DISH and Sinclair extend contract talks (Update 8/25 Stations Removed)

[Tampa8]

Those are Sinclair stations? I thought when I first saw that dispute they were Heritage stations...

 

[Hall]

I disagree. What about subchannels being picked up OTA but not carried by Dish? In my market, Dish still shows the guide data for those channels. I understand that's not the case everywhere. But if Dish isn't going to supply guide data, they should allow the use of PSIP information. And no, there's no technical reason they can't ("they don't want to" isn't a technical reason).

That is an entirely different subject, not related to this thread's topic

 

[Tampa8]

In the grain of salt department;

http://katyonthehill.com/sinclair-fcc-had-nothing-to-do-with-retrans-deal/

 

[PortlandChris]

I get that, but why? Let each state decide what is appropriate and handle that. There is no real reason it should be a domain of the Feds.

Because airwaves are defined as federal property. Go ahead and ask Congress to change the law. These clowns can't get anything done.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I disagree. What about subchannels being picked up OTA but not carried by Dish? In my market, Dish still shows the guide data for those channels. I understand that's not the case everywhere. But if Dish isn't going to supply guide data, they should allow the use of PSIP information. And no, there's no technical reason they can't ("they don't want to" isn't a technical reason).

I have been saying for what seems like YEARS, that DISH should just do the main networks for guide data on the satellites and use the PSIP data for all sub channels ,since they don't want to support it anyway. Then DISH cuts their costs and the consumer still gets guide data for the subs channels , as limited as it is . It is still better than NOTHING , which is what we have now.

 

[RONZ]

Those are Sinclair stations? I thought when I first saw that dispute they were Heritage stations...

Nope but now Dish does not want to discuss this issue. It looks like Dish has not talked to these guys in a couple of months. I was talking about this before with someone at 9 but I did not believe them. I am starting to think I was wrong.

 

[sam_gordon]

That is an entirely different subject, not related to this thread's topic

Then can you explain why Dish COULDN'T use PSIP data for stations they're not carrying?

 

[Tampa8]

Nope but now Dish does not want to discuss this issue. It looks like Dish has not talked to these guys in a couple of months. I was talking about this before with someone at 9 but I did not believe them. I am starting to think I was wrong.

From your post in a Sinclair thread I thought two Sinclair stations were not going along with the agreement, that's why I asked.

If it is true DISH is no longer negotiating, then from the vast amount of past locals disputes my take away is those stations will not move off of whatever they are asking and DISH simply will not pay it. Why is it that while DISH (and others) have locals disputes they get resolved, but can't with these two stations? DISH does not routinely just stop negotiating or few would get resolved. DISH does not have to agree with them, just as they do not have to agree with DISH. Either can simply say we are not going do business under the present circumstances when a certain point is reached and there is an impasse.
At some point customers will not care, switch provider, and/or it will get resolved.
DISH should give a customer a response to a reasonable question as yours is, you know though they aren't going to say much about it beyond the stations want too much of an increase.

 

[Deadlocked]

This article states: "In a statement, Dish said it had come to terms with Sinclair on fees to carry its TV stations but the broadcaster was holding out to try to leverage distribution for a cable channel it does not yet own. Dish declined to provide details, but Sinclair has expressed interest in starting its own cable network focused on high school and college sports" http://www.nasdaq.com/article/sincl...rom-dish-network-20150825-00977#ixzz3jvLULWGe

So all of this because Sinclair wants to start s new channel focusing on high schools and college sports and Dish won't commit to that? Of course not, the channel does not exist, and hanging a speculative network over Dish and negotiations is sure to go nowhere. I think Sinclair is flat wrong here.

Lolololol the production quality of ASN is so shite that no one would watch the dedicated network. They are better off leaving it like it is with local affiliates picking up games.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RONZ]

No update on WWTV or WFQX

 

[RONZ]

From your post in a Sinclair thread I thought two Sinclair stations were not going along with the agreement, that's why I asked.

