Dish/Sinclair Dispute

[SimpleSimon]

made this a sticky for a while

Thank you for that and the other sticky "scrolling message".

It should help!

 

[Mr Tony]

Thank you for that and the other sticky "scrolling message".

It should help!

hopefully it does

 

[jergenf]

jergen
there is some different pricing for grandfathered subs out there
4.99-grandfathered rate
8.99-locals/supers grandfathered rate or distans/supers grandfathered rate

everyone else pays 5.99 for Sueprs

That explains it.

Second question, why isn't DirectTV effected by the Sinclair price increase?
Or have they (or their customers) already aggreed to this?

Third is Dishnet going to offer the customers the option for those channels, example locals w/o sinclair $4.99 versus local with sinclair $6.99 or higher ?

 

[Mr Tony]

That explains it.

Second question, why isn't DirectTV effected by the Sinclair price increase?
Or have they (or their customers) already aggreed to this?

they reached an agreement a while back

Third is Dishnet going to offer the customers the option for those channels, example locals w/o sinclair $4.99 versus local with sinclair $6.99 or higher ?

nope. If they take down the Sinclair locals, if you have a FOX, CBS, ABC or NBC affected, you will probably get a $1 per net lost discount until they come back. When we lost CBS (Viacom), I got a $1 discount for the 3 days it was gone (no prorating)

If it’s a WB or UPN, you probably won’t get anything.

 

[Stargazer]

Those that lose two of them should get $2 unless Dish Network wants to be cheap about it.

 

[RBBrittain]

And as for "no taxpayer money" going to Sinclair, that is a shell game. The government SELLS bandwidth to other industries, but television networks get to use that bandwidth for free (outside of paying for licenses). The amount these companies should be paying is in the BILLIONS. And the government gave the digital bandwidth away for free as well to "encourage" stations to convert. They will later take back the VHF/UHF spectrum and auction it to other industries (though this date keeps getting pushed back as companies like Sinclair hold off on digital conversion)

So, if a company isn't required to pay billions of dollars to the government that other industries are required to pay, that is lost money that must be made up for in public taxes, and thus Sinclair has indirect taxpayer funding.

You need to get your facts straight. It's not the KIND of spectrum that determines whether it's free or auctioned; it's WHEN it was assigned. Back when most radio and TV stations first went on the air (1960's or earlier), license slots were "given away" by the FCC--first through hearings to determine which applicant would act more in the "public interest", then later through lotteries. The same is true of D*'s 101 slot, E*'s 119 slot, and most wireless spectrum in the 850-MHz "cellular" band.

Spectrum auctions didn't come about until the 1990's; common auctioned spectrum includes the 1900-MHz "PCS" wireless band as well as E*'s 110 slot (which MCI won at auction, then later sold to E*). New radio and TV station slots are awarded by auction; in fact, the FCC is just now preparing to auction a long list of low-power TV licenses. However, licenses initially acquired the old way generally must be renewed unless the FCC finds the station no longer serves the "public interest". (Same is true for auctioned licenses.)

It is true that local stations were given digital spectrum alongside their analog spectrum; however, that decision was made by Congress because they thought it necessary to assure the survival of local broadcasting. (With urging from the NAB, of course. ) And many in Congress are now trying to speed up the digital transition--partly to free up valuable spectrum for auction, obviously.

I'm not defending Sinclair; I'm really with Charlie on this one. But it's not as simple as you say it is.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

From Sinclair's website:


Status of Negotiations With the DISH Network

The agreement between Echostar and Sinclair, which allows Sinclair's television stations to be carried by the DISH satellite network, is scheduled to expire on Tuesday, May 31, 2005. That agreement has been extended for an additional two months as contract negotiations continue. Although there can be no assurance that these negotiations will be successful, it is our hope to reach a long-term agreement. We will keep you informed of any change in the status of our negotiations.

 

[Stargazer]

Now I have to tell a customer that decided to wait until June 1st for a SuperDish upgrade that it could be two more months before we know if they will be lost? He will probably go to DirecTv instead of having to waiting. He almost went to DirecTv because of the credit card requirement just to do a SuperDish upgrade after he was with Dish Network for six years now this.

 

[enjoyoutdoors]

By jumping ship because these ***holes are greedy will only contribute to their cause. Anyone effected by this should cause a stink by complaints to the stations they are losing...and make it very clear to them that under no circumstances are they going to give in (cancel Dish).

This is all related to Big money pushing the FCC to change law and basically allow the airwaves to be bought out and monopolized. I hope everyone here understands that if Big Business is allowed to continue to weaken FCC regulations we will see much more of this, as well as more manipulation of what the public sees and hears.

Get on the line to your representatives. Enough is enough!

 

[enjoyoutdoors]

You've got several options...

The fact is Sinclair CAN charge because if what they were doing was illegal the FCC would be all over them.

Unfortunately not true anymore. The FCC is extremely political. It has been weakened over the last 20 years significantly and is just about "owned" by big business, not the people.

 

[bs2000]

I saw the same message (same wording!!) this morning in our local Raleigh-Durham WB station.

Is your local WB owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group? This sounds more like a dispute between Sinclair and Dish...

If that's the case, and without knowing the details of the dispute, my initial sympathies are with Dish... After all, these (Sinclair) are the jerks that are preventing most digital cable companies in the country from carrying the HDTV signal of their owned local stations, trying to extort them for money...

NO, This is not true and I feel nothing with dish. See How local channels work is that they are free to us on OTA. However to help the station keep equipment running and cover cost the FCC has stated that in order to re-broadcast on cable or satellite then those providers must pay accordenly as if they where any network such as food, HG, and above. However the rate is cheaper. The contract has ran out for DIsh and Siclair is trying to renew the contract, however as of yet Dish hasn't resigned. The message does state that they are working on a deal. I get WB 43 and even though I get it OTA I know Time Warner Rochester is willing to pay for it but not the HD version. But thats the same company that claimes we have one HD local channel when I know better because I was with Voom getting at least 8 locals. THere was 3 PBS, FOX, NBC, NBC, WB, and UPN.

But anyways my point is these service providers think they own everything and have a right to re-broadcast for free but that isn't Right to these locals who only get funding through ads and re-broadcast fees! SO don't get mad, ask dish to renew.

 

[TNGTony]

People need to remember that the the cable company or satellite company isn't the one that ultimately pays for channels. IT IS THE SUBSCRIBERS WHO PAY.

Those that continue to equate rebroadcasting broadcast TV stations WITHIN THE MARKET THEY ARE LICESED TO SERVE with cable networks either don't care to see or just are blind to the fact that they are talking about two different and distict things. As long as some one writes a post to equate a cable network to a broadcast TV channel retransmitted WITHIN the market they are licensed to serve I will continue to post that it is the local stations OBLIGATION to serve the viewers in their area. Charging a fee that ultimately is paid by the viewers of that TV station is CRIMINAL (or at least should be) and against the reason they were licensed in the first place.

Now, If the broadcast station wants to give up their boadcast lisence and become a cable network that is up to them.

See ya
Tony

 

[whitewolf8214]

The Tv stations are the ones that own alot of the cable or satellite channels.I agree that should be criminal to charge the consumer to view your local channel.

 

[James Long]

It should be criminal to post slander on one's station when a deal cannot be reached.

It's blackmail.

JL