Isn't that the argument against bundled packages? If I'm not interested in ESPN (for example), why do I have to pay for it to get DIY? While I'd like to see an ala carte pricing model, I'm not convinced it would be cheaper than bundling.
No, it's not, unless the early retrans rates didn't cover the cost of delivery and uplink. Even a 100% upcharge or profit margin probably would be in the millions of dollars, not billions.
Sorry, not following. When I say "underpriced", I'm talking the value of the product. For example, if Ford releases car and only costs $1K new, that's underpriced. So they raise it to $2K and folks still snap them up. It's only at $15K that people are even trying to negotiate. Yes, this is a very simplified analogy.
Does anyone know factually who pays the delivery and uplink costs? The stations? Dish?
That's what I'm talking about. Underpriced would be a price that doesn't cover the cost of production or delivery. A reasonable price would be a markup based on a percentage of the base cost. For example, Dish's historical profit margin is around 10%. so a 100% markup is plenty generous. I imagine the the cost + 100% markup is nowhere near the billions of dollars retrans generates now.
Problem you and Sam are working from different paradigms:
Gotcha. So what's it called when the cost for something is less than the perceived value? If I'm willing to pay $20 for something, but it's priced at $10... ?
I agree with you. Obviously MVPDs do see a value in having the locals, and there's some cost they are willing to pay. If the cost was too much, no one (or very few) would pay it. I thought that's what most people here wanted... let market forces determine the cost.
According to this (See section (g) of 47 CFR § 76.66 - Satellite broadcast signal carriage.) delivery is the station; uplink is Dish
Thanks... That seems fair enough for both sides that it shouldn't be much of factor in retrans costs.
It is my understanding that the Must Carry choice resides with the channel, not the MVPD. Am I mistaken?
Except I have demonstrated that "market forces" are skewed and those forces are not driven by the consumer as much as contractual and exclusivity agreements between conglomerates. Similar to the supposed market forces that drive gas prices. Most of the time the market will bear it because it's the only game in town. Dish presumably is the only provider that allows locals to be dropped because they played harder in negotiations at the expense of more disputes. But then they get the brunt of the blame from viewers when it happens. It's a no-win situation except for those that hold the monopoly cards.
The move to digital was mandated by the government. If you want to complain, bring it up to them. It's the same as the repack going on now... Gov't is forcing it on broadcasters.
No you are not mistaken. The station can choose Must Carry or to provide the signal for a fee. If they choose to want the fee then the MVPD aka Dish can refuse to pay and not carry the station. What I propose is Dish call the bluff and say we aren't paying and won't rebroadcast your signal. Then the station gets bupkis, no money and no additional viewers. At this point the station can choose to negotiate a fee acceptable to Dish or can return to Must Carry, meaning no fees above cost. I kind of think that is game Dish is playing be giving out antennas and dongles.
