DISH Calls on FCC to Intervene as Media General Prolongs Blackout

[Tyralak]

Yeah! They can use kids helium balloons to keep those billion dollar satellites up there! See, it wouldn't cost them anything, and they could all work for free!

Its not like satellite and cable companies need to make a profit. Their employees don't REALLY need to eat, do they?

 

[Rey]

What I don't understand is why DirecTV subscribers come to the Dish forum? I certainly never step foot in the DirecTV forum to troll...

Sent from my iPhone 4S using Forum Runner

There's nothing wrong nor is there a rule where Directv subs can't visit or post in Dish forums. However, there are rules against trolling a thread no matter what forum it may be in. Having said that I hope to see this thread get back on topic since this isn't the war zone.

 

[sam_gordon]

Yeah! They can use kids helium balloons to keep those billion dollar satellites up there! See, it wouldn't cost them anything, and they could all work for free!

Its not like satellite and cable companies need to make a profit. Their employees don't REALLY need to eat, do they?

Here's what I *THINK* happened...

D* and E* originally charged people separately for locals. The locals then thought "why should they make money off us? They should pay us." Then they lobbied for retrans.

And before someone says locals should be happy because they get more viewers, while that's true, the sat providers should be happy because they would lose subscribers if they DIDN'T have locals. Broadcasters and sat providers need each other almost equally.

 

[Rangers484]

Or if Dish would have turned around the signals for "free" to start with instead of charging anyone...

Doesn't getting the signal from the provider to the Dish Satellite Farm and then up to their satellites and back down to your TV cost them money? Equipment, employees, buildings?

So each local provider is given the spectrum for free, they provide the programming for free OTA but feel the need to charge sat and cable companies and then charge advertisers when sat and cable subscribers watch.

Who should be turning it around for free again?

 

[sam_gordon]

Doesn't getting the signal from the provider to the Dish Satellite Farm and then up to their satellites and back down to your TV cost them money? Equipment, employees, buildings?

So each local provider is given the spectrum for free, they provide the programming for free OTA but feel the need to charge sat and cable companies and then charge advertisers when sat and cable subscribers watch.

Who should be turning it around for free again?

Read my post right above yours.

Yes, there is a SMALL percentage of satco subscribers who must use satellite to receive the broadcast. That's an EXTREMELY small percentage though. ESPECIALLY when you compare that to ESPN, Disney, History, TLC, MTV, or any of the other many, many, channels who have to RELY on sat/cable cos to reach 100% of their viewers.

ETA: I also want to point out, while I support retrans agreements, I do not think locals should be able to "charge whatever they like." I would have no problem with some rule or regulation limiting the amount charged/subscriber (50 cents max? MAYBE 75?).

 

[Rangers484]

Read my post right above yours.

Yes, there is a SMALL percentage of satco subscribers who must use satellite to receive the broadcast. That's an EXTREMELY small percentage though. ESPECIALLY when you compare that to ESPN, Disney, History, TLC, MTV, or any of the other many, many, channels who have to RELY on sat/cable cos to reach 100% of their viewers.

ETA: I also want to point out, while I support retrans agreements, I do not think locals should be able to "charge whatever they like." I would have no problem with some rule or regulation limiting the amount charged/subscriber (50 cents max? MAYBE 75?).

Unfortunately I do not agree with you on 2 points.

When the locals start paying for the spectrum they get for free I may have a different opinion on selling to sat/cable what they give away OTA. Sat/Cable have costs involved in acquiring the signal. I don't believe it costs $5/mo per subscriber to provide the service. The limit for Sat/Cable should be simply to pass through their costs to acquire and retransmit the signal. When the free spectrum was granted the model was to make money via advertising. They still do that. If they can't compete on that model then it's time for locals to go away and everything becomes pay channels.

Again this all starts with free spectrum and free OTA. When the signal was analog i would agree that only a small percent could not get the signal OTA. Since OTA went Digital that percent has gone up exponentially. I live only 12 miles from the transmission towers and when it is windy I lose OTA signal. When it rains I lose OTA signal. This never happened when it was analog. This does not even account for the people who have a building or natural obstruction in their LOS to the towers.

