WVUE Dish dispute

[Mojo Jojo]

Attention DISH Network Subscribers: - New Orleans News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - FOX 8 Live WVUE-TV Channel 8

What surprises me about this dispute is that Fox 8 (WVUE), the Fox affiliate in New Orleans, always says how it is locally owned and operated, and Tom Benson [owner of the New Orleans Saints] 's Louisiana Media Company is the owner. What is also interesting about this Fox affiliate is that it carries both Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune.

According to Dish:

"Important News - Press Info!

This station is currently blocked by its owner. DISH is dedicated to keeping costs down for our customers. Visit www.FairSatellite.com."

Dish also adds:

"This station is currently blocked by its owner, who is demanding an outrageous rate increase in excess of 300%.

To keep costs down for our customers, DISH is striving to reach a fair deal.

DISH has reached agreements with hundreds of local stations in the past year, so we know our offer is fair and in line with the marketplace.

For more information, please visit www.FairSatellite.com"

What is also somewhat funny is that Dish had Fox's Glee on the main site (before it went down...looks like they are working on it).

Maybe Dish can get some with the New Orleans affiliates happy if they make WUPL (My Network TV) available in HD in today's uplink.

 

[Mojo Jojo]

Update

This station is currently blocked by its owner, who is demanding an outrageous rate increase in excess of 250%.

The SD channel says 300% still.

 

[dennispap]

Attention DISH Network Subscribers: - New Orleans News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - FOX 8 Live WVUE-TV Channel 8

Maybe Dish can get some with the New Orleans affiliates happy if they make WUPL (My Network TV) available in HD in today's uplink.

Channel 54 in hd would be nice, but getting fox8 back will make the N.O. customers way more happy.

 

[BrettStah]

It still makes little sense to me that a local station that broadcasts its signal freely is allowed to charge for cable or satellite companies to re-transmit it back to the same market. It's not like Dish is taking the New Orleans FOX signal and sending it to Alaska viewers - it's re-transmitted to people who could just put up an antenna and pick it up for no cost.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I have always said that Satellite HELPS local broadcasters by bringing their signal into homes in their area which not put up an OTA antenna.

 

[dennispap]

I have always said that Satellite HELPS local broadcasters by bringing their signal into homes in their area which not put up an OTA antenna.

Exactly, it is sort of like if you are in a band, and a radio station that has x amount of guaranteed listeners wants to play your music, and actually pay you some money, while you broadcast your music over the air for free. But you say No, i want more money from you for the stuff i send out over the air for free.
It goes from win-win, to lose-lose

 

[dare2be]

I have always said that Satellite HELPS local broadcasters by bringing their signal into homes in their area which not put up an OTA antenna.

Along those lines, I have always said that Satellite (or any cable provider, for that matter) HELPS any channel, not just local ones, by bringing their signal to more homes that otherwise couldn't receive them. Channels should be paying the sat/cable companies for the privilege to be transmitted to the most homes, not the other way around.

 

[Gentleman]

Tom Benson is well known for getting others to pay his bills, as the deal he had with the state to keep the saints in New Orleans, then sold the naming rights to the superdome for which all revenue goes to him for a state owned building.

 

[Yespage]

Another absurd situation. I really don't understand why we even have "local affiliates", as typically the only local programming is news and sporting events (and the sporting events aren't exactly covered by the local stations, just run through them). So what exactly are these local stations providing that they actually created that warrants additional payment?

 

[yelraek]

I have always said that Satellite HELPS local broadcasters by bringing their signal into homes in their area which not put up an OTA antenna.

Absolutely! I happen to be one of those unfortunate ones that cannot receive OTA because of a huge mountain between me and the towers.

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm in the minority BY FAR, but to me, satellite/cable ops & local affiliates need each other. If it wasn't for the local broadcasters, satellite/cable ops wouldn't have that content. If it wasn't for the satellite/cable ops, local broadcasters wouldn't have as many viewers.

Why doesn't anyone get upset at satellite/cable ops charging for the locals? After all, they're just giving you a signal you can get for free (with some exceptions). To me, it's a symbiotic relationship. The only question in my mind is how much satellite/cable ops should be charged. In my opinion, ~$0.25/viewer/month is reasonable. Anything over $0.50/viewer/month is too much.

 

[30rock]

And of course this happens to what appears to be the best [H]ouse episode of the season. Good thing DISH and Fox have that Hulu agreement and I can watch House the day after it airs (irony at it's finest). But it's good that I don't watch that much Fox anyways (only morning news before work/school and Fringe).

 

[Joe Capitano]

So what exactly are these local stations providing that they actually created that warrants additional payment?

In far too many cases, and not including regular newscasts, precious little, or nil.

I can't speak for New Orleans, but here in my neck of the woods, Western Washington, KING-TV almost had a falling-out with a couple of cable companies and DIRECTV. Here's what drives up their value to me: KING actually produces about 9 hours a week of local non-newscast content. That's quite remarkable. All the other stations do little else if anything.

So, Perry Sook and the rest, if it's two bucks a head you want (yes, Sookie really wants that for his stations down the road), start doing something to deserve it. Go over and above. And don't say you can't. No excuses.

As to the rest of us with shallow pockets, invest in antennas where, as and if you can.

 

[ProfStata]

Why does the OP mention DIShH helping FOX with marketing? Surely the OP knows there is a difference between affiliates and networks.

 

[shkarter1985]

One person you can blame for bringing the 20 year "Retransmission Consent" rules into the 1992 Cable Protection Act is ex-Senator John Danforth (R-Missouri). You can blame the NAB as well.

