WVUE Dish dispute

[Tampa8]

Because WVUE is choosing to not be carried until Dish agrees with their demands. Turn it around, if WVUE said, ok, we accept your offer to carry us for X dollars, and Dish said, you know what we just don't want to carry you anymore, Dish would be going against the FCC. They have to carry it if they are carrying the any other of the networks. That does not mean WVUE has to be forced to be carried. I'm not seeing what is being missed about that. It is one sided, therein lies the problem. Add to that Dish or Direct can not just say ok, we will go get another affiliate. I suppose in the extreme - if a station was asking for way more than any other station in the area, perhaps if that station would not agree ever to let Dish or Direct carry them then the actual network might step in. But we are probably talking an extreme.

You're not questioning there is a must carry law are you? Notice it is completly one sided, it is only if the station requests it. That's why WVUE is not being carried.

The FCC has issued an order on reconsideration of the satellite TV must-carry rules adopted in 2000. The 2000 rules require satellite carriers to carry upon request all local television broadcast station signals in local markets in which the satellite carriers carry at least one television broadcast station signal by Jan. 1, 2002. The FCC did the following on reconsideration:

• Upheld the requirement that satellite operators carry the entire primary video, accompanying audio, and closed-caption and most other data contained in the vertical blanking interval.
• Denied a request that the FCC require broadcast stations to deliver a higher-quality signal to satellite carriers than is required for cable carriage.
• Denied a request that the FCC require television stations to pay any new or additional costs to deliver a good quality signal if the carrier moves its receive facility.
• Denied a request that satellite carriers be allowed to require subscribers to purchase additional equipment, such as an additional satellite dish, to gain access to must-carry signals.
• Held that satellite carriers may offer local signals to their subscribers on an à la carte basis, and that doing so does not necessarily violate the statutory prohibition on discriminatory pricing or provision of access to broadcast stations. However, the FCC ruled that most stations should be offered to subscribers at the same or a nearly identical price. Prohibited discrimination would occur if a carrier offered some local stations in a package, while offering others on an à la carte basis.

I read the link you provided, it is good, seems factual, but doesn't really change my argument.
I am not aware of anything that denies Dish or Direct from charging more than they do. It seems like that's what you want, I don't.

 

[sam_gordon]

Apples and oranges if I ever saw an example of one. Those are each a bussiness that have competition for the same item - program - if you will. They have no protection to sell me only their product in my DMA. They have the right to not allow copying etc....

To me, "not allowing copying" is EXACTLY what affiliates are doing. Let's say for the sake of argument you got OTA. Are you allowed to charge people to come over to watch the Super Bowl?

You can call it BS, but I get 8 local channels for $5.99 (I do agree it's not free in the package even though the companies make it seem that way - on that I agree)
That is around 75 cents each, $8.40 a year. Just how much do you think Dish or Direct is making? You can't believe they are making tons of or even hardly any money when I pay them $8.40 a year.\
As a contrast, think about this, to get all four networks from AAD, in SD they charge for a year payment in advance $149.99 Dish for ALL my locals, in my case 8 channels in hd, charges $72.00 a year, paid monthly.
You don't think if the networks had their way you wouldn't be paying $150 just for their four channels, in SD?

No, I don't think they are making tons of money. I do think some stations are asking for too much money. I've said that before. BUT, I do believe Dish/Cable IS making a profit from the locals, and that money should be shared. I know it's not that big a difference, but your cost/station/year is $9, not $8.40. I still feel the affiliates are entitled to SOMETHING, probably around 20 cents.

 

[jimdandyvi]

I believe there are two parts to the carriage rules. The local can demand compulsory carriage but if they do so they can't demand compensation. It's their choice a

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[sam_gordon]

I believe there are two parts to the carriage rules. The local can demand compulsory carriage but if they do so they can't demand compensation. It's their choice a

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

That was my understanding also.

From: MUST CARRY RULES - The Museum of Broadcast Communications

More confusion resulted when, in October 1994, the FCC gave stations a choice of being carried under the must-carry rules or under a new regulation requiring cable companies to obtain retransmission consent before carrying a broadcast signal.

