Bonten Media Group......DISPUTE OVER

[RONZ]

So what do you do with the areas where there is none or very little OTA reception? They are just "no mans land" or are partial areas. The Minneapolis market runs from Iowa all the way to Canada. But once you get out of Minneapolis area you have partial OTA. The northern part of the market is 250 miles away from Minneapolis but is still considered Mpls because the CBS & My (use to be Fox) affiliates have satellite stations there. In that area (Bemidji) you get CBS, PBS and My in digital. There is a low powered Fox and ABC translators still in analog. There is no NBC in the market. The Central portion is just CBS & ABC. Alot of low powered translators either shut down or are staying analog until the end. By our lake house (130 miles from Mpls) we are considered Minneapolis. Duluth is 90 miles NE of us and until 2008 there were low powered translators of the Big 4 about 20 miles away. Now with digital all we get is PBS & CBS and CBS is about 60 miles away (thank goodness its on VHF) My buddy use to get one station OTA and that was Fox. He was in the furthest Eastern part of the Fargo market. All the other stations were 70+ miles away (the Fox station tower was about 20 miles away)

KARE is NBC in your market So NBC does exist

 

[Mr Tony]

KARE is NBC in your market So NBC does exist

To quote Booker T....."TELL ME YOU DID NOT JUST SAY THAT"

Please reread my post. While in Minneapolis proper yes there is NBC (I'm watching it right now) once you get outside of the area while according to Nielsen you are still in the Mpls market in alot of the area there is no NBC on OTA which is what the argument is (we were talking about areas where locals on sat or cable is a necessity). In Bemidji (250 miles away) its still the Mpls market but OTA there is no NBC and ABC/Fox are analog still. As I posted before

But once you get out of Minneapolis area you have partial OTA. The northern part of the market is 250 miles away from Minneapolis but is still considered Mpls because the CBS & My (use to be Fox) affiliates have satellite stations there. In that area (Bemidji) you get CBS, PBS and My in digital. There is a low powered Fox and ABC translators still in analog. There is no NBC in the market.

At our lake house (again in the Mpls market yet outside of the Mpls stations) we only get CBS & PBS. NBC use to be on a translator but that was shut down. Fox and ABC are on real low powered translators about 30 miles away. So again in those markets satellite is a must (there is no cable lines near the cabin)

 

[Mr Tony]

and even in Minneapolis proper its hard to pick it up unless you have a good antenna since KARE11 went back to VHF at the conversion. I have a outdoor antenna in the walk in closet to pick it up. Pretty much all indoor antennas suck keeping it stable....and I'm 28 miles away from the towers

 

[stardust3]

I am in the Tri-Cities TN area. I am less than 25 miles from these stations and cannot get them OTA. The terrain just does not allow it.

I really do not understand the whole re-broadcast fee thing anyway. I cannot get their station OTA, so I have to go cable or sat. Other than the cable and sat companies providing the uplink equipment and maybe paying for the rack space and electricity, why should there be any other fees involved? The cable and sat companies are providing the local stations a service by putting their programming into more homes.

The whole premise is messed up.

Howdy neighbor. I live on Holston mountain & am only a little over 7 miles from the tv towers with a clear los. My place is 2450' in elevation, the towers are around 4200'. The best signal I can get on wcyb with an outdoor vhf only antenna is 76. You would think being right on top of it the signal would be screaming here. Maybe the elevation difference has something to do with it, I dunno. At least I can pick it up & it is stable.

Did you see the interview with wcyb's general manager? http://www.wcyb.com/schedule/dish-network-negotiation-information/-/23164984/-/19csymz/-/index.html

According to him the networks used to pay local stations to carry content, now they have to pay them. After watching the interview & hearing what dish has to say I know the same as before.........."nothing".

 

[Teehar]

Howdy neighbor. I live on Holston mountain & am only a little over 7 miles from the tv towers with a clear los. My place is 2450' in elevation, the towers are around 4200'. The best signal I can get on wcyb with an outdoor vhf only antenna is 76. You would think being right on top of it the signal would be screaming here. Maybe the elevation difference has something to do with it, I dunno. At least I can pick it up & it is stable.

Did you see the interview with wcyb's general manager? http://www.wcyb.com/schedule/dish-network-negotiation-information/-/23164984/-/19csymz/-/index.html

According to him the networks used to pay local stations to carry content, now they have to pay them. After watching the interview & hearing what dish has to say I know the same as before.........."nothing".

It's the very same old spiel that all ota networks scream when they can't get the amount they ask for.I have seen it way too many times.Again what does pennies per day per subscriber add up to?The way they tell it,it's such a piddling amount no one will notice.I don't believe that for one second.Also,if WCYB has to pay NBC for the crap shows they broadcast,they should consider going independent.I can't find any proof but,I know that in the past local channels did not pay broadcasters for their programming.Now they do pay for syndicated shows but that has nothing to do with the networks.

 

[stardust3]

It's the very same old spiel that all ota networks scream when they can't get the amount they ask for.I have seen it way too many times.Again what does pennies per day per subscriber add up to?The way they tell it,it's such a piddling amount no one will notice.I don't believe that for one second.Also,if WCYB has to pay NBC for the crap shows they broadcast,they should consider going independent.I can't find any proof but,I know that in the past local channels did not pay broadcasters for their programming.Now they do pay for syndicated shows but that has nothing to do with the networks.

We need to feed all these greedy, tv peddling, pencil pushers to the "biters".

