. Commisso, or Mr. Larsen have a dish on their house? Purcell lives in Urbandale and Larsen in Clive. Both have some pretty nice houses according to the Polk County assessor's website. Purcell's is assessed at over $206,000 and Larsen's nearly $497,000. I doubt either need fatter wallets nor any other big wigs for Mediacom. Mediacom is going to feel the hit if as many subsciber's quit as I think they are.
A couple years ago they refused to strike a deal with ComCast sports for the Cubs games when they switched from FSN and I know of some sports fans that switched then too. Losing a major network like FOX I'm sure frustrated a lot more people this time around.
I would be curious if Mr. Purcell or Mr. Commisso, or Mr. Larsen have a dish on their house? Purcell lives in Urbandale and Larsen in Clive. Both have some pretty nice houses according to the Polk County assessor's website. Purcell's is assessed at over $206,000 and Larsen's nearly $497,000. I doubt either need fatter wallets nor any other big wigs for Mediacom. Mediacom is going to feel the hit if as many subsciber's quit as I think they are.
A couple years ago they refused to strike a deal with ComCast sports for the Cubs games when they switched from FSN and I know of some sports fans that switched then too. Losing a major network like FOX I'm sure frustrated a lot more people this time around.
Dude, 206k for a house anymore is NOT that nice of a house. It is below average. 497K is nice, but not a mansion. We were just looking at new houses and 350K will just not get you that much anymore
That's assessed value. They always sell for more. That's probably around a 250k home I bet which I could no way afford.
Might as well jump in on the Mediacom bashing. For starters, I have had DirecTV for about 6 years and couldn't be happier. As mentioned before, the bang for the buck is certainly there. You get more channels for less money than with Mediacom, and they are all digital so the picture quality is much better.
Unfortunately, this is not an option at my Ames apartment so I now have Mediacom. To those wondering about the 20% discount, the key thing that you have to mention is that you are going to drop Mediacom for satellite. Without saying you are considering dropping the service, you won't get it. The service rep actually told me this when I called to try it. The discount is good for 4 months, and I don't believe that this is necessarily tied to the Fox issue. I did this about 6 weeks ago. I think it is just a general policy used for customer retention. I would switch if I could, but if not, might as well not pay full price.
Unfortunately, this is not an option at my Ames apartment so I now have Mediacom. To those wondering about the 20% discount, the key thing that you have to mention is that you are going to drop Mediacom for satellite. Without saying you are considering dropping the service, you won't get it. The service rep actually told me this when I called to try it. The discount is good for 4 months, and I don't believe that this is necessarily tied to the Fox issue. I did this about 6 weeks ago. I think it is just a general policy used for customer retention. I would switch if I could, but if not, might as well not pay full price.
I've used both (not sure if it was the DirectTV Hr10-250) and Dish is way better. DirectTV's is slow and makes a stupid beeping noise every time you move the channel guide.
If you have use to an area that you have exclusive use to, like a deck or patio, don't let your landlord push you around as you have the right to a dish.
I honestly don't think you'll be seeing $inclair owned stations on Mediacom anytime soon. I work in contracts and binding arbitration is a last ditched effort to save a business relationship in a payment dispute like what we have between Mediacom & $inclair and with $inclair thumbing their nose to binding arbitration, if their motives weren't already exposed, they are now.
Last edited:
You can turn that off in the settings menu. The guide is no longer slow like it used to be once the tivo 6 software came down about 6 months ago.
When this whole spat started, I sided with Mediacom on it, however, has this "saga" doesn't seem to end anytime soon and with Mediacom constanly getting our elected officals invovled in the dispute, the more i'm beginning to side with Sinclair in the matter.
Not to mention, i've been reading comments from Mediacom's CEO in industry publications and he's sounding like a 2 year old not getting his way.
Qwest had an insert in yesterday's paper advertising their HSI, phone (including unlimited nation wide long distance), and DirecTV service for $90 a month, sounds pretty tempting if you ask me.
Not to mention, i've been reading comments from Mediacom's CEO in industry publications and he's sounding like a 2 year old not getting his way.
Qwest had an insert in yesterday's paper advertising their HSI, phone (including unlimited nation wide long distance), and DirecTV service for $90 a month, sounds pretty tempting if you ask me.
Last edited:
If they ever settle this no one comes out winners. Mediacom loses many customers, Sinclair doesn't get as much money as they wanted, and the Mediacom subscribers that stuck with them will probably be greated with a price increase to cover the costs.
Regardless of what happens, somebody is going to be stuck with the bill to pay for all of those "free" rabbit ears, and it's certainly not going to be Mediacom themselves.
I talked to one of the cable installers I know last week to see if this was going to be setled by the time the super bowl comes along. And he had no idea. He told me that they have made 5 different offers to sinclair over the period of time, each more then they were getting paid before, but sinclair won't budge on the price they want for their services.
