CBS Seeks to Unwind Retrans Agreement With Dish Network

[Tyralak]

If the rules were changed to where the "providers" were only allowed to collect a fee per ACTUAL VIEWER then a lot of this nonsense would disappear. WHY should someone be required to pay for something they never watch? Bundling is one thing, but a blanket charge for every subscriber is something else. Not quite A La Carte, but certainly desirable from our point of view.

Yes, the technology can support this. And my bill, since I never watch sports, would decline. Frankly, we mostly watch "niche" channels. Yep, metered viewing would mean a different bill each month. But I'll bet a lot of sports fans, forced to pay full freight, would choose not to pay. And costs would go down. So the owners and players would become multi-millionaires to a smaller degree.

Why would it change every month if you have the same channels?

 

[dare2be]

Why would it change every month if you have the same channels?

Because some months you would watch more channels/hours per channel than other months.

 

[Tyralak]

Because some months you would watch more channels/hours per channel than other months.

Metering by time watched is a horrible idea. It would lead to huge variations in billing plus the potential for runaway bills. Forget to turn off the receiver at night? Bam! Tons of usage charges. That would be the worst price model possible. Paying per channel would be nice, but not by the hour.

 

[dare2be]

Metering by time watched is a horrible idea. It would lead to huge variations in billing plus the potential for runaway bills. Forget to turn off the receiver at night? Bam! Tons of usage charges. That would be the worst price model possible. Paying per channel would be nice, but not by the hour.

Can't or won't be careful watching your TV usage? No problem, that is what the unlimited plan is for (at AEP prices). There could be different models and plan levels for practically every customer.

 

[Craigbiz]

People are going to favor whatever is cheaper for them to get the channel they like the best, just as they do now with choosing the packages they like the best. Metering already exists for example in channels like Playboy which can be ordered for blocks of several hours at a time. Of course that same channel also offers a monthly subscription fee which is about the same as you would pay for just a couple of those blocks. Its an idea, but I don't think it will work. People I think would prefer A La Carte, however, the television programmers do not like this. They actually put it into their contracts with Dish Network that all the channels have to be delievered as a package to the consumer, and the consumer is required to pay for all 8 channels when there is only 2 of those 8 that are desired. The only way around this is through regulation by congress. They will just keep putting the anti a la carte language back into their contracts each and every time they renew.

Here is what really gets me. I have Dish Network but would love to get the HBO package my local cable company has because, well, they carry ALL of the HBOs. I cannot do that without also subscribing to the cable company's base package which comes out to just about $70 worth of redundant channels that I already have. I would rather just get the HBOs from cable and everything else from Dish. They shoot themselves in the foot with these types of polices of requiring base packages as prerequisites to others. As a result, Cable gets left with noting and I am stuck with a somewhat limited offering of premium channels. I am also expecting to soon have issues with Showtime which is a CBS property if this thing with CBS continues to unfold with Dish Network. They may for example restrict the availability of HD versions of the channel. This is a concern, but just like the situation with HBO I will not subscribe to Showtime through my cable provider because of the cost of also having to get a base package. I would simply drop the channels from my bill until they work out an agreement with Dish. I would have done this with Disney Channel years ago, but unfortunatly it is in the base package of Dish and I am stuck paying for that nonsense. The second they come up with a new structure if that ever happens, Mickey Mouse will be the first on my list that goes bye-bye. ;-)

 

[Barry Erick]

Business models need to change and keep up with the technology. Even if CBS wins the lawsuit we are not that far off from the age when people are going to be writing scripts and basically building their own DVRs with simple computer design apps. Technology changes rapidly. They should seriously consider just running pop-up ads during prime-time programming just the same way they already do it for permoting shows on their network. We see the little animations now already, anyway. Whats the difference if we see a graphic with the Coke Bears Vs one that is advertizing the next episode of CSI? Also lets keep in mind that all the top rated TV shows usually get watched live as they are being broadcast on the air by people who just can't wait to see them. Those viewers of all the shows which top the ratings charts, see the commercials. They can't hop over them. But business models have to change. When it comes to blacking out viewers, we both lose. Both us and CBS. For us, we can't watch our favorite shows if we can't get our locals over the air without breakup. I would not switch to cable over just one channel. Then CBS loses out because there would then be millions of Dish Network customers that would no longer receive their signal. That means a dip in the Neilson ratings for them, and less money from advertisers. We both lose. They need to find a way to adapt to the changes. Look at how the long distance phone companies changed their business model with the Androids and Iphones? Then look at what happened to Kodak when digital cameras took over. Instead of adapting to the changes, they ended up going out of business. I want over the air free TV to last forever. The big four don't need a breakthrough revolution. All they need to do is revise their contracts with their prime-time purchases and run advertisement graphics. A very simple solution for a complicated problem. In the end, I go walking away happy because I can still see my shows, and they go walking away happy because they are still making gazillions of dollars.