 

[sam_gordon]

It's the very same old spiel that all ota networks scream when they can't get the amount they ask for.I have seen it way too many times.Again what does pennies per day per subscriber add up to?The way they tell it,it's such a piddling amount no one will notice.I don't believe that for one second.Also,if WCYB has to pay NBC for the crap shows they broadcast,they should consider going independent.I can't find any proof but,I know that in the past local channels did not pay broadcasters for their programming.Now they do pay for syndicated shows but that has nothing to do with the networks.

In the past, networks paid locals to carry the programming. Now, locals pay to carry the networks. FWIW, NBC is improving in the ratings.

Once again, the relationship between Dish & locals is a symbiotic one. Locals benefit because Dish does get the signal to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get it (although I still say that's the minority of viewers). Dish benefits because without the locals, many people would elect not to get Dish.

 

[dare2be]

Once again, the relationship between Dish & locals is a symbiotic one. Locals benefit because Dish does get the signal to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get it (although I still say that's the minority of viewers). Dish benefits because without the locals, many people would elect not to get Dish.

Yes, it is symbiotic, thus there is no need for a one-sided, adversarial fee relationship.

 

[Teehar]

In the past, networks paid locals to carry the programming. Now, locals pay to carry the networks. FWIW, NBC is improving in the ratings.

Once again, the relationship between Dish & locals is a symbiotic one. Locals benefit because Dish does get the signal to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get it (although I still say that's the minority of viewers). Dish benefits because without the locals, many people would elect not to get Dish.

Sam,how do you know that local channels pay the networks for their programming?I'm not disputing your word,I would just like to see proof of it.If it is true then it's the stupidest thing I ever heard of.The locals are providing outlets for the broadcasters for free,more eyes = bigger ratings=more $$$.Also,if that is the case the networks oughta be shot for highway robbery!

 

[sam_gordon]

Sam,how do you know that local channels pay the networks for their programming?I'm not disputing your word,I would just like to see proof of it.If it is true then it's the stupidest thing I ever heard of.The locals are providing outlets for the broadcasters for free,more eyes = bigger ratings=more $$$.Also,if that is the case the networks oughta be shot for highway robbery!

That's what I have been told from "people in the know". I'm taking them at their word. So, I'm sorry, I don't have a link or any kind of physical proof to show you. I will also admit maybe I misunderstood what I was told.

 

[sam_gordon]

Yes, it is symbiotic, thus there is no need for a one-sided, adversarial fee relationship.

But couldn't you say the same thing for ESPN, USA, History, Nick, etc, etc, etc.? They MUST rely on cable/satcos to get ANYONE watching. Broadcasters can at least get SOME eyeballs via OTA.

 

[bentjm]

Stardust3 - I live between JC and Jonesborough - close to the Ridges. I cannot get squat where I am.

I still think the whole premise is backwards. If anything, the locals should pay the cable and sat companies. The way it is today, I am subsidizing (through Dish) the local channels.

 

[sam_gordon]

Stardust3 - I live between JC and Jonesborough - close to the Ridges. I cannot get squat where I am.

I still think the whole premise is backwards. If anything, the locals should pay the cable and sat companies. The way it is today, I am subsidizing (through Dish) the local channels.

Why not ESPN, History, Discovery, etc?

 

[Teehar]

Why not ESPN, History, Discovery, etc?

I agree with bentji,local channels broadcast ota free,the spectrum is provided for free.Yet we have to pay for them,simply because we can't get an adequate signal.None of the channels you mention are ota,they are cable and sat only.I can see paying a very nominal fee to locals but they keep asking for more.Imo if they keep getting more money they should be investing some of that money to improve signals ota.Don't get me wrong I don't like paying ESPN and other cable channels what they think they are worth either,I just think that local channels want the cake and eat it too.That's not fair imo.

 

[sam_gordon]

I agree with bentji,local channels broadcast ota free,the spectrum is provided for free.Yet we have to pay for them,simply because we can't get an adequate signal.None of the channels you mention are ota,they are cable and sat only.I can see paying a very nominal fee to locals but they keep asking for more.Imo if they keep getting more money they should be investing some of that money to improve signals ota.Don't get me wrong I don't like paying ESPN and other cable channels what they think they are worth either,I just think that local channels want the cake and eat it too.That's not fair imo.

The problem is the spectrum isn't free. Yes, it was originally handed out free, but I bet you can count on one hand the number of locals still owned by the original owners. All the others have been sold, resold, and sold again. The comparison I read and think applies is land. The land your house sits on was originally given free. But would you say YOU didn't pay for it? Even if you take that out of the mix, and I don't think you can, broadcasters pay a fee to the government to renew their license every year.

I will readily agree broadcasters may be asking for too much in retrans fees. I do wish we knew how much the fees were, without the spin from either side.

 

[bentjm]

Why not the other channels? - because I cannot get them OTA for free. It is apples and oranges.

 

[sam_gordon]

Why not the other channels? - because I cannot get them OTA for free. It is apples and oranges.

But that means those channels rely 100% on cable/satcos. So why should cable/satcos pay for them? Without the cable/satcos, no one sees them.

And didnt you say you can't get OTA? So ESPN, History, et al are the same as locals.

 

[stardust3]

The more of these types of disputes that occur, the closer it gets us to better alternatives.

Dish, you are providing an excellent lesson for others on hardball negotiations. Please continue to drag this out publicly so that others may do the same as well & we can just get on with it.

Thank you for laying the ground work on the future of tv.

 

[Deadlocked]

We have a video from Dish instead of the slate! Is this going to be another long wait or is the video slate this early the new norm?

 

[bentjm]

ESPN, History, etc. have never been free OTA channels. They have always been pay to view channels.