From articles I have read sinclair is entering these types of disputes with comcast and turner as well. Both much larger then mediacom.
One of those will be losing sinclair stations at the end of this month the other is in march or april.
So I think after hearing all this I still need to side with mediacom on this issue, it just seems that Sinclair is trying to set a new precident in the business and no one wants to do what they are doing.
I assume Dish and direct TV both went through simular disputes with sinclair to get their channels in their line ups, so they think they can stick it to the cable companies as well.
From articles I have read sinclair is entering these types of disputes with comcast and turner as well. Both much larger then mediacom.
One of those will be losing sinclair stations at the end of this month the other is in march or april.
So I think after hearing all this I still need to side with mediacom on this issue, it just seems that Sinclair is trying to set a new precident in the business and no one wants to do what they are doing.
I assume Dish and direct TV both went through simular disputes with sinclair to get their channels in their line ups, so they think they can stick it to the cable companies as well.
I think you're right. Sinclair isn't likely to settle with the smallest of the cable companies and set a price precedent with the larger.
The other thing that makes Mediacom look good is the fact they've offered to enter into binding arbritation and Sinclair has refused.
Can anybody explain why they can't pipe in a new Fox broadcast somewhere. Sinclair ISN'T synonomous with Fox. In fact, I think in NE Iowa they've lost a CBS station, and I think Alabama communities have lost ABC affiliates. I know in DBQ they're piping in a CBS station from Madison.
I would think Fox would be torked over losing such markets, especially this time of year. But then again, the affiliate thing might make them powerless in such issues.
The other thing that makes Mediacom look good is the fact they've offered to enter into binding arbritation and Sinclair has refused.
Can anybody explain why they can't pipe in a new Fox broadcast somewhere. Sinclair ISN'T synonomous with Fox. In fact, I think in NE Iowa they've lost a CBS station, and I think Alabama communities have lost ABC affiliates. I know in DBQ they're piping in a CBS station from Madison.
I would think Fox would be torked over losing such markets, especially this time of year. But then again, the affiliate thing might make them powerless in such issues.
Well this is what I was told, is that when the viewership to a certain station is above a certain % then only that station can be showed in that city. So in cedar rapids where I am KGAN is top dog for CBS they can't bring in another CBS station but in Iowa City where KGAN was also the CBS provider, since it was below a certain % they were able to give them the quad cities CBS affiliate not owned by Sinclair.
I assume the same would be used in the des moines area
I assume the same would be used in the des moines area
"Can anybody explain why they can't pipe in a new Fox broadcast somewhere. "
I believe that Sinclair owns the broadcast rights to Fox in central Iowa. That is why mediacom is unable to legally bring in a Fox broadcast from a different provider. It all depends who own the broadcast rights for a station in a given area.
Then again I could be wrong about the actual legalize.
I believe that Sinclair owns the broadcast rights to Fox in central Iowa. That is why mediacom is unable to legally bring in a Fox broadcast from a different provider. It all depends who own the broadcast rights for a station in a given area.
Then again I could be wrong about the actual legalize.
Both sides are losing out on dollars here. Sinclair not getting money from Mediacom being the station is no longer on their cable network.
Mediacom seeing customers go elsewhere in droves because they can't get Fox.
It smells of big egos on both sides not willing to make any compromise. The whole thing is just foolish.
Mediacom seeing customers go elsewhere in droves because they can't get Fox.
It smells of big egos on both sides not willing to make any compromise. The whole thing is just foolish.
I, for one, hope that Mediacom does not cave in to Sinclair. The thought of me paying Mediacom to get KDSM on my cable is ridiculous, since I know I can get KDSM's signal for free. Its part of a package deal, I realize, but I don't want my bill going up solely because Sinclair is trying to strong-arm all of these cable operators into paying more for the product that they paid for. Other than their News at Nine, what does KDSM produce and broadcast from in-house? Can't think of anything else. Hell, they do all that over in Cedar Rapids, anyway! They don't even originate their broadcast from here in Des Moines!
In Omaha my RCA indoor power antenna pulls in at least 6 HD and others at 1080 dpi. 720. 480 dpi/ local channels: (PBS IOWA (2 channels) , pbs NEBRASKA PBS (up to 6 channels), FOX (3 channels), abc(3 channels including weather), NBC (3 channels), CBS old Warner (1 channel), new Warner (2 channels), and Azteca. That is not bad for a $35 antenna with low expectations from 12 miles away facing the wrong side of the house. A long way to say buy an antenna for HD, scan during the day during better reception for the LCD TV, and then be surprised what the local companies are not sending you through cable or satellite. If you have problems, take the antenna back.
I was curious how well those indoor HD antenna's work. From most accounts that I have heard, in order to get most of them you need a attic or roof antenna.
If the indoor ones do work well enough does anyone have a suggestion on which on to buy?
If the indoor ones do work well enough does anyone have a suggestion on which on to buy?
