Import Distant Networks?
- Thread starter Tampa8
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 153
- Views 12K
I'm not sure. I know in my area, Dish & Direct subscriber numbers exploded once LiL was offered. Are they making money from whatever they charge for the locals? Maybe not. But I do think if the locals weren't offered, subscriber numbers would drop even more. Also, multiply even the small amount of profit/subscriber by the number of subscribers, and I'm guessing it would be a pretty big number.
Exactly. Arguing if they made a profit when the charged for locals is moot. It's been so long since there was a separate line item there's no way to tell now. Whatever small percentage of folks still grandfathered in to the locals credit is probably trivial to the bottom line. Having locals = more subs = more profits, at least as long as the locals are not so expensive they eat into the overall profits.
I think part of what accompanied the switch from stand-alone to bundled was also the switch from per-local-package-sub to all-in-the-dma retrans fee structure, probably with a lower per user price. With virtually all new sub getting locals, it was probably a short-term windfall for the Sat providers. In hindsight, maybe they would have been better off keeping it a separate line item and easier to adjust per market.
Tampa8
Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Original poster
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Yes, DISH realized the importance of LIL a long time ago and was at the forefront to get them on satellite. But it's a two way street the locals need the cable and satellite providers also even more so since going digital.
I'm sure you know but that has to do with St Joe being a short market technically. ABC has the rights in the St Joe area but CBS has them in KC. So you're lucky. You get the game on 2 stations.
There are a few spots in Northern Minnesota that **use** to be the same way. They got NBC from Minneapolis (which had the Vikes pre-season games...they were the "mothership") and ABC from Duluth (which was the rights carrier there). Thats done this year as FOX Minneapolis has them now
The point is the MVPD's greatly supported the floated idea of offering LIL's as a la carte with the local stations setting the price and receiving 100% of that monthly charge, meaning that MVPD's would make absolutely nothing for providing the LIL's. This means that MVPD's are willing to make no money on LIL's so long as it ends the current system of negotiating re-transmission agreements that do indeed cost the MVPD's a ton of money.
Tampa8
Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Original poster
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
It would appear this is not going away. Exclusivity may actually end. Naturally not historic or as important, but this is almost like the Berlin Wall coming down.....
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/88624/fccs-lake-time-for-exclusivity-rules-to-go
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/88624/fccs-lake-time-for-exclusivity-rules-to-go
"NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said Wheeler is on a "singular crusade" to eliminate the rules despite the harm it will do to local broadcasting. "Neither he nor...Lake has identified any consumer benefit to eliminating the rules. And just last year Congress included broadcast exclusivity protections in the DBS context in satellite TV legislation"
How about the fact that now blackouts will no longer affect the consumer, and fair prices will be forced to be reached. Major players such as Sinclair and MEdia General can no longer hold stations hostage and blame the provider. Now they will have to provide facts as to why they are no longer being included.
How about the fact that now blackouts will no longer affect the consumer, and fair prices will be forced to be reached. Major players such as Sinclair and MEdia General can no longer hold stations hostage and blame the provider. Now they will have to provide facts as to why they are no longer being included.
As I recall from other articles, many of the local station retransmission contracts contain their own exclusivity protections, so even if the FCC rules go away, the contractual restrictions would still prevent bringing in out of market locals. And if the FCC rules do go away, I'd expect the remaining contracts would include those protections at the next renewal.
Tampa8
Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Original poster
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
I would expect the opposite. Think about it. If the local insists on exclusivity and DISH can not come to an agreement, there would be nothing from the FCC stopping DISH from importing a replacement till it made it's way through court.
That's a good point unless the exclusivity provisions are already in the existing contract. Most retransmission agreements are settled prior to expiration of the current agreement. Also keep in mind the out of market station would have to agree to be brought in and may have its own exclusivity provisions to consider. Dropping the FCC rules would certainly give the MVPD's a bit more negotiating power, but probably not quite as much as we as consumers would hope for.
Are you saying the station threatening the blackout? If so, when their contracts expire, so does the exclusivity clause. Out of market locals would likely encourage carriage in these cases, if it upped their revenue. More subscribers more money. Remember, they get paid per sub.
Tampa8
Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Original poster
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Another thought, if a local can not come to terms and the process of stopping the use of out of market replacements is no longer immediately prohibited, what kind of risk is the local taking in going to Court including Court costs? What if they lose, it would seem they could be off that Cable\Satellite system unless or until that system decides to agree unless they agree to be carried free. (The must carry if the local requests)
A valid point is will out of market channels agree to be carried? That's tricky. They could all stick together and refuse or some could see it as found money.
One thing that helps to stop all of this just hasn't happened yet. Two or three different Cable or Satellite systems have to decide we just are not paying more and let the Station not be on their system. Locals can not be off their local Cable network and even one of the Satellite providers at the same time.
As long as we may be on a roll of reform, that brings me to another thing. They need to change the rule about charging to be carried or being carried for free. (Must carry) They now have to decide every three years. But in addition the Station should have to make a choice and that choice is for all providers. If they decide to be carried free for one provider it must be free for all and I don't believe that is the case now.
A valid point is will out of market channels agree to be carried? That's tricky. They could all stick together and refuse or some could see it as found money.
One thing that helps to stop all of this just hasn't happened yet. Two or three different Cable or Satellite systems have to decide we just are not paying more and let the Station not be on their system. Locals can not be off their local Cable network and even one of the Satellite providers at the same time.
As long as we may be on a roll of reform, that brings me to another thing. They need to change the rule about charging to be carried or being carried for free. (Must carry) They now have to decide every three years. But in addition the Station should have to make a choice and that choice is for all providers. If they decide to be carried free for one provider it must be free for all and I don't believe that is the case now.
No that is not the case now. Rates vary between providers The import question you thought threw is not correct. A channel owner would get more revenue for being in the new market or a imported market than they would for just being in their own DMA. So they would welcome the idea of importing their signal
As with RSNs, distant subs are worth considerably less than potential sales opportunities so this is a specious argument.
If a station claims distant viewers in their numbers, local advertisers who have little hope of gaining their business are not going to be pleased.
I thought the return volley from the Mr. Wharton was actually uncharacteristically well reasoned. Your argument that viewers will be positively impacted may be negatively impacted if the stations start folding their tents absent being able to gouge revenues from two of the five largest carriers. If the FCC pisses off a large conglomerate like Sinclair, they may just pull out of many of their 79 markets.
Franchising and the exclusivity associated with it remains an imperative to insure that relevant local news and information gets out there.
As I understand it, stations aren't allowed by their commercial and syndicated show contracts to be shown outside their market. So if Dish drops the LA CBS (for example), the San Francisco CBS can't say "you can carry us" because of their programming agreements. If they were allowed to, they'd stream 24/7.
Is that an issue? Are there stations that elect "must carry" for some MVPDs and charge others?
Distant channels in short markets see this all the time. For example Alpena Mi imports WEYI from Bay City. There are duplicate shows on both local and Distant that are on both channels daily Not sure about having permission since the channel was replaced by WDIV during the Sinclair dispute
Similar threads
