DISH Calls on FCC to Intervene as Media General Prolongs Blackout

[gadgtfreek]

Personally I like to keep up with both, since I have no loyalty to either and will swap back and forth as it meets my needs.

I do hope that nobody thinks I am trolling just because I, as a directv sub, commented in this thread. Certainly isn't my intention.

Posted Via The SatelliteGuys Reader App!

Dont sweat it, I read both as well.

• People in the Dish forum have their head in the sand
• People in the Directv forum have their head in the sand
• Dish people troll the other section
• Directv people troll the other section

I most love reading comments from people that havent had both services, unlike like me who has, and show they actually have no idea what they are talking about. And sure, Dish didnt raise package prices for awhile, but they had a good ol time with rcvr fees recently

 

[yelraek]

There is really a simple solution to this. The FCC should mandate that if the parties cannot reach an agreement in good faith and the station is pulled the "must carry" rule will be invoked until an agreement is reached. This way the consumers will not be left out in the cold with no channel to watch.

 

[Hall]

I almost never side with the TV stations, but your suggestion makes the station "lose", while viewers and the carrier (Dish, Directv, cablecos, etc) "win". If that were in place, then what ? The carrier could stall then and keep the channel...

 

[sam_gordon]

There is really a simple solution to this. The FCC should mandate that if the parties cannot reach an agreement in good faith and the station is pulled the "must carry" rule will be invoked until an agreement is reached. This way the consumers will not be left out in the cold with no channel to watch.

So then why would a carrier negotiate at all? Just stall, FCC puts out "must carry" and the carrier gets the channel for free.

ETA: There is no "simple solution" that will make all parties "happy". The trick is to find a compromise so all parties are "satisfied".

 

[yelraek]

I almost never side with the TV stations, but your suggestion makes the station "lose", while viewers and the carrier (Dish, Directv, cablecos, etc) "win". If that were in place, then what ? The carrier could stall then and keep the channel...

Lose? Lose what? The stations should be paying the carriers to carry their station so they can reach more consumers other than just OTA.

 

[yelraek]

So then why would a carrier negotiate at all? Just stall, FCC puts out "must carry" and the carrier gets the channel for free.

ETA: There is no "simple solution" that will make all parties "happy". The trick is to find a compromise so all parties are "satisfied".

Wouldn't this give the stations more incentive to try to reach a fair agreement in good faith?

 

[sam_gordon]

Lose? Lose what? The stations should be paying the carriers to carry their station so they can reach more consumers other than just OTA.

A) By far, most viewers don't need satellite to get locals. They do it for convenience. Yes, there are a FEW who must get the locals of satellite, but they're far in the minority.
B) The satellite companies need the locals also. If they didn't have the locals (and D* or cable did), viewers will go there.

It's a symbiotic relationship. They both need each other, and IMO, about equally. If subscribers didn't care about locals, there wouldn't be threads every time there's a dispute.

 

[sam_gordon]

Wouldn't this give the stations more incentive to try to reach a fair agreement in good faith?

You're missing the point. Why would Charlie (for example) negotiate in good faith? Under your suggestion, if there's no agreement, he gets the channels for free. So why negotiate?

ETA: Who decides what's a "fair" agreement?

 

[bentjm]

I am one of those viewers that cannot get my local CBS station over the air - the mountains of east TN are in the way. I think that Dish should be able to substitute another CBS station until the dispute is over.

 

[yelraek]

A) By far, most viewers don't need satellite to get locals. They do it for convenience. Yes, there are a FEW who must get the locals of satellite, but they're far in the minority.

You know this for a fact? I bet you would be supprised at how many cannot receive the stations OTA. I'm one of them!!

 

[sam_gordon]

You know this for a fact? I bet you would be supprised at how many cannot receive the stations OTA. I'm one of them!!

Do I have numbers to support it? No. Is it hard to figure out? No. Most channels are located in urban areas. Those urban areas are going to have the highest density of people. Therefore, MOST of the people live within OTA range (I am talking in general, and there might be a market or two that are the exception). I'll readily admit there are people who can't receive OTA no matter what kind of antenna they have. I just say they are in the minority.

Do you have any facts to support the claim that MOST viewers NEED a provider in order to see locals?

 

[yelraek]

Do you have any facts to support the claim that MOST viewers NEED a provider in order to see locals?

I don't, but I wonder why cable TV was started in the first place. Wasn't it to serve those consumers that could not receive their locals OTA?

 

[Hall]

Lose? Lose what? The stations should be paying the carriers to carry their station so they can reach more consumers other than just OTA.

Go ahead and tell the TV stations that.... Fact is, they (the stations) can't survive on OTA, so yes, they do need the satellite and cablecos to give them more market share. They don't care though - if Dish drops them, they tell everyone switch to Directv or the cable company. If the cable company drops them, they tell viewers to switch to Dish or Directv. Yes, they always do include the put-up-an-antenna option but, being realistic, people aren't going to do that.

 

[yelraek]

The stations can't survive on OTA??? Then it would seem that the stations need the carriers more than the carriers need them.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't, but I wonder why cable TV was started in the first place. Wasn't it to serve those consumers that could not receive their locals OTA?

I don't think so. Cable TV started up to get the cable channels out to the viewer. The first place cable would have launched was in urban areas, then spread out. So if you're far enough out that you need satellite, you'd be among the last to get cable.

 

[sam_gordon]

The stations can't survive on OTA??? Then it would seem that the stations need the carriers more than the carriers need them.

I disagree with Hall. Some stations might need the subscription money from providers to survive, others would lose the money, but still survive. Let me ask you this... if D* offered your local channels and E* didn't, would you still have signed up for Dish?

 

[mruk69]

+1

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

 

[Hall]

I disagree with Hall. Some stations might need the subscription money from providers to survive, others would lose the money, but still survive.

Why do the stations tell viewers to contact their carrier to put them back on ? Why do they tell them to switch to the other carriers ? Why do they not accept "must carry" (and offer the same with satellite) in return for the additional viewers they gain ?

The old, ad-based source of revenue has shown to be dying. It's why the networks are anti-DVR, because viewers end up not watching commercials (but the networks still claim 'x' number of viewers while the advertisers don't see a corresponding purchase rate). The same principle will apply to local stations.

 

[yelraek]

I disagree with Hall. Some stations might need the subscription money from providers to survive, others would lose the money, but still survive. Let me ask you this... if D* offered your local channels and E* didn't, would you still have signed up for Dish?

Yes! When I signed up with dish locals were not available in my area. They became available about a year later.

 

[sam_gordon]

Why do the stations tell viewers to contact their carrier to put them back on ? Why do they tell them to switch to the other carriers ? Why do they not accept "must carry" (and offer the same with satellite) in return for the additional viewers they gain ?

Because they WANT the money. I'm not saying the money isn't wanted. I'm just saying there are some stations that will still survive even without re-trans money.

The old, ad-based source of revenue has shown to be dying. It's why the networks are anti-DVR, because viewers end up not watching commercials (but the networks still claim 'x' number of viewers while the advertisers don't see a corresponding purchase rate). The same principle will apply to local stations.

IIRC, DVR viewing still counts in ratings. VCR viewing didn't. So DVR viewing still helps.