If it is true DISH is no longer negotiating, then from the vast amount of past locals disputes my take away is those stations will not move off of whatever they are asking and DISH simply will not pay it. Why is it that while DISH (and others) have locals disputes they get resolved, but can't with these two stations? DISH does not routinely just stop negotiating or few would get resolved. DISH does not have to agree with them, just as they do not have to agree with DISH. Either can simply say we are not going do business under the present circumstances when a certain point is reached and there is an impasse.
At some point customers will not care, switch provider, and/or it will get resolved.
DISH should give a customer a response to a reasonable question as yours is, you know though they aren't going to say much about it beyond the stations want too much of an increase.

I agree but to the executive committee at Dish I sent the info on both stations website stating that the "head negotiations personal at Dish did not review or provide feedback on your last proposal" I asked what is the status of the two stations answer ne

 

[harshness]

Other sources show that there were additional changes other than just the Sinclair stations being turned off/on. Some may like to see them or maybe not.

That would surely be something to be discussed somewhere other than a thread about LIL carriage negotiations.

 

[nelson61]

and, more on the he said- she said.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fcc-interven...work-blackout-are-retransmission-fees-2073768

 

[bobvick]

I get that, but why? Let each state decide what is appropriate and handle that. There is no real reason it should be a domain of the Feds.

I am all for States rights, however, communications is one area which does require Federal oversight. What would you do in a market such as New York City, if the airwaves were State regulated rather than Federal, a large portion of New Jersey is part of the NYC market what say would NJ have since they have no in state stations (hardly). Additionally, what about interference over state lines, if there was no Federal regulation, a station (or microwave transmission for instance) that is licensed near the State line in Mississippi, might effect a user of that frequency close to the State line in Alabama. It would be a clusterf*ck when it came to interference, nothing would work.

 

[pattykay]

I have been saying for what seems like YEARS, that DISH should just do the main networks for guide data on the satellites and use the PSIP data for all sub channels ,since they don't want to support it anyway. Then DISH cuts their costs and the consumer still gets guide data for the subs channels , as limited as it is . It is still better than NOTHING , which is what we have now.

There are some markets where Dish doesn't even provide OTA guide data map-downs for the main networks they carry. (Lima, OH comes to mind.) So, Dish would still have to add OTA guide data map-downs on the satellites for the main networks in those markets in order to do what you propose, and provide OTA guide data for all channels. (That is, if the PSIP data would only be used for sub-channels and other channels that Dish does not carry.)

 

[pattykay]

I am all for States rights, however, communications is one area which does require Federal oversight. What would you do in a market such as New York City, if the airwaves were State regulated rather than Federal, a large portion of New Jersey is part of the NYC market what say would NJ have since they have no in state stations (hardly). Additionally, what about interference over state lines, if there was no Federal regulation, a station (or microwave transmission for instance) that is licensed near the State line in Mississippi, might effect a user of that frequency close to the State line in Alabama. It would be a clusterf*ck when it came to interference, nothing would work.

Technically, that could all be regulated by an inter-state compact without any need for federal involvement. It might not be practical to do so, since it would take some time for all of the states to come to an agreement. Hence, the need for federal regulation, at least temporarily, until such a hypothetical multi-state agreement could be implemented.

 

[bobvick]

Technically, that could all be regulated by an inter-state compact without any need for federal involvement. It might not be practical to do so, since it would take some time for all of the states to come to an agreement. Hence, the need for federal regulation, at least temporarily, until such a hypothetical multi-state agreement could be implemented.

I agree, it could be, but in all practicality the current system is about as good as it will get. I don't see the FCC going away, nor do I see the States wanting to incur the expense of a department to regulate communications.

 

[jerryez]

They need to resolve this before the Fall Premiere week of Sept 21st or at least give us the guide data from somewhere.

 

[RONZ]

They need to resolve this before the Fall Premiere week of Sept 21st or at least give us the guide data from somewhere.

I thought they did it was just paper work. Also the FCC is going to allow Distance Channels in the near future to prevent blank outs

 

[Tampa8]

I am all for States rights, however, communications is one area which does require Federal oversight..

Strongly agree with both.