Dish dispute with Sinclair...reached deal in principle

When we lived in central Mexico we had a C/Ku band 5 meter dish with a 21 degree LNBA. On occasion we could get the Anik satellites, but not too clearly! We were at 5100 ft altitude then... also great for CB.
 
I know this has been said many times before and it's still not going any where BUT -
These disputes would stop happening if the cable/satellite providers charged basic fees for service and equipment, and then every channel was sold ala carte - at a price that reflects its true cost to the provider. Let the market decided if the local Sinclair station is worth 10-cents or 10-dollars per month. If I don't watch the channel, or I can get it over-the-air for free, why should I pay anything for it? Such a system would probably result in a fair number of low quality "free" channels that are entirely advertiser support, and a group of higher quality channels that have loyal viewers willing to pay. Some mediocre channels would get squeezed out - but would that really be a big loss?
 
Isn't ironic that most (if not all) local stations don't invoke "must carry". Oh wait, if they do that, they don't get paid by the provider, they just get advertising dollars. Guess you can't blame them as they get to double-dip this way !
 
I wonder what will be the next station for either provider coming up next ....grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
 
I know this has been said many times before and it's still not going any where BUT -
These disputes would stop happening if the cable/satellite providers charged basic fees for service and equipment, and then every channel was sold ala carte - at a price that reflects its true cost to the provider. Let the market decided if the local Sinclair station is worth 10-cents or 10-dollars per month. If I don't watch the channel, or I can get it over-the-air for free, why should I pay anything for it? Such a system would probably result in a fair number of low quality "free" channels that are entirely advertiser support, and a group of higher quality channels that have loyal viewers willing to pay. Some mediocre channels would get squeezed out - but would that really be a big loss?
Talk to the media owners about that, not the sat/cable distributors. They are the ones that must have their unwatched channels bundled with their 1 or 2 popular channels.
 
Re: Ala Carte pricing .. it's a great idea, but the FCC still hasn't allowed it.

IPTV is where it's at. Each provider can put up their content online and set up their own subscription rates .. even go per episode subscriptions. The consumer can decide exactly what to watch and not have to pay the middle man (content distributor) for a bunch of crap he or she would never pay for if given half the chance. I'd be stoked!

... but the major issue with independent subscriptions, is that you'd have networks folding left and right. There is no network that is worth it's weight when it comes down to it, and they all know it. That's why AlaCarte cable is not going to happen. These studios are paying huge bucks to insure that you are forced to pay them even bigger bucks for crap you'll never watch. Without the bulk sale of network suites, all our major networks would go belly-up bankrupt in a matter of months.
 
Re: Ala Carte pricing .. it's a great idea, but the FCC still hasn't allowed it.

Huh? It's the channel providers that won't allow it precisely because of the rest of your post. Many worthless channels will fall by the wayside, and the remainder will actually be worth paying for and survive.

... but the major issue with independent subscriptions, is that you'd have networks folding left and right. There is no network that is worth it's weight when it comes down to it, and they all know it. That's why AlaCarte cable is not going to happen. These studios are paying huge bucks to insure that you are forced to pay them even bigger bucks for crap you'll never watch. Without the bulk sale of network suites, all our major networks would go belly-up bankrupt in a matter of months.
 
Huh? It's the channel providers that won't allow it precisely because of the rest of your post. Many worthless channels will fall by the wayside, and the remainder will actually be worth paying for and survive.

Correct .. but the cable companies (resellers) have petitioned the FCC to force AlaCarte cable... the FCC hasn't allowed it BECAUSE of the Studio influence.
 
Correct .. but the cable companies (resellers) have petitioned the FCC to force AlaCarte cable... the FCC hasn't allowed it BECAUSE of the Studio influence.

Other than maybe the "basic tier" programming, I don't think the FCC is actively "not allowing" ala carte. They aren't doing anything to encourage or require it though, which leaves the decision to the content providers.
 
Other than maybe the "basic tier" programming, I don't think the FCC is actively "not allowing" ala carte. They aren't doing anything to encourage or require it though, which leaves the decision to the content providers.

FCC puts 'a la carte' cable on the menu - USATODAY.com

"Programmers have used the practice to launch scores of channels. That's why you see all those spinoffs of Walt Disney's ESPN on basic and digital cable. Operators didn't necessarily want them — they just couldn't see a cheaper way to get the flagship channel."

"Cable operators have tried to get around tying for years, says Matt Polka, president of the American Cable Association, which represents hundreds of small cable TV operators. "At a time when (cable consumers) are screaming for choice, there is none, largely because of consolidation and control of content.""

and..