Note the 'OR'.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

So Sam what tv stations have purchased the spectrum that they on now from auction?

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[sam_gordon]

So Sam what tv stations have purchased the spectrum that they on now from auction?

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

If I had to guess, I'd say none. But to say they haven't paid the FCC for the use of that spectrum, OR paid for that spectrum (although not to the FCC) when they purchased the affiliate is false. The article I posted earlier compared the spectrum use to land grants... folks who staked their "claim" to land way back when, got it for free. Does that mean you got your house for free?

 

[Laddyboy]

If I had to guess, I'd say none. But to say they haven't paid the FCC for the use of that spectrum, OR paid for that spectrum (although not to the FCC) when they purchased the affiliate is false. The article I posted earlier compared the spectrum use to land grants... folks who staked their "claim" to land way back when, got it for free. Does that mean you got your house for free?

The broadcasters don't pay a fee for their spectrum. Does the ability to broadcast have value? Of course it does and that's what's reflected in the fair market value of a broadcaster. Having to agree to do specified public service works is a cost of doing business and not a fee for the broadcast spectrum itself. Nothing is going into the public coffers for the license other than filing fees, etc. They have to pay fees to lawyers to prepare and file their FCC filings, but that also isn't a fee for the spectrum itself.

 

[navychop]

Which is why the government wants to take more of it and sell it to others who will pay, such as cell companies.

 

[sam_gordon]

The broadcasters don't pay a fee for their spectrum. Does the ability to broadcast have value? Of course it does and that's what's reflected in the fair market value of a broadcaster. Having to agree to do specified public service works is a cost of doing business and not a fee for the broadcast spectrum itself. Nothing is going into the public coffers for the license other than filing fees, etc. They have to pay fees to lawyers to prepare and file their FCC filings, but that also isn't a fee for the spectrum itself.

Which is why the government wants to take more of it and sell it to others who will pay, such as cell companies.

Where do you guys get your information? There is a license fee paid each year to the FCC from broadcasters...

POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 BY DAVID OXENFORD
[h=3]FCC Regulatory Fee Deadline Extended Until September 16[/h]The FCC today announced a brief extension, until the end of the day tomorrow, for the submission of annual regulatory fees. No explanation for the extension is provided. So you now have until 11:59 Eastern time tomorrow to get those fees submitted without facing late fees and penalties. The FCC Public Notice announcing the extension is here. Our previous post on these fees, setting out the procedures for filing and other details, is available here.

If there was no fee, why would there be an extension?

More...

Fees for television stations range from $81,550 for VHF stations in the Top 10 markets (versus $32,275 in those markets for UHF stations), to $6125 for VHF stations in the smallest markets versus $3050 for UHF stations.

Both quotes above from Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

 

[Claude Greiner]

Because satellite/cable providers are making money on offering the channels. Don't give me this BS about "covering costs"... I GUARANTEE that $5/6 charge (even if it's wrapped into the package) for locals MORE than makes up for Dish's cost. Let's say I start a webpage. On my webpage, I'm going to offer Acrobat Reader for $5, Open Office for $10, Shockwave player for $5, and Flash Player for $5. After all, those companies are offering their product for free, so I can do what I want with them, right?

Granted they are making a small profit, but look at what the satellite companies have to invest in to get the signal...

#1 Most locals are delivered to the satellite companies Via fiber. This is a cost that the satellite companies pay for themselves.

#2 How many 250 million dollar spot beam satellites have been launched to provide local channels that get replaced every 2-3 years? The only reason why the satellites are replaced is to get newer satellites that can provide more spot beams and focus on smaller areas.

Has DISH Network or Directv ever made a profit off of offering and charging for local channels considering the cost of the technology involved to deliver them? NO

However due to offering locals, it has sold more core packages which help cover the costs of the new satellites.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Now Sam,

I understand why you want the satellite companies to pay as it puts food on your table. If I remember correctly you are a guy who goes to TV stations and offers to negoatiate with the satellite and cable companies so that the TV stations get the most money out of them.

I can't fault you for wanting to work. But ultimately YOU are the guy who is causing the cable and satellite bills for MILLIONS of people around the country to go UP.

