Dish accounts for half of all retrans disputes, NAB says

[Claude Greiner]

I think you've got the right idea, but your math is faulty. As someone said, the claim is usually "pennies a day". So let's say a channel wants an extra 50 cents a month (just to keep the math easy). Now multiply that by all the subscribers.

BUT, although you mentioned it, you didn't take it into account. Your bill goes up $5/month. Now multiply THAT by all the subscribers.

While channels claims of "pennies a day" is simply spin, so is Dish's claims of "fighting to keep prices low". If they were fighting that hard, wouldn't you expect to see a drastic difference between Dish's prices and their competitors? And wouldn't that difference increase over time since Dish keeps "fighting"? Why does the price difference stay pretty constant?

I was under the impression that a local channel might charge let's say .05 cents per month for retransmission.

The reason why you have the $5 charge because Dish pays for the fiber back haul to get the signal to Cheyenne Wy or to whatever uplink center they are using. Then you got the cost of a $250 million dollar satellite where you are using an entire spot beam transponder or 2 to serve 10-50 subscribers in a specific DMA, where as a conus transponder has a much lower per subscriber cost.

Look at it this way. If we didn't have locals, Dish would not have an eastern are set of satellites.

IMHO, the local channels would be better off giving up their terrestrial broadcast licenses and become cable networks. They could charge more money and wouldn't be subject to as many rules and restrictions.

 

[sam_gordon]

The reason why you have the $5 charge because Dish pays for the fiber back haul to get the signal to Cheyenne Wy or to whatever uplink center they are using. Then you got the cost of a $250 million dollar satellite where you are using an entire spot beam transponder or 2 to serve 10-50 subscribers in a specific DMA, where as a conus transponder has a much lower per subscriber cost.

Pay attention now. I wasn't talking about the (in the past) $5 charge for locals. I was talking about the $5 increase per subscriber each month that happens every year. As far as Dish's ongoing costs, "it's the price of doing business", which includes paying for programs their subscribers want (along with paying for programming they DON'T want ).

 

[bnewt]

I have been making that point for years.

Every time Dish pulls a channel, they go and make this big stink that they are doing it for the consumer and trying to save you money.

The fact of the matter is that not once has Dish ever said they are not raising rates due to winning a programming dispute, every year the rates or fees are increased.

The fact of the matter is that so and so channel wants to raise rates from lets say 5 cents to 6 cents per channel, in a package that you pay $50 for.

You as a consumer don't care since your rates went up $3 -5 Last year, but for Dish that's 1 penny for all 13 million of their subscribers that they have to pay for the next 12 months.

So do the math 13,000,000 Pennies x 12 = 156,000,000 Pennies or $1,560,000 over the course of 12 months.

So meanwhile all because of a penny increase, or $1.5 million dollars to Dish Networks bottom line, you get to deal with warnings for 2 weeks that the channel is going away, and possibly be without your channel for 2-3 days while Dish battles it out.

For a penny the average customer could care less, as the rates are going up anyways. For Dish, your penny is $1.5 million if not more to their bottom line at the end of the year.

Didn't you leave out the other side of the equation................the increased revenue & profit Dish made on that penny

13,000,000 x 3.00 x 12 = 468,000,000 increase in revenue & resulting profit.............pretty good mark up for .01

 

[Troch77]

We all know any increase dish gets from the Networks or retransmission fee, it's well covered.

If Networks want a 5 cent increase, Dish will tell you tell you 10, and actually raise you 7.5 and claim they won the fight and stood up for your rights.

Some of you guys put way too much stock into Charlie and these Disputes.
The price difference is minimal between Dish and many other providers.

Nothing near what these endless disputes would actually reflect if it was saving Dish customers so much money.



Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Of course no surprise there. Businesses do not go into business to lose money.

But imagine if a station costs 7 cents now and that station now wants $1 for the same station... DISH fights them gets in a dispute, turns the channel off for a few days and then negotiates for that station a 3 cent more for 10 cents a month.

Was that dispute worth it? Hell yeah!

Many stations now are just throwing out crazy numbers now, in the hopes to get the most they can get... and they are not getting as much as they want. Thus disputes like this are getting more and more common. And ultimately these things should not be considered disputes anymore but just the way of doing business.

And BOTH companies are trying to work out the best deal for THEM, there is no ifs and or buts about it.

 

[Yespage]

Didn't you leave out the other side of the equation................the increased revenue & profit Dish made on that penny

13,000,000 x 3.00 x 12 = 468,000,000 increase in revenue & resulting profit.............pretty good mark up for .01

Did you tack on revenue loss from discounts people get for premiums and what not? The numbers are complicated and very dynamic. I pay more each month for Top 200 and my bill is higher, but I'm also getting more programming because of discounts on premiums.

Fact of the matter is, Sat companies get fleeced by OTA broadcast companies that provide virtually no original programming at all. Dish & Directv should fight every penny.

 

[Bruce]

Fact of the matter is, Sat companies get fleeced by OTA broadcast companies that provide virtually no original programming at all. Dish & Directv should fight every penny.

