This site has been published to bring to the attention of cable, satellite, and fiber TV service subscribers that LIN TV and others are currently trying to force these subscribers to pay for content that can be viewed FREELY using an antenna. Why do I think this is wrong? I'd be happy to share my opinions with you:

1. These stations have had non-paying agreements in the past. I think this is fair for both parties because cable, satellite, and fiber providers give these broadcast stations greater viewership which is invaluable to their sponsorship and advertising campaigns. Not having cable, satellite, and fiber broadcast agreements means less viewership and these stations will see their sponsorship and ad revenues dwindle to just about nothing. If anything, these broadcast stations should be paying the TV service providers for the valuable service of pushing their content to a greater number of people than would be possible if they were to revert to over-the-air transmission only.
   
2. I've heard station General Manager comments about wanting to be compensated like major cable networks (ie. ESPN, TNT, NICK, etc.). Truth is, for the most part, the only valuable content they have is local news. This should be done for public service, not for profit. But it's a business, and I understand that. A business that's been supported by sponsorships and advertising for a long time. If sponsorships and advertising isn't working for you anymore, then maybe you're doing something wrong. Besides, it's not like CNN is going to swoop in and start doing local news for every viewing market in the country and take viewership away from the local stations. I don't know about every LIN TV station, but our local WLUK in Green Bay broadcasts something like 3 hours of news every morning. But it's more like 15 minutes of news that's repeated over, and over, and over, and over for the whole 3 hours. Yeah, sure they do provide some other local content, but it would be hard to place them in a league anywhere near the likes of ESPN, TNT, NICK, etc to justify any sort of fee...besides, I'd suspect most viewers are watching the FOX network content more so than the local affiliate content. But I digress...The only way I would find it acceptable for these stations to charge money for news, is if other non-local viewing markets wanted to rebroadcast the content. For example, if for some reason, a cable provider in California wanted to rebroadcast Green Bay WLUK in their local market, then a fee to the California-based cable provider would be acceptable since the WLUK over-the-air signal isn't available in California.
   
3. With the economy in a free fall, EVERYBODY is feeling the pinch. Here on Main Street America, we don't have the luxury of passing the buck on to someone else. We have to work harder by doing more work to bring in more money or re-examine our budgets to cut out the things we don't need in order to make the budget work. What have YOU done, LIN TV and your local affiliate stations, to increase your sponsorship and ad revenues? What have YOU done, LIN TV and your local affiliate stations, to fix your budget expenses? Before passing the buck on to your viewers, surely you've lowered corporate executive and sales executive compensation (and I'm not talking about stock options here!) since it seems they haven't kept the business profits up like they were originally paid to do! Surely you've got smart people there to come up with some new innovative ways to generate revenue, rather than to pass the buck on to many of your viewers that could just as easily get your content for FREE over-the-air.

I've been accused of being a Time Warner Cable fanboy or employee, so now would also be a good time to set the record straight. Other than being an over-paying cable service subscriber, I am in no other way affiliated with any cable, satellite, or fiber provider and am in no way affiliated with any networks or broadcast stations. I actually work for a living, in a factory...5 to 6 days a week, 40, 50, and sometimes 60+ hours a week to make ends meet. Although it appears that I run a Time Warner Cable propaganda site, I am by no means on the side of companies like Time Warner Cable. But sometimes you have to temporarily side with the enemy to reach a common goal. I applaud them for drawing the line in the sand and not caving in (at least not yet) like other cable, satellite, and fiber providers have done rather easily. But the notion that they, Time Warner Cable, claim to be fighting this fight for their customers is not something I share. They too will be burdened with more work and expense if LIN TV and other companies and local broadcast stations start charging fees for their content. And I believe that is their real motivation...protecting their own bottom line, and if it just happens to protect mine too, it wasn't likely the primary goal. This extra work and expense on their part will translate into higher subscriber fees for already over-priced services. So in short, while I despise LIN TV for wanting to take my money for something they're giving away to my neighbor for free, I also despise the already high prices that have been the result of years of little or no competition in the cable industry.

REASONABLE SOLUTIONS:

1. If LIN TV and their local affiliate stations want to charge a fee for their content, then they should be forced to shut down their network affiliate stations' over-the-air transmitters and stop giving away that content for free!
2. Keep their current non-fee based agreements and restructure their management and sales executive positions. It's a tough economy, you can't afford to overpay employees that aren't performing and you if your ad sales have dropped by 50%, give the pink-slip to 50% of your sales executives and their staffs...you don't need twice as many people doing half as much work. At least, not at my expense buddy.
3. Keep their current non-fee based agreements, period. While I will concede that the local affiliate network stations have valuable content, I feel they are already adequately compensated by getting much higher viewership and clearer signals to more homes and businesses than would be possible with their over-the-air transmitters. The sponsorship and ad revenues that account for the majority of their income is a direct result of the valuable service that these cable, satellite, and fiber providers offer them without fee. Maybe these service providers should charge LIN TV the same fee for the privilege of using their cable, satellite, and fiber networks to carry their broadcasts and advertising.
4. Why don't you network affiliates ask your parent network for a handout instead of stepping on the backs of your loyal viewers. If you're a local FOX affiliate, tell FOX you need more money. Isn't it in their best interest to keep you in business so you can keep broadcasting their network shows and network advertising?

NOT MY FIRST CHOICE, BUT TOLERABLE SOLUTIONS:

1. If cable, satellite, and fiber providers want to bow down to the likes of LIN TV, then the local affiliate channels need to be provided separately in their own fee based channel package. If a customer wants to save a few bucks and get the local affiliate channels over-the-air, then they should be allowed to do so without having a single fraction of a penny of their TV service provider bill going to any local affiliate. If a customer wants the convenience of not having to deal with an antenna, then they can pay extra for that convenience. I've heard, but haven't confirmed, that at least one satellite provider does provide a discount if you choose to not receive the local network affiliate stations. If local channels, that were free, become fee-based, then all providers need to do this. I would suspect the little revenue the network affiliates do get from their fee would not even be close to offsetting the sponsorship and advertising losses due to lower viewership as a result of alienating their previously loyal viewers. You know, WLUK in Green Bay used some crappy water analogy on their web site to make it look like what they are asking for is fair. Here is a water analogy for YOU, WLUK, that makes it appear like you are NOT fair or balanced: If some company were sending out bottled water for FREE to anyone who asked, why would I want to pay ANY money for the exact same product from somebody else...Are you kidding me? Who wouldn't choose FREE?

If you can think of any more possible fair and balanced solutions that don't involve adding fees for loyal network affiliate TV station viewers, email them to Fair & Balanced.

One more quick note: This site does not and will not contain any banner ads or any other type of ads, absolutely no pop-ups or pop-unders, and will never contain any kind of links promoting any particular cable, satellite, or fiber TV service provider, or any other type of service or product. I'm a working class television viewer already paying too much for my service like so many of you. I'm not a profiteer looking to make a quick buck during hard times at your expense, like some other people would.