Free means the government is giving away an asset that the citizens of this country own only to be charged for it in the end. The government created this monster and needs to reign it in. Both sat/cable and locals are holding the subscriber as hostages during negotiations.

There needs to be a regulation to handle these disputes similar to how the ESPN/DISN negotiations are being handed. Everything is status quo until a deal is reached. New deal is retroactive to end of old contract.

Using the viewer as a hostage, actively encouraging subscribers to change providers and not replying in a timely manner and yanking locals off the air is not negotiating in good faith and needs to stop.

There are no clean hands in this dispute, however I have more of an issue with the locals and their tactics.

 

[sam_gordon]

The land where your house is... was it free to you? Or did you have to pay for it? I'm feeling pretty safe that it's the rare instance where someone literally got their land for free. But the government gave away that land (for FREE) a long time ago. It's the same with the broadcast spectrum. Here's an article explaining it better.

http://www.commlawcenter.com/2011/09/by-scott-r-flick-spectrum.html

Very few current broadcasters "got their spectrum for free." The FCC has been auctioning off broadcast spectrum for over a decade, and broadcast stations that were licensed before that time have typically been sold and resold at "fair market value" many times over the years. As a result, it is a rare broadcaster that currently holds a broadcast license obtained directly from the FCC "for free". Most broadcasters have paid dearly for that license, both in terms of the station purchase price and the public service obligations that come with the license.
Still, fee proponents argue that because the original license holder didn't have to pay the government for the spectrum, the "free" argument still applies, no matter how many times the station has changed hands since then. That argument is eviscerated, however, by a simple analogy. When the United States was settled, the government issued land grants to settlers who "staked a claim" to virgin territory by promising to make productive use of that land (the "Sooners" being one of the better-known examples). Other than the promise to use the land, these settlers did not pay the government for their land grants. The land then passed from generation to generation and from seller to buyer many times in the years since the original grant. However, despite the fact that the original owners "got their land for free", I would wager there are few homeowners among us who would agree that we received "our" land for free, much less accept a governmental fee premised on that assertion.

And the spectrum isn't even currently "free". Stations need to pay the government for their licenses.

 

[sam_gordon]

Again this all starts with free spectrum and free OTA. When the signal was analog i would agree that only a small percent could not get the signal OTA. Since OTA went Digital that percent has gone up exponentially. I live only 12 miles from the transmission towers and when it is windy I lose OTA signal. When it rains I lose OTA signal. This never happened when it was analog. This does not even account for the people who have a building or natural obstruction in their LOS to the towers.

Do you have anything to backup your claim about the percentage that lost reception "went up exponentially"? I agree some people who had analog reception lost it on digital, but some who had no (or marginal) analog reception gained it on digital. And while we're talking about the transition, that was mandated by the government.

As far as reception, I have an attic mount antenna. I get two stations that are 4.8 miles away (according to tvfool.com), 3 that are 16-16.5 miles away, and one that's 21 miles away. Granted, all the channels are UHF.

 

[Dishman1978]

Its not like satellite and cable companies need to make a profit. Their employees don't REALLY need to eat, do they?

Nope! I'd be happy to install satellite services as a charity.........

 

[david_jr]

They need to write mandatory binding arbitration into the retrans laws.

 

[Voyager6]

They need to write mandatory binding arbitration into the retrans laws.

Actually, a minor rewrite of the existing rules would be all that's needed. You can elect must carry (no payment) or retrans consent (payment) but if you choose retrans consent you could lose the market exclusivity that you currently enjoy. This would encourage the local carriers to reach a deal or lose their exclusive market. Just a thought.

 

[sam_gordon]

Actually, a minor rewrite of the existing rules would be all that's needed. You can elect must carry (no payment) or retrans consent (payment) but if you choose retrans consent you could lose the market exclusivity that you currently enjoy. This would encourage the local carriers to reach a deal or lose their exclusive market. Just a thought.

