another dispute (RESOLVED) (Nexstar Broadcasting)

[Tampa8]

Isn't that what Claude said? It's included in satellite packages. More people would be willing to get their sports on illegal online sites if that was the only way, so of course if it was the only way was more would be willing to putting up an antenna. Of course if it was the only way a good chunk of people couldn't or just wouldn't get it..... Thus Networks need Satellite as much as Satellite needs the networks.

Cost probably varies by region. In Ct if you can find someone who has installed antennas before the cost is in the $250 to $300 range. I have no doubt it is much much less where I live in Florida.

None of that changes the OTA Networks should not be allowed to charge for what is supposed to be free. That's the real problem not antennas.

 

[sam_gordon]

Isn't that what Claude said? It's included in satellite packages. More people would be willing to get their sports on illegal online sites if that was the only way, so of course if it was the only way was more would be willing to putting up an antenna. Of course if it was the only way a good chunk of people couldn't or just wouldn't get it..... Thus Networks need Satellite as much as Satellite needs the networks.

Cost probably varies by region. In Ct if you can find someone who has installed antennas before the cost is in the $250 to $300 range. I have no doubt it is much much less where I live in Florida.

None of that changes the OTA Networks should not be allowed to charge for what is supposed to be free. That's the real problem not antennas.

Do we really want to start this argument again?

As far as cost, a $300 one time fee would be less than a year of MVPD service. That was all I said.

And I have said from the start broadcasters and MVPDs have a symbiotic relationship. They need each other.

 

[Claude Greiner]

Something tells me more people would be willing to get an antenna if that was the only way to receive the programming. And really? The cost? Putting up an antenna would be less than a year of MVPD service.

For the people on this board, your correct.

For the average Joe, that I have to deal with every day they simply won't spend the money

 

[PortlandChris]

who is sick and tired all this fighting

Just minutes ago this press release went out:



Dish Network Subscribers in 60 Markets May Lose Network and Local Community Programming Tomorrow Night
60 Stations Potentially Affected as DISH Has Yet to Reach Distribution Agreement with Nexstar Broadcasting

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...scribers-60-Markets-Lose-Network#.VID3_DHF9yU

Then move to a provider that rolls on rates and you can pay significant double digit increases each year. Go for it.

I am so sick of the bogus price increases. I look at the channels I have and 90% of them are total crap....yet I am required to get them to keep the channels I want. The thing I want Dish to do is push back hard on these bogus bundling set ups. To me that is the biggest problem.

 

[dare2be]

The only way to stop the bogus bundling setups is to break up the content ownership monopolies.

 

[ChadT41]

The only way to stop the bogus bundling setups is to break up the content ownership monopolies.

We could only wish.

 

[TheKrell]

The only way to stop the bogus bundling setups is to break up the content ownership monopolies.

I disagree with you there, dare. A simple, straightforward, a la carte law would stick it to all providers, whether or not they are monopolies by your definition. Whatever that is.

 

[ChadT41]

Unless the providers find a way around that. Something like "I'll give you espn for $5 per sub if you take all this other crap, or you can have espn for $15 per sub without all this crap". Look, bundles still there, and now we got the government sticking their hands where it don't belong.

 

[TheKrell]

Unless the providers find a way around that. Something like "I'll give you espn for $5 per sub if you take all this other crap, or you can have espn for $15 per sub without all this crap". Look, bundles still there, and now we got the government sticking their hands where it don't belong.

Do you understood a la carte? The current system operates as you described above! In an al la carte regime, ESPN charges whatever the market will bear. If sports-lovers don't find it worth $15, then they won't buy it, and Disney will have to lower the price. Market forces at work.

This is my bottom line: I see no way around government intervention to break out of the current system.

 

[ChadT41]

That was the loophole that the channel owners can use to get around losing money on ala carte to keep it as close to the current system as possible, if the government got involved. I know I pretty much described the current system, but if they wanted change, it would already be happening far more than what has ever happened. The only way to get away from it, would be to force the break up of monopolies.

 

[TheKrell]

I know I pretty much described the current system, but if they wanted change, it would already be happening far more than what has ever happened.

Right, but providers don't want change. They're making too much money the way it is now.

 

[ChadT41]

Exactly my point.

 

[TNGTony]

I want the 7-7-7 rules reimposed! They were in place in for a reason. The reason is exactly what is happening now.

 

[ChadT41]

7-7-7?

 

[KAB]

7-7-7?

Yeh, me too...???

 

[Deadlocked]

7 days 7 threads 7 posts?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ChadT41]

Rule made on July 7, 2007?

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm guessing this is what he's talking about...

• In the 1970's Licensees were limited to a total of 7 television licenses, 7 AM radio licenses, and 7 FM radio licenses nationwide; known as the 7-7-7 rule.

 

[Tampa8]

I confess to not knowing that existed.

 

[TNGTony]

The 7-7-7 rule was a staple of broadcast TV that lasted from 1934 until the era of deregulation in the 80s. It is indeed the rule that limited any single entity from owning, OR CONTROLLING in any way, more than 7 TV, 7AM and 7 FM properties. This rule also prohibited any single entity from owning or controlling more than one of each in any single market, and a single entity could not own a newspaper and a TV station in the same market.

The reasons from these rules were
1) to encourage localism (local ownership) and have stations serve their communities better
2) to encourage editorial diversity. No one entity had a stranglehold on any market or region so different editorial POVs were at least theoretically possible.
3) to ensure that the most number of entities (people/corps/co-ops) had the opportunity to use a very limited resource.

Part of these same rules prohibited any one entity to own or control more than one TV or Radio network. ABC network exists because NBC was forced to sell its Red Network (there used to be the NBC Blue and NBC Red radio networks.) NBC had a stranglehold on radio (the only electronic media at the time. CBS was the only viable competitor and it was struggling.

It is no coincidence that the prices of TV and Radio properties shot through the roof in the late 1980s as there was a feeding frenzy by media conglomerates buying out every broadcast property they could as fast as they could. It is no coincidence that local ownership of major broadcast stations (both radio and TV) is nearly non-existent now.

I would be remiss to leave out some positive effects of the relaxation of the rules. One is the explosion of so-called independent TV stations in the 80s making way for the possibility of competing networks like Fox, PTEN, Action, and other Syndicated programming (Like Star Trek TNG) that would not have found room in the established networks.

The ownership restriction rules were relaxed in stages through the 90s to the point where they are nearly useless now. They have more to do with audience share per market (for local stations) and nationally (for networks). The network ownership/control rules are idiotic because it essentially ensures that an entity's second network is poor performing, non-competitive junk! See: CW, Ion

The reason for ownership rules is just as relevant today as it was when they were in place. If anything, these last three decades show exactly why ownership rules for the limited broadcast resources were needed and still need to be imposed!