Dish Could Lose 12 Network Affiliates Tonight

[JerryDowning]

I have Dish and love it but I can see the broadcasters side of the story. Broadcasters originally got their only money through advertising. Before Dish, we had to watch commercials if we stayed in front of the TV. Once I got a Dish DVR, I rarely watched commercials. I am sure that the broadcasters and the advertisers know that Dish subscribers do not watch commercials as much as they once did. The money has to come from somewhere. I would rather pay a little more to skip commercials than be forced to watch them. I know that many shows that I watch would be nearly unwatchable if I could not skip the commercials.

 

[ChadT41]

I have Dish and love it but I can see the broadcasters side of the story. Broadcasters originally got their only money through advertising. Before Dish, we had to watch commercials if we stayed in front of the TV. Once I got a Dish DVR, I rarely watched commercials. I am sure that the broadcasters and the advertisers know that Dish subscribers do not watch commercials as much as they once did. The money has to come from somewhere. I would rather pay a little more to skip commercials than be forced to watch them. I know that many shows that I watch would be nearly unwatchable if I could not skip the commercials.

If that isn't the case and their money isn't primarily coming from advertising, and they want to be a network channel, then the FCC needs to give up on forcing locals on providers. Carry one carry all needs to go away, and so does any government control of where the locals come from. Can't say "we need this because we are paid by local advertisers" and then say "we don't make enough in advertising, we want to be able to charge premium prices to providers". You get one, or the other.

 

[osu1991]

I have Dish and love it but I can see the broadcasters side of the story. Broadcasters originally got their only money through advertising. Before Dish, we had to watch commercials if we stayed in front of the TV. Once I got a Dish DVR, I rarely watched commercials. I am sure that the broadcasters and the advertisers know that Dish subscribers do not watch commercials as much as they once did. The money has to come from somewhere. I would rather pay a little more to skip commercials than be forced to watch them. I know that many shows that I watch would be nearly unwatchable if I could not skip the commercials.

I haven't watched commercials since high school in the mid 80's. Little thing called a VCR did away with what at that time was a minor annoyance, long before before the DVR came along to help rid us of the 20 mins of loud annoyances we have now. Shows were still 45-47 mins long back then. I see many shows barely hitting 40 mins now with opening and closing credits chopped off and the whole show sped up if it's a repeat..

 

[sam_gordon]

If that isn't the case and their money isn't primarily coming from advertising, and they want to be a network channel, then the FCC needs to give up on forcing locals on providers. Carry one carry all needs to go away, and so does any government control of where the locals come from. Can't say "we need this because we are paid by local advertisers" and then say "we don't make enough in advertising, we want to be able to charge premium prices to providers". You get one, or the other.

Your post makes a lot of sense. Until you realize the FCC doesn't force locals on providers. The providers WANT the locals. Look at Dish's subscriber numbers before LiL and after. Having locals is a benefit to Dish. If it wasn't a benefit, why carry them at all? Why agree to pay retrans fees to begin with? That's part one.

Part two is the locals pay for the rights to their shows (in that market). Shouldn't they be able to charge if someone wants to rebroadcast their signal?

Part three is heading off the argument "Dish lets more people see the locals". While true, if all MVPDs went away tomorrow, viewers would still be able to watch local television (granted, in smaller numbers). How many people would be able to watch ESPN, TNT, History, Disney, USA, etc? ZERO. Yet they also show commercials AND charge MVPDs.

Part four is it is your (consumers) choice to pay for local television. Don't want to pay? Drop Dish (any MVPD) and put up an antenna. Then those "greedy" broadcasters won't get any of your money.

Part five is I agree those who can't receive OTA shouldn't be charged. But you've got to figure out how to handle those who can pick up the OTA signal with a paperclip as an antenna but claim they can't get a signal.

 

[pattykay]

Your post makes a lot of sense. Until you realize the FCC doesn't force locals on providers. The providers WANT the locals. Look at Dish's subscriber numbers before LiL and after. Having locals is a benefit to Dish.