There is a real simple way for the networks to sneak commercials in that used to be done in the 50's. Make it part of the dialog and interwind the product with the dialog. Jack Benny show was great for this. Of course it does not work for syndicaton or local break insert.
Also, the Coke Bears is a paid commercial, the what's on the next episode of CSI is NOT a commercial. It is a promo which the eqivalent charge of commercial time is charge to the promo department. The left hand is paying the right hand, in that instance, so the commercial dept shows income, but the whole company sees zero income. As my 42 years of employment in TV was paid for my commercials, I feel like a traitor when I use autohop. Before autohop I used Fwd Skip 7 times on prime time and that is still the default when one uses autohop.

 

[Tampa8]

......... I feel like a traitor when I use autohop. Before autohop I used Fwd Skip 7 times on prime time and that is still the default when one uses autohop.

If I'm reading that correctly you feel like a traitor using Autohop, but not when you make the effort to skip commercials?

 

[Foxbat]

I don't get the logic. AH is just one feature of the Hopper. I don't even use it, as it's tied to PTAT, which I don't use either.

My previous purchasing history includes Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Mercury cars. You can't buy those new anymore . Also bought Commodore Amiga and Digital Alpha computers which are likewise extinct. It's a gift...

 

[mike123abc]

CBS earns about 1.7 billion from television ads a quarter or about $633 million per month. There are about 100 million pay TV households in the US. To cut the commercials CBS would need an additional $6.33/month per sub per month. The local affiliate would need some cash too for their local inserts, but they make the most on their news casts.

So, would the average household pay an extra $25/month for the big 4 networks commercial free? (ignoring of course the OTA).

 

[dishcomm]

This commercial skip issue is a slippery slope.
All should be careful what they wish for.
If programmers see their revenues slipping and can produce data that the cause is less frequent views of advertising, they may retaliate with significantly higher per subscriber rates.

 

[dare2be]

This commercial skip issue is a slippery slope.
All should be careful what they wish for.
If programmers see their revenues slipping and can produce data that the cause is less frequent views of advertising, they may retaliate with significantly higher per subscriber rates.

Good. The current model needs to die anyway. People will vote with their pocketbooks.

 

[navychop]

CBS earns about 1.7 billion from television ads a quarter or about $633 million per month. There are about 100 million pay TV households in the US. To cut the commercials CBS would need an additional $6.33/month per sub per month. The local affiliate would need some cash too for their local inserts, but they make the most on their news casts.

So, would the average household pay an extra $25/month for the big 4 networks commercial free? (ignoring of course the OTA).

Not me. I rarely watch locals, and when I do, it's OTA. I'm grandfathered with no locals, saving $5-$6 per month. Commercials have gotten so bad and numerous I would literally stop watching and paying for a Dish subscription if I HAD to watch them. Of course, there are a few I like- but how often do I need to see them? Too many other options for entertainment. The big networks need to rethink their business plan and come up with a new survival (or exit) strategy that doesn't abuse their viewers.

I look forward to the day when the ads are personalized, and I never have to see another feminine hygiene product commercial, or many others.

 

[navychop]

This commercial skip issue is a slippery slope.
All should be careful what they wish for.
If programmers see their revenues slipping and can produce data that the cause is less frequent views of advertising, they may retaliate with significantly higher per subscriber rates.

And thereby price themselves out of the market. WHY should we endlessly pay ever higher fees for overpaid sports and Hollywood types that have no incentive to reduce or even control costs? You can only distort the market for so long. Even laws and union rules eventually succumb to market forces. As did Communism, for most of the non-totalitarian world (the remainder being subsidized for political reasons that will also pass away).