But it is my viewpoint that the TV stations should be paying the Satellite and Cable providers for bringing them more viewers which in turn means higher advertising revenue. Please don't give me this BS government tax crap those costs are part of doing business. I have to renew my drivers license every few years, you don't see me asking you to help me pay for my gas.

Honestly what does a TV station get when they fight like this and get their satellite or cable distribution pulled besides LESS VIEWERS?

The tv stations and cable and satellite providers should be working together as partners looking to bring the stations to as many eyes as they can instead of this silly devorced couple where the bitchy woman (aka TV stations) wants more money all the time.

That's my take.

 

[navychop]

Where do you guys get your information? There is a license fee paid each year to the FCC from broadcasters...

I never said anything about no license fees. I merely point out, as is commonly known, that there is move in Congress to further restrict bandwidth available for TV. Wireless data needs spectrum and is willing to pay for it. Personally, I think we should consider levying a fee each year for all commercial spectrum use.

 

[dare2be]

But it is my viewpoint that the TV stations should be paying the Satellite and Cable providers for bringing them more viewers which in turn means higher advertising revenue.

Honestly what does a TV station get when they fight like this and get their satellite or cable distribution pulled besides LESS VIEWERS?

The tv stations and cable and satellite providers should be working together as partners looking to bring the stations to as many eyes as they can instead of this silly devorced couple where the bitchy woman (aka TV stations) wants more money all the time.

That's my take.

That's been my take all along as well. What we have now amounts to nothing more than collusion and extortion.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

All TV stations operate in the interest of the general public. By having stations pull their signal from their viewers goes against the FCC intent of the station.

Perhaps when a station pulls its signal instead of bitching at the tv station or satellite company, maybe the best court of action would be to complain to the FCC that the station is not acting in the interest of the general public.

We can make big changes if just a few of us get together and speak the same message.

 

[sam_gordon]

Now Sam,

I understand why you want the satellite companies to pay as it puts food on your table. If I remember correctly you are a guy who goes to TV stations and offers to negoatiate with the satellite and cable companies so that the TV stations get the most money out of them.

I can't fault you for wanting to work. But ultimately YOU are the guy who is causing the cable and satellite bills for MILLIONS of people around the country to go UP.

I don't know what you're remembering, but that is DEFINITELY NOT in my job description.

But it is my viewpoint that the TV stations should be paying the Satellite and Cable providers for bringing them more viewers which in turn means higher advertising revenue.

I have ALWAYS agreed satellite & cable providers give locals MORE viewers than what they'd have from relying strictly on OTA. No argument there. Where I don't get your logic is you can apply the same thing to ALL networks. If it wasn't for Satellite/Cable providers, Disney (including ESPN) wouldn't be able to be seen by ANYONE. Discovery wouldn't be seen, same with Viacom. So why wouldn't THEY pay providers to get eyes on their programming?

Please don't give me this BS government tax crap those costs are part of doing business.

So my pointing out that broadcasters DO pay for the use of the spectrum (despite what some posters have said), is 'BS government tax crap' and a part of doing business? Can I just say the costs providers have to pay out to carry the locals "are part of doing business"?

The tv stations and cable and satellite providers should be working together as partners looking to bring the stations to as many eyes as they can instead of this silly devorced couple where the bitchy woman (aka TV stations) wants more money all the time.

I agree locals and providers should be working together. I never said anything different. I also said affiliates could be asking for too much money. I don't know what they're asking for. But I'm not buying into Dish's "spin" either. And to say Dish is being totally upfront and not spinning to make themselves look better is naive.

 

[sam_gordon]

All TV stations operate in the interest of the general public. By having stations pull their signal from their viewers goes against the FCC intent of the station.

Perhaps when a station pulls its signal instead of bitching at the tv station or satellite company, maybe the best court of action would be to complain to the FCC that the station is not acting in the interest of the general public.

We can make big changes if just a few of us get together and speak the same message.

