Cox, Raycom in talks on WAFB dispute

WAFB-TV owner Raycom Media Inc. and Cox Communications continued negotiations Wednesday on a deal to return CBS and other programming to the company’s local lineup.

Cox said Raycom is requesting an unreasonable amount of money to carry its programming: about 200 percent more than Cox had been paying for programming “available for free over the air.”

Raycom pulled its programming on Tuesday. That affected WAFB/CBS-Channel 7; WAFB HD/CBS-Channel 1007; WBXH/MyNetwork-Channel 16; and WAFB/Bounce TV-Channel 121 in Baton Rouge.

In a statement on its website, WAFB said consumers pay 100 percent of their cable bills so they deserve 100 percent of their channels from Cox.

“Cox’s claim that Raycom is asking for an unreasonable rate increase is misleading. In fact, the increase Raycom is seeking amounts to less than 2 cents a day per household,” according to WAFB.

In the meantime, WAFB is available on all other local TV providers, according to the station. The channel is also free over the air.

WAFB newscasts are available on Cox Channel 9, which is covered by a separate agreement.

In addition to the Baton Rouge area, Raycom pulled programming in the Franklin/Patterson areas and in the Lake Charles area: KPLC/NBC-Channel 7, KPLC HD/NBC-Channel 1007 and KPLC/Bounce TV-Channel 130.

Raycom has stations in Louisiana, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Arizona.

Comments

1) Comment by tradewinns - 03/01/2013

cox should give us something besides the advertisement to justify their position.

2) Comment by dexware - 03/01/2013

ClayJar: but the silver lining in all this due to the flea power of WAFB, it has definitely made a few OTA installers more money. There aren't many in the first place but several probably would be doing other work if it wasn't for WAFB's low power situation that requires some professional attention.

3) Comment by dexware - 03/01/2013

ClayJar: trust me I understand VHF/UHF. We had nothing but issues when they went to channel 46 again with flea power 46kw during the transition. Then I knew it was going to be a nightmare when I saw the plans for 5.5kw on VHF 9. Really?!? WBRZ does 30kw on 13 VHF and even KPLC (Raycom as well) was smart enough to realize they needed 60kw on 7 to make it. Channel 10 on RF10 was in Lafayette was also smart enough to crank out at least 20kw. I've set up many antennas across the BR area. WAFB is ALWAYS a problem with just about every one of them. That station alone requires special needs on most setups. Sometimes I've given up and came up with a solution to get KLFY channel 10 out of Lafayette or WWL out of New Orleans. Even WVUE was smart enough and listened to their OTA customers and abandoned their attempts to go back to RF 8 even at a higher power than 5.5kw. It just didn't work. ATSC should not have been allowed to be used on VHF at all, but it is what is.

4) Comment by mwebster - 03/01/2013

I'm furius about losing my cbs network and local news on wafb. I have contacted wafb management and they have taken my calls and answered an email. but it seems like local management is not in charge of negoations. I found this info on google from national association of broadcasters: Raycom Media Inc. Paul M McTear, President and CEO, [e-mail], [phone] also looks like raycom is owned by the retirement system of alabama (another reason to dislike alabama). David G Bronner is CEO, [e-mail], [phone], or tollfree 877-517-0020 I am emailing each of these CEOs asking them to end this ridiculous standoff. Please feel free to add your voice.

5) Comment by ClayJar - 03/01/2013

dexware: The problem with WAFB's OTA signal isn't the power. It actually comes in perfectly fine, but only if you have a VHF antenna. During the DTV transition, all our local stations moved their broadcasts to physical channels in the UHF range. (DTV allows a channel to call itself one channel when it's actually on a different RF channel, e.g. "Channel Five" could actually be on RF channel 17.) Unfortunately for OTA viewers, when the DTV transition was complete, WAFB moved back to RF channel 9, a *VHF* channel, while every other local station maintained their presence in or near the UHF bands (WBRZ, channel two, is on RF channel 13 at the top of the VHF band, so it seems to come through acceptably well with a UHF antenna). To receive WAFB, you need to use an antenna that receives the VHF band, which many "digital" antennas do not. (On one TV, I use an ancient set of rabbit ears to pull in WAFB, and it works quite well.) Get a VHF/UHF antenna, and your WAFB reception should improve considerably -- assuming you orient the VHF antenna correctly using the tried and true "move it around until it works best" method.

6) Comment by NewsReader - 03/01/2013

I hope Cox tells them to shove it. Raycom like all other local stations makes its money from advertising. They're an OTA station. What makes them think they should get higher fees to be carried by cable/satellite etc? The higher their popularity, the more they generate in advertising revenue. Simple business plan. Why should they earn additional funds for doing nothing? According to non-enforced FCC regulations, channels supporting themselves through advertising revenue are supposed to be free of charge.

7) Comment by dexware - 03/01/2013

Once one station does it, all of them do it. I think it's great Cox is standing up to Raycom. How much higher do you want your bill to go? WAFB/Raycom should appreciate what Cox brings to the table as it allows thousands of homes to view their programming. Of course it is available for FREE in HD over the air with an antenna. And actually the quality over the air is better than what you get with Cox HD. But alas WAFB is by far one of the worst stations to tune over the air due to their choice of a very low powered signal. Some call it flea powered. To answer someone else about bringing in another CBS, you can't legally do that. WAFB holds the rights here and it would be in violation of the FCC rules set forth by your wonderful government. So in the meantime, hook up a set of rabbit ears and watch WAFB over the air. Or just cancel Cox and move to another provider that is cheaper and doesn't have 10+ yr old ancient receivers.

8) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 03/01/2013

I think if you left it to the viewers they would gladly pay the $7.00 a year to get their programing back, I for one would. It is ironic that when I got my new Cox bill yesterday my new rates starting next month were going to be $4.10 more a month without any additional services, and yet Cox is playing word games with a $7.00 per year increase? I think we are being used as pawns, oops a Big Brother term we won't be seeing again. I think the new City Council needs to pull these yokels in and straighten this mess out. I really believe that this was conceived to take place when most shows are in reruns and it will be resolved before next week. Chirp

9) Comment by AnewKINDofFEELIN - 02/01/2013

"In fact, the increase Raycom is seeking amounts to less than 2 cents a day per household" is such a misleading statement. What percentage does that increase amount to? That's $7 per household per year. If we're only talking 100,000 households, that's $700,000 per year. Also, those rates are not their only source of revenue. I'd bet most of their revenue is ad-generated.

10) Comment by tradewinns - 02/01/2013

redavaw1, sometimes you have to watch abbreviations. i used the short word for adult entertainment and got bounced. i wonder why cox cain't broadcast another cbs station they have an agreement with nearby so the CUSTOMER isn't cheated out of seeing the cbs comedys on monday/thursday night. i don't know why the cbs station in a nearby community would object; or even one from new york. i hope my gators aren't playing on cbs stations.

11) Comment by redavaw1 - 02/01/2013

What did I say?

12) Comment by redavaw1 - 02/01/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

13) Comment by LSUalum08 - 02/01/2013

Greedy much?

14) Comment by BoiledCrabs - 02/01/2013

I stopped subscribing to Cox some years ago when it got to the point that they were running more than thirty percent commercials. Why pay all that money to watch a minute of commmercials for every two minutes of programming? They should pay us to watch all those commercials.