In that case, Dish's subscriber numbers must have really skyrocketed since 2010, when Dish finally started carrying locals in every market. Oh, wait...

 

[ChadT41]

ITs funny you mention the other channels. It's funny because they do not have government protection for locations. Even RSNs don't. Are you telling me that if an MVPD chooses to carry, let's say NBC in a market, they are not forced to, in good faith, negotiate for the other channels? Are DMA's not enforced on satellite by the FCC? ESPN is not enforced by the FCC In That regard, yet Dish Pays them. And they pay a lot since the viewing market demands it. I'm not saying they shouldn't have to pay. I am saying that if they want government protection, then they get government listed prices.

 

[sam_gordon]

ITs funny you mention the other channels. It's funny because they do not have government protection for locations. Even RSNs don't. Are you telling me that if an MVPD chooses to carry, let's say NBC in a market, they are not forced to, in good faith, negotiate for the other channels? Are DMA's not enforced on satellite by the FCC? ESPN is not enforced by the FCC In That regard, yet Dish Pays them. And they pay a lot since the viewing market demands it. I'm not saying they shouldn't have to pay. I am saying that if they want government protection, then they get government listed prices.

Sigh.
Of course locals are protected by their location, simply because the content is aired in other locations at the stations have contracts to have the exclusive rights to that contract in their area. "Wheel of Fortune" might be on the NBC in one market and an ABC on another market. Both stations have contracts with Wheel saying it can't be shown on other stations. It's the same with the Network feeds.
No, I don't believe MVPDs have to negotiate for the other channels (if you've got something that says different, please enlighten me). The other channels could claim "must carry" if an MVPD didn't want to carry them, but then there's no retrans fee.
The viewing market wants locals. Whether you do or not is immaterial. Most people want them. If they weren't wanted, why did Dish set up LiL in the first place?
I'm glad you've finally come around to agreeing locals should be paid, but I am curious what are the "government listed prices"?

 

[ChadT41]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Broadcasting_&_Communications_Ass'n_v._FCC

And when I say government listed prices, what I mean is the government decides a value for "locals" and the locals will only ask for that. CSPAN gets $0.07 per subscriber. The same principle should apply here. As far as different locals showing the same content, not the governments business. That is purely a business decision. If it is the governments business to protect the locals because of content, then that furthers the point that channels do not get to choose what they want price-wise.

 

[sam_gordon]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Broadcasting_&_Communications_Ass'n_v._FCC

And when I say government listed prices, what I mean is the government decides a value for "locals" and the locals will only ask for that. CSPAN gets $0.07 per subscriber. The same principle should apply here. As far as different locals showing the same content, not the governments business. That is purely a business decision. If it is the governments business to protect the locals because of content, then that furthers the point that channels do not get to choose what they want price-wise.

Maybe it's because I'm sleepy, but I don't see anything in the link you provided that says DBS operators need to "negotiate in good faith for all channels in a market" if they want to carry one of them. It does say if DBS carries one station in a market, they need to carry all "requesting local broadcast stations". Isn't that "must carry"? So if the DBS operator wants to carry NBC and negotiates retrans fees for them, the CBS can say "you must carry us". While the DBS does have to, I thought when a station elected to claim "must carry", they can't then charge retrans fees. Which is what I said in my earlier post.

I also find it interesting that you say the business decisions between a local broadcaster and a program provider aren't the governments business, but you want the government to step in between the business decision between the local broadcaster and the MVPD.

Personally, I can get behind the theory of government setting retrans rates. On the other hand, what other businesses do government get to set the prices for?

 

[ChadT41]

You are welcome to look into the FCC regulations on local retransmission. Start in 1992 and work your way up.
I feel that the FCC and government shouldn't have anything to do with negotiations and carriage at all, however if they are going to involve themselves, then it's all or none. As far as where else do they get involved... power and water just to start. The prices my local electricity company charged have to be approved by the county first. That's the checks and balances on the monopoly.