Network OTA Channels produce a lot more original programming then cable channels, not just prime time shows but all that stuff they put on during the day, morning news shows, game shows, talk shows-(morning, afternoon, night ) local and network news, soap operas, etc

 

[Yespage]

Network OTA Channels produce a lot more original programming then cable channels, not just prime time shows but all that stuff they put on during the day, morning news shows, game shows, talk shows-(morning, afternoon, night ) local and network news, soap operas, etc

Soaps? The soaps are broadcasted nationally. So are the game shows. The only thing they do is show local news (also known as The Scary News!) and what may be considered a 'morning show', as if those things weren't useless enough.

 

[osu1991]

Most of the game shows and talk shows are syndicated. The locals pretty much only produce their local news. The Networks put out the morning shows, a few game shows on CBS, the 3 remaining soaps and then primetime and latenight.

 

[Bruce]

Soaps? The soaps are broadcasted nationally. So are the game shows. The only thing they do is show local news (also known as The Scary News!) and what may be considered a 'morning show', as if those things weren't useless enough.

That is not what you posted, you wrote

Fact of the matter is, Sat companies get fleeced by OTA broadcast companies that provide virtually no original programming at all. Dish & Directv should fight every penny.

All that stuff you mention in the above quote is original programming, they do provide it and they have to pay for it in fees, both to the networks and to the syndication market, they in turn gets the fees from providers like Dish and from advertisers.

 

[KAB]

Most of the game shows and talk shows are syndicated. The locals pretty much only produce their local news. The Networks put out the morning shows, a few game shows on CBS, the 3 remaining soaps and then primetime and latenight.

The ONLY game show produced by and nationally broadcasted by CBS is The Price Is Right.

 

[osu1991]

The ONLY game show produced by and nationally broadcasted by CBS is The Price Is Right.

Don't watch them. I thought Lets Make A Deal was a CBS production, my bad if its not. Last I looked it is nationally distributed by them. Still the Networks only account for about 50% of the local affiliates shows, less than that on CW and MyNet affiliates.

 

[ChadT41]

Can taxpayers and Paytv subscribers sue NAB under RICO violations. That would be fantastic(unrealistic)

 

[KAB]

Don't watch them. I thought Lets Make A Deal was a CBS production, my bad if its not. Last I looked it is nationally distributed by them. Still the Networks only account for about 50% of the local affiliates shows, less than that on CW and MyNet affiliates.

I stand corrected about Deal. I remember is used to be an NBC show.

 

[Yespage]

That is not what you posted, you wrote

All that stuff you mention in the above quote is original programming, they do provide it and they have to pay for it in fees, both to the networks and to the syndication market, they in turn gets the fees from providers like Dish and from advertisers.

Fine, I meant produce then, not provide. I think it was clear what my intent was.

 

[rvvaquero]

Why do people who fail to articulate their position always claim that we knew what they intended?

 

[dare2be]

Produce, provide. In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?

What does matter is remember when OTA stations got all their revenue from advertising? Must carry rules should be changed.

 

[The Fat Man]

Network OTA Channels produce a lot more original programming then cable channels, not just prime time shows but all that stuff they put on during the day, morning news shows, game shows, talk shows-(morning, afternoon, night ) local and network news, soap operas, etc

I know that this will be debated, as it has in the past, but they give their content away for free. If anything, having their programming available on Cable and Satellite gives them even greater range in some markets. In my opinion, that's their argument for demanding more from advertising, claiming that their ads will be seen more. But, they don't want to dry one well, so let's go for both.

Take WHDH in Boston. That's the Boston (soon to be) ex-NBC affiliate. I'm not sure whether it's owner, Sunbeam, went through retransmission negotiation hell with Dish, but I believe they did with Directv. Again, the statement is that they paid a whole bunch of money to produce and license specific programming. Therefore, Directv should be obliged to just give them what they are asking.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago, and the powers that be at Sunbeam are fertilizing their trousers, in the courts, arguing that if NBC moves to its owned WNEU, out of New Hampshire, the signal will be lost to about (insert value here) of NBC's viewership in Boston.

So, OTA is not significant when jacking up the price on cable and satellite operators, but it is significant when your network wants to leave at the end of your contract? Funny how that works.

 

[Yespage]

Why do people who fail to articulate their position always claim that we knew what they intended?

Because clearly the channel is providing programming already. To claim otherwise would be ridiculous.

 

[Voyager6]

Remember that the networks are demanding higher fees from their affiliates and those affiliates are asking for even higher fees from the Sat/Cable companies. The madness has to stop somewhere.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cbs-plays-hardball-as-affiliate-fees-pile-up-1408578087

At the heart of the dispute is the relationship between networks and affiliates. While major networks own stations in big markets, they rely on stations owned by other companies to show their programming in most of the U.S.

And the fees that pay-TV operators, such as Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable, pay for the programming go to the broadcast stations in each market, not the network itself.

As a result, a network will receive pay-TV "retransmission" fees directly only from those stations it owns outright. But the networks have successfully demanded that affiliate stations share the fees they negotiate with pay-TV operators.

In the past few years, networks have been pushing for a bigger cut of that revenue.

SNL Kagan estimates that networks currently take about 45% of the fees that affiliates receive, but it projects that will rise to about 50% by 2019. And Robin Flynn, the research director at SNL Kagan, says the Indianapolis affiliate change is one of several factors suggesting "it's going to get to 50% a lot quicker."

This is bad news for stations. Most of their revenue comes from advertising, which is growing very slowly, whereas retransmission fees are rising quickly. Kagan estimates retransmission fees will account for 16% of broadcast-station revenue this year, rising to 19% next year.