Dish dispute with Sinclair...reached deal in principle

[osu1991]

100% of what? 1 penny a customer? or $5 a customer?
it does make a difference

Why don't these locals start paying for all the equipment to actually get their signals to Dish. Locals are a losing propositon for Dish and Directv by the time they pay for everything just to get the locals signals to Dish/Directv uplink facilities. Then these greedy station groups and networks want to get paid for Dish/Directv doing what the locals are supposed to be doing. Providing a usable signal to their entire viewing area.

 

[Peter Parker]

Man, don't let facts get in the way now.

Facts have no place on an internet discussion board unless they support your opinion. Even then you can't trust'em.

 

[meStevo]

Why don't these locals start paying for all the equipment to actually get their signals to Dish. Locals are a losing propositon for Dish and Directv by the time they pay for everything just to get the locals signals to Dish/Directv uplink facilities. Then these greedy station groups and networks want to get paid for Dish/Directv doing what the locals are supposed to be doing. Providing a usable signal to their entire viewing area.

And just how far would DISH go as "the one without locals" if that became their newest line in the sand?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peter Parker]

Why don't these locals start paying for all the equipment to actually get their signals to Dish. Locals are a losing propositon for Dish and Directv by the time they pay for everything just to get the locals signals to Dish/Directv uplink facilities. Then these greedy station groups and networks want to get paid for Dish/Directv doing what the locals are supposed to be doing. Providing a usable signal to their entire viewing area.

DISH and D* were pretty anxious to launch locals. Heck DISH started doing it when the legality was questionable. They may be a loss leader on the books but they gbring in subs that pay for other packages.

 

[bobc469]

Try an OTA antenna.

You do realize that many subscribers live outside of the area where "put up an antenna, or buy some rabbit ears" solves the problem.

I could put up the biggest antenna available with a high gain preamp and still I will not get a signal that is 100 miles away with two 3000 foot mountain ranges between me and the broadcast signal.

I don't like government regulation, but it is time that someone stepped in and controlled this blackmailing of the consumer by the providers. They were given the airwaves for free to broadcast on and now they charge the cable and satellite companies outrageous fees to carry. Who loses, those trying to watch the networks. One could even argue that the TV stations should pay the cable/satellite companies to carry their signal, it increases their subscriber base and they charge more for the commercials.

 

[dare2be]

One could even argue that the TV stations should pay the cable/satellite companies to carry their signal, it increases their subscriber base and they charge more for the commercials.

I've been arguing that point for a while, and not just for broadcast channels. It's a symbiotic relationship, neither party benefits from these disputes, and the customer always loses.

 

[kenny9966]

Does anyone know if this is going to be the "Largest" black out of locals situation? It seems like they have like 30 markets with multiple stations in each market. Surely this will get FCC's attention if it is.

 

[Tampa8]

These stupid disputes make me wish both D* and E* made locals a ala carte option.

How would that help? If you mean monetarily for you, Dish has always offered something to those who lose a local.

 

[Tampa8]

SOOO.... Now does this make me eligible for my Atlanta ABC affiliate WSBTV Channel 2 ?. Ice do you have any thoughts?

No. You can not be offered out of market channels because your in market channel is in dispute.

 

[Teehar]

No. You can not be offered out of market channels because your in market channel is in dispute.

And that's what prohibits competition when it comes to locals.The fcc has protected them far too long.It would be really nice if a customer could choose between several locals.If the locals had to compete with out of market locals then there would be competition.

 

[mike123abc]

And that's what prohibits competition when it comes to locals.The fcc has protected them far too long.It would be really nice if a customer could choose between several locals.If the locals had to compete with out of market locals then there would be competition.

It is not the FCC that protects the locals. It is the copyright law. Television networks are like McDonalds, they have a contract with the network for their location only. They are given the right to broadcast in their area only by the network. The network has acquired the rights for OTA viewing of all the shows that constitute network programming.

In fact a law had to be passed that allowed a blanket copyright exception for DBS. It essentially said the rebroadcast of the local channel was allowed via satellite verses OTA, even if the contracted copyrighted programming did not explicitly allow it. A television show has countless copyright contracts. Every actor, writer, musician, etc. has their conditions. The owner of the show could be for example Warner Brothers who owns the contracts and may allow a network to show it OTA, but then licenses it to iTunes, and later sells DVDs. There was an initial problem with a lot of programming when DVDs came out since the contracts never thought of anything like DVD and everything had to be licensed again. Now of course a television production includes rights for OTA, cable, DBS, DVD/BD, internet streaming etc, but who knows what distribution method may come up in the future.

