Maybe it's because I'm sleepy, but I don't see anything in the link you provided that says DBS operators need to "negotiate in good faith for all channels in a market" if they want to carry one of them. It does say if DBS carries one station in a market, they need to carry all "requesting local broadcast stations". Isn't that "must carry"? So if the DBS operator wants to carry NBC and negotiates retrans fees for them, the CBS can say "you must carry us". While the DBS does have to, I thought when a station elected to claim "must carry", they can't then charge retrans fees. Which is what I said in my earlier post.
I also find it interesting that you say the business decisions between a local broadcaster and a program provider aren't the governments business, but you want the government to step in between the business decision between the local broadcaster and the MVPD.
Personally, I can get behind the theory of government setting retrans rates. On the other hand, what other businesses do government get to set the prices for?
I'm thinking what you and Chad are saying are both correct, but it's the reality that is different.
DISH can decide not to carry any locals in a Market if they so choose.
DISH can not negotiate with just one of the big four, it's all or none. There is an important element not mentioned. If DISH negotiates with the one or two networks they want, they must negotiate
in good faith with them all. That little phrase in practice eliminates the need for the other networks to have to go to must carry for no cost DISH can't simply say we are not carrying your network (if they have negotiated with even one) and then force the others to declare must carry.
Because of that protection given the big four, a protection not given to other networks providers are instantly at a disadvantage. (DISH can negotiate with Disney and not Viacom if they choose) So we get the cat and mouse game of who loses the most besides the subscriber when a big four network is not carried over a dispute the provider or the network.
As I think about it, maybe the FCC should invoke a rule (If they are going to be inserting their rules anyway) that the network can not force the provider to take the network off over a dispute, and the provider must continue to carry it at the current cost. At some determined point the FCC arbitrates. They give the network the option to declare must carry for a year, or they and the provider must accept the arbitrated one year contract cost. Because of the carry one carry all rule protection given, I would not allow one network to withhold their programming. It has to work both ways.