Statement from Dish Network on Young Broadcasting Removal

[M Sparks]

Bottom line is this a business. If you owned a business and gave away pay raises just cause your employees wanted them everytime, you would be out of business. You have to play hardball gents...

The real bottom line...what are the OTHER affiliates getting?

If there's 300 ABC & NBC stations up getting 25 cents each, and Young wants 30 cents for no good reason, then screw em.

If, for example, ABC forced DISH to pay 30 cents for the ABC O&Os as part of negotiations for ESPN, and NBC is getting 30 cents for O&Os in exchange for USA, ect...than Young would have every right to ask for more. They are offering the same product, and it's not their fault they don't have anything to hold DISH for extortion.

I'm betting the former is true though.

[mike123abc]

If a station elects must carry, they are responsible for getting the signal to the point of presense (POP) of the satellite company. If they elect to be compensated a station and the satellite company work out a deal as to what is to be paid and how the signal gets to the POP (i.e. the satellite company might run a fiber link to the station).

Cable companies have these disputes all the time, they are just usually not negotiated nationally and never seen. TWC had a dispute a couple years ago with a local station in my area and dropped the channel for a while. No one outside of my market heard of it since I am in a DMA in the 140s. Yes you might here about it if a major in a top 10 were having a dispute with cable, but for the most part you never here of it.

[BobMurdoch]

Another post-chat negative surprise.....

OK, so they want a penny a day... meanwhile Charlie sells us our local markets for 20 cents a day. Is it just me or is anyone having a tough time embracing Charlie's side when he is making a 100-200% markup (OK, knock off some of that for wiring and uplink expenses)?

[navychop]

I think there SHOULD be a standard compensation rate for OTA stations. ZERO. They provide the signal OTA for free, and they get paid by advertisers based on homes reached & viewers. Satcos and cablecos do them a favor by increasing their potential audience, thereby increasing their advertising revenues.

Otherwise, we'll have more and more "phony" OTA stations, ones that broadcast a miserable weak OTA signal, and really look toward a satellite and cable audience.

[Greg Bimson]

I think there SHOULD be a standard compensation rate for OTA stations. ZERO. They provide the signal OTA for free, and they get paid by advertisers based on homes reached & viewers. Satcos and cablecos do them a favor by increasing their potential audience, thereby increasing their advertising revenues.

Yet if it weren't for the OTA stations on satellite, people would flee faster than those that left the Titanic.

If Dish Network and DirecTV dropped local stations, subscribers would leave in droves.

Now who is more dependent upon having the local stations?

[ScoBuck]

I think there SHOULD be a standard compensation rate for OTA stations. ZERO. They provide the signal OTA for free, and they get paid by advertisers based on homes reached & viewers. Satcos and cablecos do them a favor by increasing their potential audience, thereby increasing their advertising revenues.

Otherwise, we'll have more and more "phony" OTA stations, ones that broadcast a miserable weak OTA signal, and really look toward a satellite and cable audience.

I don't agree totally. The reason that the pay-providers offer locals is to get customers. Without locals, they would have Millions of fewer subs, and thus hundreds of millions LESS revenues and profits. I think the 'favor' clearly works BOTH ways.

[pabeader]

Yet if it weren't for the OTA stations on satellite, people would flee faster than those that left the Titanic.

If Dish Network and DirecTV dropped local stations, subscribers would leave in droves.

Now who is more dependent upon having the local stations?

put down the crack pipe and step away.

[Greg Bimson]

put down the crack pipe and step away.

Statement from Dish Network Senior Counsel David Moskowitz

, during the 2004 hearings to reauthorize the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, page 46 (pay close attention to the last paragraph):

The satellite operators that SBCA represents provide the most advanced television choices in the multichannel video market, including high-definition television, personal video recorders and interactive services. The benefit of satellite-delivered technology like DBS is that it can reach consumers across the country without discriminating between rural and urban, sparsely or densely populated areas. Currently, nearly 22 million U.S. households receive television programming via satellite, from both direct broadcast satellite (DBS) and C-Band operators. To illustrate the tremendous growth of satellite television and DBS in particular, the last time this Subcommittee met to discuss the reauthorization of the SHVA, in 1999, there were 13 million satellite subscribers, over 10 million of whom subscribed to DBS. In five years, that number has more than doubled. Despite the emergence and continuing growth of DBS in the multichannel video marketplace, cable operators still serve 75% of multichannel video subscribers. Many factors have contributed to the growth of DBS in the multichannel video market, including the superior customer service, competitive pricing and the wide range of programming offered by DBS operators.

The growth that DBS has experienced, and the resulting benefit to consumers, is due in large part to the support the industry has received from Congress. Throughout the 16-year SHVA reauthorization process, Congress has recognized satellite's potential and the need to amend the Act to accommodate our technological innovations and new marketplace realities. The 1999 Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) was no exception. The provision allowing DBS providers for the first time to retransmit local broadcast stations was certainly a catalyst for the industry's recent growth.

Congress' decision to allow DBS providers to offer local-into-local service, and the subsequent roll out of that service by DBS providers, continues to be a principal reason that customers subscribe to DBS. This permanent statutory provision has given DBS providers the ability to compete with cable head-to-head, on a level playing field, in many markets.

Subscribers doubled in a four year period, from the very end of 1999 to the very beginning of 2004.

Welcome back to reality.

[ScoBuck]

Greg - you are 100% correct. The satcos owe hundreds of millions of dollars of their revenue and profit to being ALLOWED to offer locals-in-locals and take away millions of cable subs. That's right ALLOWED to offer lils. They had a much slower growth pattern prior to 1999 when the law was changed to allow them this right.

There are very many articles on this topic for anyone wanting to google it.

[Airblair]

What about KRON? It's not a "major 4". (I looked it up...Young IS mainly big networks, but not all.)

This is generally true, but it's not just "major 4". I'm sure there are other stations getting paid.

KRON, in San Francisco, is an interesting example of Young Broadcasting's business strategy.

By "Young Broadcasting's business strategy" I mean "Young Broadcasting's self-destructive penchant for douchebaggery".

KRON was the local NBC affiliate until Young decided to try to play hardball with NBC. I forget exactly what stunt they were trying, but basically it was something that was unheard of in the history of network-affiliate relations.

The end result is that KNBC is now the Bay Area's NBC affiliate and KRON is an unwatchable dumping ground for crap reruns and cheap local programming.



I have zero problems with believing this is Young Broadcasting's fault.


And I NEVER have a problem with Dish playing hardball while attempting to keep my bill as low as possible.