 

[Tampa8]

Maybe it's because I'm sleepy, but I don't see anything in the link you provided that says DBS operators need to "negotiate in good faith for all channels in a market" if they want to carry one of them. It does say if DBS carries one station in a market, they need to carry all "requesting local broadcast stations". Isn't that "must carry"? So if the DBS operator wants to carry NBC and negotiates retrans fees for them, the CBS can say "you must carry us". While the DBS does have to, I thought when a station elected to claim "must carry", they can't then charge retrans fees. Which is what I said in my earlier post.

I also find it interesting that you say the business decisions between a local broadcaster and a program provider aren't the governments business, but you want the government to step in between the business decision between the local broadcaster and the MVPD.

Personally, I can get behind the theory of government setting retrans rates. On the other hand, what other businesses do government get to set the prices for?

I'm thinking what you and Chad are saying are both correct, but it's the reality that is different.
DISH can decide not to carry any locals in a Market if they so choose.
DISH can not negotiate with just one of the big four, it's all or none. There is an important element not mentioned. If DISH negotiates with the one or two networks they want, they must negotiate in good faith with them all. That little phrase in practice eliminates the need for the other networks to have to go to must carry for no cost DISH can't simply say we are not carrying your network (if they have negotiated with even one) and then force the others to declare must carry.

Because of that protection given the big four, a protection not given to other networks providers are instantly at a disadvantage. (DISH can negotiate with Disney and not Viacom if they choose) So we get the cat and mouse game of who loses the most besides the subscriber when a big four network is not carried over a dispute the provider or the network.
As I think about it, maybe the FCC should invoke a rule (If they are going to be inserting their rules anyway) that the network can not force the provider to take the network off over a dispute, and the provider must continue to carry it at the current cost. At some determined point the FCC arbitrates. They give the network the option to declare must carry for a year, or they and the provider must accept the arbitrated one year contract cost. Because of the carry one carry all rule protection given, I would not allow one network to withhold their programming. It has to work both ways.

 

[osu1991]

I don't remember things to well at the moment but isn't retransmission consent and must carry part of the 1992 Cable Act and the carry one carry all part of one the Satellite Home Viewer Acts

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm thinking what you and Chad are saying are both correct, but it's the reality that is different.
DISH can decide not to carry any locals in a Market if they so choose.
DISH can not negotiate with just one of the big four, it's all or none. There is an important element not mentioned. If DISH negotiates with the one or two networks they want, they must negotiate in good faith with them all. That little phrase in practice eliminates the need for the other networks to have to go to must carry for no cost DISH can't simply say we are not carrying your network (if they have negotiated with even one) and then force the others to declare must carry.

I'm just asking where that element is. The link Chad posted either didn't have it or I missed it (very possible).

Because of that protection given the big four, a protection not given to other networks providers are instantly at a disadvantage. (DISH can negotiate with Disney and not Viacom if they choose) So we get the cat and mouse game of who loses the most besides the subscriber when a big four network is not carried over a dispute the provider or the network.

Assuming that protection is there, I totally agree.

As I think about it, maybe the FCC should invoke a rule (If they are going to be inserting their rules anyway) that the network can not force the provider to take the network off over a dispute, and the provider must continue to carry it at the current cost. At some determined point the FCC arbitrates. They give the network the option to declare must carry for a year, or they and the provider must accept the arbitrated one year contract cost. Because of the carry one carry all rule protection given, I would not allow one network to withhold their programming. It has to work both ways.

I like the idea, but I think the provider must carry the channel and then pay back whatever the new agreement is. So let's say Dish is paying the ABC local $1/month and their contract runs out December 31. On Feb. 1, the agree to $1.10/month. Then Dish should have to go back and pay the extra .10/subscriber for January. Otherwise, why not (as Dish) just wait until the arbitration happens and pay the new cost then? You save money that way.

I have no problem with arbitration to determine retrans fees. I think you (some 3rd party) could even set retrans fees based on network and/or market size. Then everyone (MVPD and locals) know what's going to happen.

