Dish about to lose even MORE local channels

[Greg Bimson]

How about when an EchoStar/Dish Network officer gives a statement to Congress...

Statement from Dish Network Senior Counsel David Moskowitz, during the 2004 hearings to reauthorize the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, page 46 (pay close attention to the last paragraph):

The satellite operators that SBCA represents provide the most advanced television choices in the multichannel video market, including high-definition television, personal video recorders and interactive services. The benefit of satellite-delivered technology like DBS is that it can reach consumers across the country without discriminating between rural and urban, sparsely or densely populated areas. Currently, nearly 22 million U.S. households receive television programming via satellite, from both direct broadcast satellite (DBS) and C-Band operators. To illustrate the tremendous growth of satellite television and DBS in particular, the last time this Subcommittee met to discuss the reauthorization of the SHVA, in 1999, there were 13 million satellite subscribers, over 10 million of whom subscribed to DBS. In five years, that number has more than doubled. Despite the emergence and continuing growth of DBS in the multichannel video marketplace, cable operators still serve 75% of multichannel video subscribers. Many factors have contributed to the growth of DBS in the multichannel video market, including the superior customer service, competitive pricing and the wide range of programming offered by DBS operators.

The growth that DBS has experienced, and the resulting benefit to consumers, is due in large part to the support the industry has received from Congress. Throughout the 16-year SHVA reauthorization process, Congress has recognized satellite's potential and the need to amend the Act to accommodate our technological innovations and new marketplace realities. The 1999 Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) was no exception. The provision allowing DBS providers for the first time to retransmit local broadcast stations was certainly a catalyst for the industry's recent growth.

Congress' decision to allow DBS providers to offer local-into-local service, and the subsequent roll out of that service by DBS providers, continues to be a principal reason that customers subscribe to DBS. This permanent statutory provision has given DBS providers the ability to compete with cable head-to-head, on a level playing field, in many markets.

 

[jclewter79]

E* and D* have had to use alot of transpoder space for all those locals. Even if they did get all local channels for free, it is not pure profit. Those birds up there cost alot of money. If the government wanted sat and cable to be even they would allow the sat providers to provide any channel that can be picked up with an antenna in a given area to that area via sat. like the cable providers do.

 

[davhamer]

Likewise, Dish should provide the local stations at a reasonable price as to cover the cost of retransmission.

My point is that cable and satellite should only charge for the cost of retransmission, not profit. Include locals with any basic package. If they only provide the signal within the local DMA, customers would get their locals, carriers would gain customers because they could provide locals for customers at little or no cost. In return, the local stations should provide retransmission rights at no cost. Local stations gain more viewers and advertising revenue.

I'm not disputing that E*'s and D*'s ability to deliver local stations is beneficial to them. There is no doubt there. But, if local market terrestrial stations can charge for the privilige to retransmit, then they should be treated like other programming providers that charge for their content (ie. cable networks). They should not have a special must carry law that only applies to them.

If you live in an area where you can get your locals OTA, then there is not much of an argument. If you live in a DMA where OTA is not possible even with the best of antennas, then I believe (especially in that circumstance) the local stations need Satellite and Cable more than the other way around.

just my $.02

 

[dishcomm]

My point is that cable and satellite should only charge for the cost of retransmission, not profit. Include locals with any basic package. If they only provide the signal within the local DMA, customers would get their locals, carriers would gain customers because they could provide locals for customers at little or no cost. In return, the local stations should provide retransmission rights at no cost. Local stations gain more viewers and advertising revenue.

I'm not disputing that E*'s and D*'s ability to deliver local stations is beneficial to them. There is no doubt there. But, if local market terrestrial stations can charge for the privilige to retransmit, then they should be treated like other programming providers that charge for their content (ie. cable networks). They should not have a special must carry law that only applies to them.

If you live in an area where you can get your locals OTA, then there is not much of an argument. If you live in a DMA where OTA is not possible even with the best of antennas, then I believe (especially in that circumstance) the local stations need Satellite and Cable more than the other way around.

just my $.02

Wow!!!!
My point is that cable and satellite should only charge for the cost of retransmission, not profit.

That's ridiculous. And the profit motive for business means what to you? That a business should only make a profit on things you decide it's ok?..
Please.
Like it or not television is a business just like any other. It isn't a public utility. It isn't an entitlement. It's a business. And as such, it is a business that is entitled by law to attempt to earn a profit.
I agree with the remainder of your post

 

[jclewter79]

Well, I don't agree with the fact that locals should be included in all basic packages. You should only have to pay for what you want. I am against anything that takes choice away from the customer.

