Dish accounts for half of all retrans disputes, NAB says
- Thread starter Bruce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 69
- Views 5K
Except that Sat broadcasts the local network, which means more eyeballs watching the advertisements. They are already helping the local affiliate.
Yes in fact a few places reporting it.
https://insidecablenews.wordpress.com/
From the Newsmax response below I do believe they are asking to pay less or nothing at all. This part is telling;
"When DISH launched Newsmax TV, we were placed among a suite of shopping channels, unrelated to our news content.
Due to this unfair and inappropriate placement, DISH has made it difficult for their subscribers to find Newsmax TV."
Judging from this they indeed want to pay less or nothing and DISH must be saying but no one is watching, Newsmax blaming that on the channel placement. I'm not trying to make a judgement on the merits of what Newsmax does or does not want to pay only that it does appear there is something to the print that they may want to be there for no cost to them.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/newsmax-tv-DISH/2016/06/06/id/732503/
Now what's funny is relatively speaking, there is not much uproar over this channel. What's their numbers look like? They already offer their content free and in HD online... Not a lot of standing ground. And just looking at that quote, to me, I read it as they want better channel placement to improve their numbers.
When Charlie Ergen blacked out Fox News Channel, it was a suicide mission. I wish he had blacked out Viacom but he blinked.
And the affiliates are helping the Sat companies. Pick any market. Look at the number of subscribers BEFORE LiL happened and the number of subscribers after. The sat companies wouldn't have had as many subscribers if they didn't have the locals. Symbiotic relationship. NOT one sided.
We'll maybe not completely one sided, but yes one sided. Agreed Sat wouldn't have gotten the penetration it got in urban/suburban areas without LIL. But out in the woods where there's no cable Sat is the only way you can go and OTA is hit and miss at best. (I just lost one of my strongest OTA stations when the Ski Resort next door put in a 9 acre solar array. ) So I'm supposed to get OTA reliably and the cost of providing it to me is supposed to be paid by ads. But because the signal isn't received reliably I need to pay a provider to get them. The provider in turn pays the affiliate. So because the affiliate can't get the signal to me reliably OTA they get paid twice for one customer. I say twice because I would be shocked if they weren't telling the advertisers about me.
Dish being responsible for half of all disputes shouldn't be that big of a story. If it were 75 or 90% I would say it was a story.
Dish being responsible for half of all disputes shouldn't be that big of a story. If it were 75 or 90% I would say it was a story.
Only one sided when it comes to retransmission. Locals don't get their way and pull the signal blaming the MPVD's and nothing the MPVD can do. That's a very symbiotic working relationship
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Let providers import locals during disputes and let's see if locals are so quick to pull their channels...
In your case, I agree there shouldn't be a retrans charge. I still maintain you're in the minority (probably even on this site).
And that's the fault of the station how?
Oh BS. The MPVD puts out spin just like the locals. The MVPD is free to pay the requested fee, negotiate, or simply drop the channel. "The price of doing business".
It is not. I just added it in further pointing out the reception realities of terrain, distance and now man made obstacles to folks further out. They're putting these solar arrays on every empty patch of land they can get them on. Except in this case the resort CLEAR CUT the 9 acre plot. It is literally 1,000 feet from my driveway. Lost FOX which sits on Hi-VHF 7 after it went in. Used to be a strong station before that. I have a low-WAF, roof mounted 14 foot Winegard HD-8200 and an Antennas Direct 91XG combined through a Channel Master 7777. So it's not like I'm not trying to get good OTA reception .
Only BS has been your continued drivel that the stations are always right in this matter. They both need to work to negotiate fairly, but it is one sided. Locals start putting out spam onscreen and on their websites weeks before a contract ends to stir up the viewers, even though the MPVD's are still trying to negotiate a deal. sounds one sided there.
So the MVPD is still trying to negotiate and the station pulls the signal the day before the SuperBowl or Academy Awards. Looks pretty one sided to me.
Pay the price. They want all these MVPD's to help them service their DMA's but don't want to help in the costs to get these signals to the MPVDs. They are on public airwaves. Why don't they make it public what they are asking for instead of just saying "we only want to be fairly compensated for our highly rated programming" (which last I looked isn't as highly rated as it used to be) or viewers can still receive us OTA for free, which might be true, if they actually put out a usable signal to more than half of the DMA they claim. Ask people in Western Oklahoma about receiving the OKC channels, North Central Oklahoma claimed by Tulsa or SE Oklahoma claimed by Tulsa or Shreveport.
Drop the channel. Been done and then the station cries " we offered an extension, but they chose to drop our signal instead" sounds one sided there to me.
It's one sided in the sense that there are regulations saying "MVPDs can only offer this station in this area". Remove that, and then it will become more two sided, quickly.
Remember that was designed to protect local advertising, however, if the channel owners want to pull the signal, they are already affecting local advertising negatively so it works against the MVPD, and the local does nothing but benefit. I'm glad Dish is sticking it to WLaJ right now, and DTV dropped Forum Communications. Good for both of them.
I have NEVER said the stations are "always right". I even said in this thread IN THE POST YOU QUOTED that folks that can't receive OTA shouldn't have to pay retrans. I've said in the past stations can charge too much. If you still believe I think stations are "always right", I don't know what else to say.
It was brought up earlier in this thread that networks used to pay affiliates to carry their signal, now they're (networks) having the affiliates pay them (usually a portion of retrans). It's the price of doing business. Same with an MVPD needing to pay for programming. Go ahead and argue they (locals) are charging too much. I guarantee you the locals are saying the networks are charging too much. "The price of doing business".
Right, and if retrans fees went away, they'd have no basis for asking the affiliates for money. It could go back to the way it used to be.
What are you smoking and where do you get it?
IMHO, what's more likely to happen is the networks STILL ask for the money. Because now the networks have come to rely on the income. Do I think locals should get retrans money? At least from users that can receive OTA. Do I think locals can ask for too much retrans? Yes. Where is the line? I don't know.
I would suggest the opposite: users that can receive OTA should not have to pay retrans money because the signal is already available for free. Users who cannot receive OTA should still have to pay, but we should have our choice of affiliates. If the broadcasters are not willing to serve us with their free OTA signal, why should we stay loyal to our local affiliates, and why should we be forced to stay loyal to them by DMA rules?
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
-
T
-
-
T