 

[pattykay]

DISH can decide not to carry any locals in a Market if they so choose.

While Dish can do that, it was part of the regulation that gave Dish back their distant network license that if they do not carry locals in every market, they lose the ability to offer distant networks. So, if Dish removes the entire local package in one market, they would have to remove the fill-in distant networks in all of the other short markets. At that point, with an incomplete local package in those markets, Dish would likely lose so many subscribers that they would also end up deciding to completely drop locals in those markets, putting things back the way they were during the distant network injunction. On the other hand, prior to the distant network settlement, Congress was already considering imposing a requirement on satellite providers to serve every local market, since there were markets that were not served by either provider at the time. This is likely why Dish held off on adding locals in those markets until they got the requirement to serve every local market included in the distant network settlement. Dish wanted to serve every local market, but they also wanted to get something out of the deal (the ability to offer distant networks) instead of having a requirement to offer incomplete local packages in short markets imposed on them while they were still subject to the distant network injunction.

 

[Tampa8]

While Dish can do that, it was part of the regulation that gave Dish back their distant network license that if they do not carry locals in every market, they lose the ability to offer distant networks. So, if Dish removes the entire local package in one market, they would have to remove the fill-in distant networks in all of the other short markets. At that point, with an incomplete local package in those markets, Dish would likely lose so many subscribers that they would also end up deciding to completely drop locals in those markets, putting things back the way they were during the distant network injunction. On the other hand, prior to the distant network settlement, Congress was already considering imposing a requirement on satellite providers to serve every local market, since there were markets that were not served by either provider at the time. This is likely why Dish held off on adding locals in those markets until they got the requirement to serve every local market included in the distant network settlement. Dish wanted to serve every local market, but they also wanted to get something out of the deal (the ability to offer distant networks) instead of having a requirement to offer incomplete local packages in short markets imposed on them while they were still subject to the distant network injunction.

I got news for you, if DISH decided not to carry locals in some markets, things have gone to a point that they would have no care about losing the few fill ins at that point.
It also isn't at all clear that DISH is mandated to pay for locals in every market, in fact it is highly unlikely they can be made to. There was an excellent analysis at the time that explained DISH or Direct could if they decided to say they would carry a market but only under must carry. While it would be brought into question if they did this for many markets, they would have solid ground to say the cost is just too high for certain ones. That might change if the FCC had what I suggested, a mandated arbitration when the locals and the provider can not come to an agreement.

 

[Deadlocked]

Easy solution: Drop locals and offer customers a Hulu subscription


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[sam_gordon]

Easy solution: Drop locals and offer customers a Hulu subscription


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And for those who don't have high speed internet?

 

[Yespage]

Maybe it's because I'm sleepy, but I don't see anything in the link you provided that says DBS operators need to "negotiate in good faith for all channels in a market" if they want to carry one of them. It does say if DBS carries one station in a market, they need to carry all "requesting local broadcast stations". Isn't that "must carry"? So if the DBS operator wants to carry NBC and negotiates retrans fees for them, the CBS can say "you must carry us". While the DBS does have to, I thought when a station elected to claim "must carry", they can't then charge retrans fees. Which is what I said in my earlier post.

I also find it interesting that you say the business decisions between a local broadcaster and a program provider aren't the governments business, but you want the government to step in between the business decision between the local broadcaster and the MVPD.

Personally, I can get behind the theory of government setting retrans rates. On the other hand, what other businesses do government get to set the prices for?

A good deal of them. Try looking up GSA's per diem rates which were established for all places across the nation.

 

[Bob Haller]

feds could fix this, any station that pulls there feed, loose carriage for a year.......

stations would quit screwing around

 

[sam_gordon]

A good deal of them. Try looking up GSA's per diem rates which were established for all places across the nation.

Wouldn't that be for companies doing business with the government? If the government can't set a limit on gas prices, why do you think they can set retrains rates?