Tough times force change, and what if we enter even tougher times? Will those high priced sports packages survive? Will people subscribe in sufficient numbers to premium packages? Or pay TV at all? If my income drops $1,000 or $1,500 per month, won't I have to make some HARD choices? Will pay TV trump alcohol? Trump what foods are bought?

Pay TV is a LUXURY. And those tend to go away in hard times.

Hopefully we won't see worse times, but ever increasing prices will affect such luxuries all the same. You can't keep increasing prices over people's income indefinitely.

 

[mike123abc]

You can't keep increasing prices over people's income indefinitely.

What?!?! Hollywood magic is worth more to people than food!

 

[Tyralak]

There is a real simple way for the networks to sneak commercials in that used to be done in the 50's. Make it part of the dialog and interwind the product with the dialog. Jack Benny show was great for this. Of course it does not work for syndicaton or local break insert.

Product placement is an awesome form of advertizing. In fact, I really like it as it adds a sense of realism to the show. They even managed to do this in Star Trek XI with Nokia and Budweiser. It added a bit of familiar grounding to the movie.

 

[dare2be]

Product placement is an awesome form of advertizing. In fact, I really like it as it adds a sense of realism to the show. They even managed to do this in Star Trek XI with Nokia and Budweiser. It added a bit of familiar grounding to the movie.

It's too bad the reboot of the franchise took away the rest of the familiar grounding.

 

[MikeD-C05]

And thereby price themselves out of the market. WHY should we endlessly pay ever higher fees for overpaid sports and Hollywood types that have no incentive to reduce or even control costs? You can only distort the market for so long. Even laws and union rules eventually succumb to market forces. As did Communism, for most of the non-totalitarian world (the remainder being subsidized for political reasons that will also pass away).

Tough times force change, and what if we enter even tougher times? Will those high priced sports packages survive? Will people subscribe in sufficient numbers to premium packages? Or pay TV at all? If my income drops $1,000 or $1,500 per month, won't I have to make some HARD choices? Will pay TV trump alcohol? Trump what foods are bought?

Pay TV is a LUXURY. And those tend to go away in hard times.

Hopefully we won't see worse times, but ever increasing prices will affect such luxuries all the same. You can't keep increasing prices over people's income indefinitely.

A perfect example of how much more we pay for the same programming packs with DISH is this :

In January of 2001 AEP (top 250 + 4 premiums) costed only $69.99 and this month,12 years later the cost is $119.99. A $50.00 increase . Can you imagine what the cost would be in another ten years?

In February of 2003 top 200 was only $39.98 and this month after the latest price increase , it will cost $64.99 a month. A $25.01 increase over a mear ten years. Imagine the cost in ten years more , if this increase stays the same: $90.00 for top 200 would be the price we pay in 2023, just for the most popular programming pack that DISH carries.

And to make anyone see what we were paying in 1996 when DISH started, for top 40 channels was $19.95 a month and today for the lowest regular programming pack top 120 (without sports rsn) : $49.99 . Top 120+(with sports rsn) $59.99. The only way you can still stay around $19.99 a month in price, is the Welcome pack in SD and you only get around 20 random channels , including shopping channels.

At this rate , I don't see the cable/satellite model lasting. I have always found ways to get around the increases by dropping down to lower pack or dropping extra receivers, but I am now where I have to decide which channels I would have to do without if I drop any further. My latest bill this month is just under $100.00 a month and all I have is top 200 + 1/2 price Hbo and two additional receivers $14.00 + $10.00dvr fee . I am at my breaking point. Any further increases will mean having to decide if I want to go down to the Welcome pack and go SD for national channels.

 

[dare2be]

I will be dropping down to AT200 in a couple of months after I've finished recording old Pokemon episodes off Boomerang for my daughter. If I could get them from any other source I would have already done it.

 

[Dah-Henny]

In February of 2003 top 200 was only $39.98 and this month after the latest price increase , it will cost $64.99 a month. A $25.01 increase over a mear ten years. Imagine the cost in ten years more , if this increase stays the same: $90.00 for top 200 would be the price we pay in 2023

You're looking at approximately 60% increase from '03 until now, which would be near $104 for AT200 in 10 years.

 

[dare2be]

Package sizes have risen (more channels), package prices have risen, but the content in those packages has remained the same.