DISH Sues Networks
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 204
- Views 23K
The affiliates ARE giving a free signal... to anyone who wants to put up an antenna and receive it. I'm fairly confident the percentage of viewers in a "White Zone" is so miniscule as to almost not even mention. Answer me this... before retrans agreements became the norm, didn't the satellite companies charge to deliver locals? How much did they charge during that period vs. now?
I use my Dish receiver to pull in my locals OTA. BUT, in order to supply 'guide data', I need to pay Dish $6/month. Keep in mind, that data is received WITH the signal. No, it may not be a full 7 days worth, but you can't tell me Dish isn't benefiting from the charge.
Again, I don't think the number of folks who HAVE to have cable or satellite to pick up locals is that big a number. Viewers do it for convenience.
And by using that argument, ESPN, Discovery, et al, should be paying satellite/cable providers. THEY are getting money from advertisers. If there were no sat/cable providers, NOBODY could see them.
...and as we've learned from autohop, viewer convenience drives viewer actions. Thus more convenient availability and exposure = higher ratings and ad revenue.
Thank you for noticing the correlation and next logical step in my argument. Normal free-market forces should dictate that the channels should be low-bidding each other to be placed in the providers' lowest package tier for expanded exposure. The current system of extortion of subscription fees by content providers is BROKEN.
Again you have your facts wrong.
DISH has to pay the stations to carry the signal. Then then need to pay to get that stations signal from the local pop to the proper uplink center using afiber backhaul, then at the uplink the signal needs to be processed and bounced of the satellite companies satellite which costs many many hundreds of millions to built and not including the cost to launch it. Then there is the station keeping to keep that satellite in the air. It is estimated that Satellite Companies lose money on rebroadcasting locals. Now the guide data does not come from the TV stations themselves, nor does it use the PSIP guide data that stations are supposed to broadcast (and if you have looked at the PSIP data you would know not a lot of stations broadcast this data or have the wrong information listed.) so DISH must pay Tribune Media for more accuarate guide data to send to their viewers.
All of this to bring the local stations more viewers who have no other way of seeing them, even though the station is SUPPOSED to service tehir location.
IMHO I think TV stations should be PAYING satellite companies for helping them get more eyeballs to view their station. Not the other way around.
Also you dont pay $6 a month extra for locals now. They are included no matter what the price is now built into the base price.
And if sat/cable providers went away, locals would have 0 viewers? That's right, nobody watched locals before cable came along. My point is while yes, some people live in areas that can't utilize OTA, that number is so small, it does not make a significant change in ratings and therefore revenue.
It *IS* 'free market'. Providers don't HAVE to carry the locals. No one is putting a gun to their heads (maybe a handful of stations are "must carry"). Providers carry the locals because that's what their customers want. Just like ESPN, Discovery, et al. Is there a price to carry the locals? Yes. Just like ESPN, Discovery, et al.
While I agree the cost for locals is in the base price, my facts ARE correct.
None of that matters in *MY* setup, which is all I'm talking about. The local uplink center could blow up and I'd still have my locals on my Dish receiver, because I get them OTA.
Yes, I know many stations don't put up correct information. That's not my point. My point is the information is received at my house (it's part of the OTA signal). I disagree with Dish "holding me hostage" simply for that data (and I signed up for locals before they became "included"). As far as sat companies losing money on locals... that's their choice. Again, they don't HAVE to carry them.
Again I say that number is an EXTREMELY small percentage of viewers. If you want to say satellite makes things EASIER for viewers, ok.
So why not say the same thing for ESPN? Satellite & cable companies HELP get more viewers to see locals. Satellite & cable companies provide 100% of the eyeballs to ESPN et al.
Last edited:
Another thought...
Let's say every station across the country no longer charged retrans money (through court order or the goodness of their heart-- doesn't matter). Does anyone for ONE SECOND believe Dish Network would drop their rates?
Let's say every station across the country no longer charged retrans money (through court order or the goodness of their heart-- doesn't matter). Does anyone for ONE SECOND believe Dish Network would drop their rates?
hope that this will eliminate the hostage situation dish is involved with the local networks and all of those channels will be removed and the space (spotbeams included) can be utilized for more and better HD channels. the networks are the worst channels that dish is providing right now and the worst part is that we have to pay for something that is free for others with an OTA antenna and with a programming with less value everyday. so dish, continue with this work: removing the local markets and use the space for better channels!!! we can get the same channels from AAD without dish using satellite space for every local market!!!