 

[30rock]

So apparently Fox was too smart for me, I just signed in using my DISH password on Hulu and now I can't watch last week's episode of Fringe until it's available to everyone else. Well played Fox, well played. :

 

[Mojo Jojo]

Why does the OP mention DIShH helping FOX with marketing? Surely the OP knows there is a difference between affiliates and networks.

Yes, I am very well aware of the difference between affiliates and networks. I know that not everyone gets WVUE and that it is a FOX affiliate in New Orleans. Too bad Dish cannot just put in a temporary Fox affiliate (even if there was a time limit) just for the Fox shows from a neighboring area like WGMB from Baton Rouge for example. I know then that probably someone would get mad if Dish would later take it away, and I know that there are most likely some rules preventing this as even neighboring locals seem to be a rarity (although I cannot blame the satellite providers with the prices that locals may want and having two of each affiliate may be costly as I saw even a cable company dropped neighboring locals). Some New Orleans affiliates maybe would not like the idea either if some of the same syndicated programming played as well.

[In 1996, I remember WVUE going from ABC to Fox, WGNO going fromThe WB (although it was independent for quite some time before that affiliation) to ABC, and WNOL going from Fox to The WB.]

I was just saying that the new site has a Glee Fox ad about dodging prices and having the same channels as other providers. I do not think those that enjoy WVUE (Fox) would appreciate that ad much is all. However, I am not telling anyone to switch providers just because WVUE and Dish are having a dispute. I would say try OTA (especially if there is an OTA connection on the Dish box), and I still would say that if someone really misses WVUE. However, WVUE seems difficult to get OTA even though WVUE said that they bought something recently to help. I know they even tried changing the digital channel number a while back. Maybe someone may have luck pulling in WGMB instead.

 

[sam_gordon]

(although I cannot blame the satellite providers with the prices that locals may want and having two of each affiliate may be costly as I saw even a cable company dropped neighboring locals).

So how much $$ are the locals asking for?

 

[Mojo Jojo]

So how much $$ are the locals asking for?

Well, I suppose that is right for you to say. Really, I should not take sides. However, in the end, the subscriber is the one who gets hit the most. The bottom line really is that the channel and the provider have to come to an agreement.

However, if someone looks at it in terms of an OTA point of view, then the person can argue that OTA is free. At the same time, it can be difficult to actually get an OTA channel with an antenna.

Getting back to your question...Deals never seem to be disclosed. I saw one deal recently that surprised me when it disclosed dates in terms of the contract renewal agreement. So, I have no idea how much money; I suppose the only ones who know are Dish and the channel. The only thing we have to go on is what the provider is telling us in terms of the increase percentage which started out as 300% and now 250%. Dish states, "This station is currently blocked by its owner, who is demanding a outrageous rate increase in excess of 250%." In this case, Dish is telling us a percentage of what they believe is unfair due to deals with other local channels (although again that is what we are being told). Dish states, "To keep costs down for our customers, DISH is striving to reach a fair deal. Dish has reached agreements with hundreds of local stations in the past year, so we know our offer is fair and in line with the marketplace." However, if what Dish is telling us is true (which I would like to believe since they are the ones providing us with the service), then I am grateful that they are fighting to keep costs down.

 

[sam_gordon]

Well, I suppose that is right for you to say. Really, I should not take sides. However, in the end, the subscriber is the one who gets hit the most. The bottom line really is that the channel and the provider have to come to an agreement.

However, if someone looks at it in terms of an OTA point of view, then the person can argue that OTA is free. At the same time, it can be difficult to actually get an OTA channel with an antenna.

Getting back to your question...Deals never seem to be disclosed. I saw one deal recently that surprised me when it disclosed dates in terms of the contract renewal agreement. So, I have no idea how much money; I suppose the only ones who know are Dish and the channel. The only thing we have to go on is what the provider is telling us in terms of the increase percentage which started out as 300% and now 250%. Dish states, "This station is currently blocked by its owner, who is demanding a outrageous rate increase in excess of 250%." In this case, Dish is telling us a percentage of what they believe is unfair due to deals with other local channels (although again that is what we are being told). Dish states, "To keep costs down for our customers, DISH is striving to reach a fair deal. Dish has reached agreements with hundreds of local stations in the past year, so we know our offer is fair and in line with the marketplace." However, if what Dish is telling us is true (which I would like to believe since they are the ones providing us with the service), then I am grateful that they are fighting to keep costs down.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping costs down. But think about this for a moment... are you allowed to charge people to come to your house to watch the Super Bowl (leaving out costs for splitting food, drink, etc)? What about a Pay Per View movie/event? The answer is No. So, you're receiving the Super Bowl for free, why shouldn't you be able to profit from showing it to others? You've paid for the PPV, why can't you charge others who don't have access to it?

Also keep in mind, the providers are going to "spin" these negotiations in their favor. I've said before, I agree with broadcasters charging a fee, after all, the satellite and cable providers are making money from the broadcasters signal. Now, how much is appropriate? I don't know how many local channels you get. Let's say Dish has to pay each local station 10 cents for each subscriber. Even if you get 10 local stations, do you think it's worth $1/month out of your bill to get the locals? A 250% increase of 10 cents would be 35 cents. Do you think 10 locals are worth $3.50 out of your bill? To me, 35 cents is about the breaking point for what locals should get. I just disagree that locals should hand over their signal for no charge.