"
[FONT=Arial, Helvetical, sans-serif]Martin says that under the bar on bundling that the FCC plans to examine, programmers would have to sell channels individually. "You can't tie the channel in any way. … If you only want one channel, you shouldn't have to take 10 or 20.""[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetical, sans-serif]This was written in 2007 .. Cable Providers championed AlaCarte options .. the FCC never passed the mandate, requiring the option.. FULL STOP. There's too much money in it for the studios, and if you don't think the studios have their own army of lobbiests parading around DC dropping large coin wherever they go, then why else do you suppose the [/FONT]The Federal Communications Commission is still allowing for forced-tying of suite-based contracts?
 
FCC puts 'a la carte' cable on the menu - USATODAY.com

"Programmers have used the practice to launch scores of channels. That's why you see all those spinoffs of Walt Disney's ESPN on basic and digital cable. Operators didn't necessarily want them — they just couldn't see a cheaper way to get the flagship channel."

"Cable operators have tried to get around tying for years, says Matt Polka, president of the American Cable Association, which represents hundreds of small cable TV operators. "At a time when (cable consumers) are screaming for choice, there is none, largely because of consolidation and control of content.""

and..

"
Martin says that under the bar on bundling that the FCC plans to examine, programmers would have to sell channels individually. "You can't tie the channel in any way. … If you only want one channel, you shouldn't have to take 10 or 20.""

This was written in 2007 .. Cable Providers championed AlaCarte options .. the FCC never passed the mandate, requiring the option.. FULL STOP. There's too much money in it for the studios, and if you don't think the studios have their own army of lobbiests parading around DC dropping large coin wherever they go, then why else do you suppose the The Federal Communications Commission is still allowing for forced-tying of suite-based contracts?


costanza's_wallet....you have the George EliOt quote in your tag line that I have engraved on my iPad! :D
 
FCC puts 'a la carte' cable on the menu - USATODAY.com

"Programmers have used the practice to launch scores of channels. That's why you see all those spinoffs of Walt Disney's ESPN on basic and digital cable. Operators didn't necessarily want them — they just couldn't see a cheaper way to get the flagship channel."

"Cable operators have tried to get around tying for years, says Matt Polka, president of the American Cable Association, which represents hundreds of small cable TV operators. "At a time when (cable consumers) are screaming for choice, there is none, largely because of consolidation and control of content.""

and..

"
Martin says that under the bar on bundling that the FCC plans to examine, programmers would have to sell channels individually. "You can't tie the channel in any way. … If you only want one channel, you shouldn't have to take 10 or 20.""

This was written in 2007 .. Cable Providers championed AlaCarte options .. the FCC never passed the mandate, requiring the option.. FULL STOP. There's too much money in it for the studios, and if you don't think the studios have their own army of lobbiests parading around DC dropping large coin wherever they go, then why else do you suppose the The Federal Communications Commission is still allowing for forced-tying of suite-based contracts?

I have no idea the point you're trying to make posting a lot of old news.

Any cable/sat co that can come to an agreement with a content provider can offer ala carte.

The FCC is not preventing bundling. They also are not preventing tying. They are essentially neutral on the issue, which favors the networks in the current market. The market is changing though. The Dish/ATT AMC disputes and D* Viacom disputes are the latest examples. With the length of contracts involved change will be slow, but it will happen.

I doubt there could ever be any effective way to really regulate it. Any attempt would end up in a shell game.

If you want things to change, limit all carriage contracts to two years, all expiring 12/31. We'd learn in 4 to 6 years what channels are really worth.
 
TheKrell said:
....It's the channel providers that won't allow it.... Many worthless channels will fall by the wayside, and the remainder will actually be worth paying for and survive.
Which is exactly what needs to happen!

Sent from my DROIDX using SatelliteGuys
 
I have no idea the point you're trying to make posting a lot of old news.

Any cable/sat co that can come to an agreement with a content provider can offer ala carte.

The FCC is not preventing bundling. They also are not preventing tying. They are essentially neutral on the issue, which favors the networks in the current market. The market is changing though. The Dish/ATT AMC disputes and D* Viacom disputes are the latest examples. With the length of contracts involved change will be slow, but it will happen.

I doubt there could ever be any effective way to really regulate it. Any attempt would end up in a shell game.

If you want things to change, limit all carriage contracts to two years, all expiring 12/31. We'd learn in 4 to 6 years what channels are really worth.

Yeah .. I'm done talking about this. Lost in translation, I suppose.

Best
 
***

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)