No because of all the costs I mentioned above, DISH (or DIRECTV) is still paying all of those costs no matter what.
I think you could find enough people to get EVERY channel kicked off because they don't like the programming. What if someone said "I don't watch sports, Dish should get rid of ESPN!"? Or "What MTV carries is crap! Dish should get rid of it and use the bandwidth for something else!" There ARE people who want to watch locals. If there wasn't, Dish (or Direct) wouldn't offer them.
But I thought the retrans fees were causing subscriber costs to go up? If retrans fees went away, then costs should be able to go down (except for those costs to provide the service). If retrans fees DON'T affect subscriber cost, then where's the problem?
my main issue is paying for channels that can be watch for free, for every market there is space used in the satellites and the programming is not worth it. if the networks don't like PTAT, auto-hop and sling, the channels must be removed and the space use it for better channels!!! that way, the crying boo, boo from the networks and the people that supports the commercials are quiet once and for all!!!
It isn't a free market when a handful of holding companies hold guns to providers' heads during contract negotiation time over one channel, threatening to remove the dozen or so other unrelated channels that they own. Some pay up and pass the costs on to the customer (NY RSNs surcharge on D*, for example), others hold fast and drop the channels (E*, Time Warner). In TW's case, it took a local politician's intervention to resolve it, since cable is more localized and has a different set of rules. Either way, the customer loses, and subscription TV prices have skyrocketed.
Nope, none of the providers would. Yet they'd have more leeway to provide additional services to continue to remain competitive in a changing video distribution landscape.
Last edited:
You misunderstand my point. I get that you don't like the programs shown on the locals and wouldn't be upset if the locals went away. I think the same thing can be said about EVERY channel. I don't like what MTV carries. You don't hear me bitching and complaining that they should use that bandwidth for something else.
Again, that's not an issue with just locals. In fact, I'm willing to wager there are more owners of locals than there are of other entities. I don't know that I said that right, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
And BTW, it IS a free market. You want station 'def'? OK, then you're going to pay for 'xyz, 'mno', and 'rst'. Oh, you don't want those three? OK, you're free to not carry any of them. Providers want to carry what their subscribers want. In order to do that, they have to make sacrifices. Have you ever tried to buy a single egg at a grocery store? I'm guessing they won't let you, you have to buy the dozen. Even if you don't need or want the other 11, you have to buy them.
and i will continue bitching and complaining about the networks everytime they try to control the method i chose to view their programming, and i will include in that bitching and complaining people like you that always are in favor of companies that the only goal is making more money with programming that not worth it. so, stop bitching about my posts because you don't like what i'm posting!!!
So you try to watch programming that isn't worth it. Got it.
I do love your logic... it's bad for networks to have the goal of making more money, but it's ok (presumably) for Dish to make more money (and don't you believe for a second that's not Charlies' goal).
Dish could not pay for a better advertising campaign.
TV Networks to Lose Suit Against Dish, Shapiro Says: Video - Bloomberg
TV Networks to Lose Suit Against Dish, Shapiro Says: Video - Bloomberg
It will be a free market when the government enforced monopoly protecting local stations against competition is gone. Providers carry locals because that's the only way they can get the programming customers want. Absent government coercion, the so called "broadcast" networks would be distributed just like every other network, without the outrageously expensive infrastructure - multiple satellites, spotbeams, POP's and backhauls for hundreds of markets, not to mention the untold number of wasted man hours expended dealing with each and every one of them at contract renewal time. Only then will the marketplace be just like ESPN, Discovery, et al.
I think our disconnect is that I am going a little off-topic by focusing on the national "cable" channels market (and loosely tying in the locals market), while you are concentrating on the locals market.
Your 1 vs. 12 eggs analogy is a bad one. What would be a better analogy is that in order for the store to sell the carton of eggs from a distributor, they must also carry their milk, bread, laundry detergent and lightbulbs (all owned by the same holding company distributor). If the store decides that the price of eggs is too high, and decides to negotiate the wholesale cost, the distributor threatens to take the other 4 remaining products off the shelf if they don't pay the egg price. The biggest difference between the grocery distributor and the content owners is, if a distributor engages in that kind of market unfriendliness over the eggs, the supermarket can use a different distributor to get their eggs. There isn't an oligopoly of grocery distributors like there is of media conglomerates. An oligopoly is NOT a free market.