 

[TNGTony]

Two options:
1) Redistributors are allowed to make a profit on selling local TV stations. Stations charge a "fair rate" to the redistributor.
2) Redistributors may only charge enough to recuperate costs on the redistribution of local TV stations. Local TV station may not charge the redistributor ANYTHING if the signal is being redistributed within the station's DMA.

Anything else would be unfair to one party or the other. Option 1 is unfair to a third party, the rural viewers/subscribers.

See ya
Tony

 

[abletondj]

Well, I don't agree with the fact that locals should be included in all basic packages. You should only have to pay for what you want. I am against anything that takes choice away from the customer.

agreed, I know i dont watch lifetime, oxygen, and at least half of what we are required to have in our package. i think we should be able to choose channel, by channel what we want to subscribe to. If people don't want those channels, and don't ever watch them ,why should those channels get my $$$?

to me this is like bering forced to pay for desert with my meal, when I won't eat it.

 

[jayn_j]

My point is that cable and satellite should only charge for the cost of retransmission, not profit. Include locals with any basic package. If they only provide the signal within the local DMA, customers would get their locals, carriers would gain customers because they could provide locals for customers at little or no cost. In return, the local stations should provide retransmission rights at no cost. Local stations gain more viewers and advertising revenue.

From the little I know and have read, I believe that DISH and DTV actually lose money on locals, especially in the smaller markets. They are written off as a necessary cost of doing business in the area.

Cable and DTV do provide locals bundled. Somehopw it doesn't lower costs.

If you live in an area where you can get your locals OTA, then there is not much of an argument. If you live in a DMA where OTA is not possible even with the best of antennas, then I believe (especially in that circumstance) the local stations need Satellite and Cable more than the other way around.

I'd say you didn't have satellite service back in the old days when LiL wasn't carried by satellites and was actually forbidden by law until SHVIA. Even though you could sign up for distant locals back then, it was still a major competitive disadvantage for E*/D*. Cable exploited this heavily and would run scare ads about approaching tornados, crime sprees, whatever. They would hit on the fact that with satellite you would never know what was happening in your community.

It worked. Satellite never achieved significant penetration until they started carrying locals. The relationship goes both ways and they both benefit.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I'm not disputing that E*'s and D*'s ability to deliver local stations is beneficial to them. There is no doubt there. But, if local market terrestrial stations can charge for the privilige to retransmit, then they should be treated like other programming providers that charge for their content (ie. cable networks). They should not have a special must carry law that only applies to them.

Stations like the local PBS can never charge for carriage. That is why there is this "must-carry" law.

None of the network affiliates are under "must-carry". They all demand to be compensated for carriage of their programming.

Funny how Dish Network will knock a dollar off of the bill for local channels involved in this dispute. Funny how when all is said and done that the local channel will not get anywhere near a dollar, yet that is approximately what customers will now think that missing local channel is worth.

 

[TNGTony]

Retail cost has to take into account the COST OF DOING BUSINESS!

 

[jayn_j]

Retail cost has to take into account the COST OF DOING BUSINESS!

Funny how most of the people here seem to think that the costs of uplinking, transponder amortization, cost for technician monitoring signal quality, maintaining PoP, billing, and customer support are all FREE

It is generally agreed that DISH loses money on LiL, especially in small markets.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Funny how most of the people here seem to think that the costs of uplinking, transponder amortization, cost for technician monitoring signal quality, maintaining PoP, billing, and customer support are all FREE

I never said that, but since we are on the subject, Dish Network earned $92 million last quarter. Funny how they can make a fairly decent profit...

It is generally agreed that DISH loses money on LiL, especially in small markets.

Only if one attributes many different parcels of the business to local-into-local. Yet local-into-local is subsidizing the cost of entry level packages, which is where Dish Network makes their money. It should go without saying, as it is quite obvious, that providing local-into-local service is a retail cost to provide bigger profits for entry level packages. It is the cost of doing business.

Heck, being technical, Eastern Arc is a money loser. All those satellites and only a handful of people can receive the programming.

 

[jayn_j]

I never said that, but since we are on the subject, Dish Network earned $92 million last quarter. Funny how they can make a fairly decent profit

Well, that is compared to $199 million for 3Q07, and is based on revenues of 2.9 billion. 3% profit, which is scary small for a company that size.
EchoStar Communications Corporation - Quarterly Report look at page 2.

BTW, I wasn't attacking you here. There are just a lot of postings on these negotiations where the only thing people are considering is the royalty.

...Only if one attributes many different parcels of the business to local-into-local. Yet local-into-local is subsidizing the cost of entry level packages, which is where Dish Network makes their money. It should go without saying, as it is quite obvious, that providing local-into-local service is a retail cost to provide bigger profits for entry level packages. It is the cost of doing business.

Heck, being technical, Eastern Arc is a money loser. All those satellites and only a handful of people can receive the programming.