Essentially Congress not the FCC would have to change the copyright law to allow out of market reception. Even then there would be eminent domain issues since the Federal government would be taking the value of the copyrights away. To use the McDonalds example again, it would be like a law being passed that said McDonalds corporation had to allow McDonalds restaurants sell food from any location they wished.

 

[osu1991]

And just how far would DISH go as "the one without locals" if that became their newest line in the sand?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

DISH and D* were pretty anxious to launch locals. Heck DISH started doing it when the legality was questionable. They may be a loss leader on the books but they gbring in subs that pay for other packages.

That's not my point. Everyone knows locals is what drove satellite growth, but the local station groups are just getting greedy. The station groups don't pay for anything, yet reap all the rewards that Dish/Directv bring to them, by expanding their viewership and providing all subs in a dma a reliable signal, then want to bend Dish/Directv over with retransmission fees.

 

[jeepers94]

Well,I will give it 3 weeks.If not settled by then,I go to Direct TV. I am not going to loose the Packers!
I agree BOTH parties are VERY GREEDY!!!

 

[Teehar]

It is not the FCC that protects the locals. It is the copyright law. Television networks are like McDonalds, they have a contract with the network for their location only. They are given the right to broadcast in their area only by the network. The network has acquired the rights for OTA viewing of all the shows that constitute network programming.

In fact a law had to be passed that allowed a blanket copyright exception for DBS. It essentially said the rebroadcast of the local channel was allowed via satellite verses OTA, even if the contracted copyrighted programming did not explicitly allow it. A television show has countless copyright contracts. Every actor, writer, musician, etc. has their conditions. The owner of the show could be for example Warner Brothers who owns the contracts and may allow a network to show it OTA, but then licenses it to iTunes, and later sells DVDs. There was an initial problem with a lot of programming when DVDs came out since the contracts never thought of anything like DVD and everything had to be licensed again. Now of course a television production includes rights for OTA, cable, DBS, DVD/BD, internet streaming etc, but who knows what distribution method may come up in the future.

Essentially Congress not the FCC would have to change the copyright law to allow out of market reception. Even then there would be eminent domain issues since the Federal government would be taking the value of the copyrights away. To use the McDonalds example again, it would be like a law being passed that said McDonalds corporation had to allow McDonalds restaurants sell food from any location they wished.

FCC,DHS,FBI,CIA,congress,govt. in general.The point still remains that the NAB is protected.The laws that are in place now prohibit competition.It's time to change it imho.

 

[Mr Tony]

i wish dish would take my crappy local market off instead of yalls.

nah that would be too easy

 

[Mr Tony]

How do they get away with three stations in one larket? another Cunningham style corporation?

easy. In larger markets you can own 2 stations...In smaller it cant be 2 of the Big 4 nets. My & CW are exempt and thats why they own a bunch. Also those "shell companies" come in real handy when the FCC comes a knocking

 

[Mr Tony]

SOOO.... Now does this make me eligible for my Atlanta ABC affiliate WSBTV Channel 2 ?. Ice do you have any thoughts?

NO
The rule with Dish is very simple

Dish is NOT allowed to import a neighboring affiliate EXCEPT in the case where your market has no affiliate at all. A retrans dispute does not constitute missing. Period.


Now when it comes to neighboring markets
If your market is missing that network and the imported station gets pulled, then Dish CAN substitute a different affiliate. An example was in Parkersburg, WV. They do not have a CBS or ABC there. So they get imported the CBS & ABC from Clarksburg (neighboring market). The ABC was one that got pulled so in Parkersburg only Dish could import the ABC from Charleston, WV. They couldnt do that in Clarksburg.

 

[navychop]

You do realize that many subscribers live outside of the area where "put up an antenna, or buy some rabbit ears" solves the problem......

But it appears to be an option for him.

 

[shkarter1985]

I'm glad I'm not with E* anymore but here's my thought.

Another victim of ex-Senator John Danforth's Retransmission Consent Curse. I live in the Greenville, SC DMA where my local ABC and MNT is owned by Sinclair. Unfortunately, I can't get WLOS 13 over the air a lot, and those who can't get their ABC station over the air and can't afford cable/satellite in Upstate SC are DENIED to watch ABC programs over the air for free despite the bad ecomony we're in, please don't get me stared with the nonsense from Jack Van Impe. Congress tried with the hearings, and they failed thanks to the NAB!

The Madness needs to STOP, but it still hasn't ended! NAB fails!

 

[dakeeney]

I'm going to be afraid to read all the posts on Thursday after Sinclair gets pulle because this WILL get real ugly real fast when all Sinclair markets go dark. If there is no settlement by the 16th Dish may have to bite this one and pay. I don't think they will be able to justify letting the networks go dark in 45 or 50 markets. Like I said, this may get real ugly.