Good luck with that. While SOME (and I still feel it's a minority) folks wouldn't be able to get the locals without sat/cable providers, the majority WOULD be able to still get the OTA signal. Keep in mind, OTA broadcasters were around a LONG time before cable & satellite providers. I guess no one watched them though until cable and satellite came along.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I don't know what you're remembering, but that is DEFINITELY NOT in my job description.

My appologies, I was thinking of someone else then. In researching you quickly it looks like you work in engineering at WLEX which sounds like a COOL job! (The person I was thinking about was indeed the lead guy who does negoations for stations to get them more money.)

I have ALWAYS agreed satellite & cable providers give locals MORE viewers than what they'd have from relying strictly on OTA. No argument there. Where I don't get your logic is you can apply the same thing to ALL networks. If it wasn't for Satellite/Cable providers, Disney (including ESPN) wouldn't be able to be seen by ANYONE. Discovery wouldn't be seen, same with Viacom. So why wouldn't THEY pay providers to get eyes on their programming?

Those are cable channels, not off air channels which are setup to serve the community they are licensed for. Thats a BIG difference.

So my pointing out that broadcasters DO pay for the use of the spectrum (despite what some posters have said), is 'BS government tax crap' and a part of doing business? Can I just say the costs providers have to pay out to carry the locals "are part of doing business"?

Every business has costs, I don't think you get the power for your transmitter for free. But you can pay those bills from the commercials that run on your station... and remember the more people watching the more money you can make. (While your electricity bill basically stays the same no matter if 1 person is watching or a million people are watching)

I agree locals and providers should be working together. I never said anything different. I also said affiliates could be asking for too much money. I don't know what they're asking for. But I'm not buying into Dish's "spin" either. And to say Dish is being totally upfront and not spinning to make themselves look better is naive.

I will agree with that 100% as well, both do spin things in which ever way suits them best. Take a look at DISH they dropped ALL of their RSN's in New York City... yet did peoples bills go down in NYC even though DISH got rid of the most expensive programming? hell no!

 

[dare2be]

I have ALWAYS agreed satellite & cable providers give locals MORE viewers than what they'd have from relying strictly on OTA. No argument there. Where I don't get your logic is you can apply the same thing to ALL networks. If it wasn't for Satellite/Cable providers, Disney (including ESPN) wouldn't be able to be seen by ANYONE. Discovery wouldn't be seen, same with Viacom. So why wouldn't THEY pay providers to get eyes on their programming?

I can't speak for Scott, but my stance is that ALL networks should be low bidding the cable/satellite providers to be placed in the lowest possible tier to maximize their potential viewership and ad revenue. By low bidding, I also mean offering their signal for free or even paying for the privilege.

 

[sam_gordon]

My appologies, I was thinking of someone else then. In researching you quickly it looks like you work in engineering at WLEX which sounds like a COOL job! (The person I was thinking about was indeed the lead guy who does negoations for stations to get them more money.)

Now that you've blown my cover , I need to point out everything I have posted reflects MY opinion, and should not be construed as representing my employer, etc, etc, etc.

Those are cable channels, not off air channels which are setup to serve the community they are licensed for. Thats a BIG difference.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

Every business has costs, I don't think you get the power for your transmitter for free. But you can pay those bills from the commercials that run on your station... and remember the more people watching the more money you can make. (While your electricity bill basically stays the same no matter if 1 person is watching or a million people are watching)

Same with Dish/Direct/et al. (their costs are the same regardless of number of people watching).

I will agree with that 100% as well, both do spin things in which ever way suits them best. Take a look at DISH they dropped ALL of their RSN's in New York City... yet did peoples bills go down in NYC even though DISH got rid of the most expensive programming? hell no!

EXACTLY!

 

[sam_gordon]

I can't speak for Scott, but my stance is that ALL networks should be low bidding the cable/satellite providers to be placed in the lowest possible tier to maximize their potential viewership and ad revenue. By low bidding, I also mean offering their signal for free or even paying for the privilege.

Let me also just say, I really don't care if locals give their signal away (or pay for it to be carried). I don't think they should be FORCED to. I also don't think providers should be FORCED to accept any price from local broadcasters though either. I think they should work together to come to an agreement the makes both of them happy (ie: compromise).