But people for some reason do think about their locals differently. When FBN gets held up over negotiations with FOX, people seem to understand it. They don't like it, but they know that Rupert is a player here and is also culpable.

They forget that this isn't "their" station asking for more money, but that these are large broadcasting groups asking for more money for stations in small markets in exchgange for the rights to carry them in larger markets. There are no good guys here, kind of like football star vs NFL negotiations.

It may be cost of business, but it is one with very high variances in incremental revenue and costs that are pretty much fixed no matter how big the market is. What I mean is NYC has a half million subscribers. Cheyenne Wyoming probably has fewer than 5000, yet the costs to put a channel on the satellite are about the same.

It isn't the same for the cable channels. Dish has the power to place channels that want more money on higher tiers, and that in turn can be used to negotiate rates. It is kind of the reverse with locals. The broadcasting group is negotiating for all markets they have a presence in, and that generally leads to being forced to carry the other stations in the market (yep, you can have Chicago, but youse gotta take Davenport too)

 

[tempVAdish]

It's not just the DBS carriers that are having issues, the locals are wanting money for getting their signal to more people than their towers can reach...

Official says Charter still hopes for deal with WVEC-TV | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

 

[dishcomm]

Well, I don't agree with the fact that locals should be included in all basic packages. You should only have to pay for what you want. I am against anything that takes choice away from the customer.

Yes. in that small context which I missed in the previous post, I agree. Choice is most important. One should not be compelled to pay for locals should they have the ability and desire to receive then by another means.

 

[jclewter79]

Back to topic, as much as I hate it KTEN is small potatos to E*. We are going to lose this channel on the first if Lockwood does not back off and forget about Texoma CW. Message to Lockwood: go buy some ABC rights and put them on one of KTEN's subchannels. Then take that to E*, I bet they will carry that. It sucks being in the only DMA without an ABC affliate. I don't even point my OTA at KTEN because Sherman/Ada has no ABC. I point to Dallas and get all the channels I want. I do still get 12 because they are so close but, as it is now I do not watch Texoma CW now because I am not pointed at it, and I would not watch it if it were on Dish Network. I watch CW 33 out of Dallas because it is in HD. Something KTEN can't do.

 

[MikeD-C05]

It's not just the DBS carriers that are having issues, the locals are wanting money for getting their signal to more people than their towers can reach...

Official says Charter still hopes for deal with WVEC-TV | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

We are having a retransmission dispute here in our local town of Beaumont/Pt.Arthur ,Texas between Time Warner Cable and our local ABC/NBC affiliate. After 12/31/08 there will be no ABC or NBC from channel 12.1/12.2. This station does both ABC and will do NBC come 1/1/09 on their digital sub channel. Looks like NO superbowl for cable customers . As for satellite customers like DISH , the same thing will happen to them , because they don't have the sub channel 12.2 up on the satellite for NBC. Our pre existing local NBC affiliate KBTV channel 4 is changing to a FOX on 1/1/09. Of course if you have a 612/622/722 receiver or the 211/211k receivers ,you can still see these channels using your ota attenna hooked up to you receiver.

These are desperate times for local stations and a lot of the channels are trying to use the Superbowl as their leverage in gaining more money for the carriage of their stations on satellite and cable companies. Pay what we want or no superbowl and your subs will be pissed and churn. Personally I've said it before and I will say it again; Both satellite and cable need to make their receivers with an ota dual tuner . This way their customers could still receive their locals without disruption in these disputes.


DISH has kind of dealt with these issues with the new 722k receiver -still yet to hit the market. It will have a dual tuner sat and dual tuner ota tuner for 4 recordings at the same time. IF DISH was smart they would of done this all along going back to the begining. Then they would of only needed to equip their customers with ota antennas, that they could of sold them. IF Charlie hadn't of screwed up in his greed for more $$$$, Distants could of still been used for those who couldn't use ota antennas due to; mountains, reception issues,etc.

IF I was Charlie, I would of used two sets of ota dual tuners in my sat box and allowed them all to be used , along with the sat tuners, to be recorded on . Then DISH could of sold the ota antennas seperate or incorporated them into the dish itself like Voom did. Then all they would need to do is put guide information up on the satellite using a company like Tribune media to provide guide info for name based recording features . Imagine then how good your picture quality would look on sat right now if they didn't have to add all those locals up there on the satellite.

 

[HDRoberts]

Just saw more evidence that it's not just Dish. Saw an ad from the local CBS, WOIO (who also owns the My Network TV affiliate WUAB) who says their signal will be yanked from 2 smaller cable systems in town Jan 1st. Make's you go hmmmm.

 

[osu1991]

Looks like KTEN is taking a beating on their own website, by the outraged people. Dish has some fans in this dispute.

 

[Stargazer]

Ouch.