While I get what you're saying, wouldn't that then give the satcos too much power? I still think a federal mandated cap (or determined through arbitration) on what can be charged for each subscriber is, while not perfect, the "most fair".

 

[Tampa8]

I don't see it as too much power. If they demand transmission, with no fee (Or I have no objection to a very small fee for costs incurred) they get it which is very similar to OTA. You provide a signal for free, in return no other affiliate.
If you choose to charge, and can not come to an agreement, you lose the right to being exclusive (similar to what I told my girlfriend ....) The carrier will pay a reasonable amount to keep the locals for news etc. Not everyone, in fact most do not want out of market locals. But should they try and get greedy like now, it would give the carrier the right to bring in an outside signal preserving at least the Network programming.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't see it as too much power. If they demand transmission, with no fee (Or I have no objection to a very small fee for costs incurred) they get it which is very similar to OTA. You provide a signal for free, in return no other affiliate.
If you choose to charge, and can not come to an agreement, you lose the right to being exclusive (similar to what I told my girlfriend ....) The carrier will pay a reasonable amount to keep the locals for news etc. Not everyone, in fact most do not want out of market locals. But should they try and get greedy like now, it would give the carrier the right to bring in an outside signal preserving at least the Network programming.

Assuming the bolded is true. Let's say the rule in question goes into effect. What's to keep Charlie from telling the affiliate "you don't charge us a dime and we'll let you on?"

I definitely agree stations can be asking for too much in fees, and there should be a way to limit (but not eliminate) that.

 

[Hall]

Who determines what is "too much"?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[sam_gordon]

Who determines what is "too much"?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

IMO, that's where a 3rd party needs to come in.

 

[Voyager6]

While I get what you're saying, wouldn't that then give the satcos too much power? I still think a federal mandated cap (or determined through arbitration) on what can be charged for each subscriber is, while not perfect, the "most fair".

I think that this proposal would re-balance the market. The local stations would only be able to ask for a rate that equals or is less than the cost of providing a station from a neighboring market.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think that this proposal would re-balance the market. The local stations would only be able to ask for a rate that equals or is less than the cost of providing a station from a neighboring market.

And again, what happens when Charlie (or whoever) simply says "we don't put you on unless you don't charge us"?

For example, let's look at Indianapolis. A station is in negotiation with Dish, and Charlie pulls the above. The station says no, Dish pulls them and imports Louisville. After a while, the station caves, and they're back on. A year later, the Louisville affiliate is up for negotiation. Charlie does the above, the station balks, and they get pulled. Dish imports Indianapolis. How long until all the locals are carried free? Yes, I'm sure that would make a lot of folks here happy (because they believe it will somehow save them money ), I just disagree with it.

 

[Tampa8]

Because the strong preference is to have the locals for news etc. Dish would have like it does right now a figure in mind. They would negotiate and if no agreement is met, DISH can get an out of market replacement. The danger for DISH is subscribers not happy when they don't get when local news breaks or maybe worse - breaks for non local news etc.. And of course loss of a local news oultet. If you tell me people don't care about that, then that's an argument to do away with local affiliates.
Just keep in mind, it's in my opinon it is a symbiotic relationship so both stand to lose or gain by not being carried.

 

[sam_gordon]

Because the strong preference is to have the locals for news etc. Dish would have like it does right now a figure in mind. They would negotiate and if no agreement is met, DISH can get an out of market replacement. The danger for DISH is subscribers not happy when they don't get when local news breaks or maybe worse - breaks for non local news etc.. And of course loss of a local news oultet. If you tell me people don't care about that, then that's an argument to do away with local affiliates.
Just keep in mind, it's in my opinon it is a symbiotic relationship so both stand to lose or gain by not being carried.

Oh, I agree with you that people care about their local news, and I agree they both (affiliates & dish) need each other. I just wonder if Charlie would play "hard ball". That's why I think a 3rd party should determine what the cost/subscriber is. I don't know if you do it as a flat fee (regardless of affiliation), something different between "major" and "minor" affiliates, or somehow ratings related.