Those affected need to start emailing advertisers and let them know that they have forced Dish to drop the cahnnels they advertise on so fewer people are now seeing the ads. They should ask to have their ad contracts renegotiated due to loss of viewers.
Dish to drop WLNS?
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 77
- Views 9K
This is funny. I see how much people are yapping on about the $.30.
How about this:
Dish charges a customer $5.99 for locals
Dish is charged $1.20 (assuming Big 4 locals at $0.30)
Dish profits $4.79 per customer
Now who's greedy? You pay your provider for a service, they overcharge (they ALL do it), why feel bad for a penny pincher when they drop the channel because another company wants to earn some dough.
This same thing was happening in Sc before I went to Direct, we almost lost Fox on Comcast right before 24 started. I was all set to drop Comcast, if they didnt pony up to Sinclair, because I could care less about Dish's, Directv's or any other providers issues, just keep my damn channels on. Here's another thought, how about eating part of the increase, and upping my bill $0.05. I refuse to defend any company that tells me they took a channel down or refuse to carry a channel for my benefit, because its a bs lie and its for their benefit.
Dish's costs are a lot more than $1.20, elwaylite. Don't forget about the cost of building, launching and maintaining all those sats... which is EXTREMELY expensive, by the way.
Yeah, and the network has costs too. Just dont see why so many blindly defend the providers so much. Providers have been screwing us for years, why get mad when someone like Lin or Sinclair screws them?
At the end of the day, I just want my damn channels and do not care to be affected by their squabbles. BOTH are at fault is my point, too many think Dish is ok in this.
At the end of the day, I just want my damn channels and do not care to be affected by their squabbles. BOTH are at fault is my point, too many think Dish is ok in this.
And the cost of the POP in the area, equipment to encode into a mux and send it via fiber to the uplink facility. I bet they aren't even breaking even on locals.
Hey man, cost of doing business. Being a contractor is competitive, I know for a fact. You dont let issues like this spill over into your customer base, especially when you are losing subs.
If you're a contractor, and one of your guys does not show up for work, do you think the customer cares? NO, all they care about is the agreed job is not getting done.
I have no loyatly to providers and see them as contractors. You examine the contractors in your area, and choose the one with best offering/price that you require. After that, i just expect to get a bill, pay it, and then turn my box on and enjoy the tv. I do not care about the said contractors issues with their customers, I do not care if they dont make money at the given price. If they cannot make money at the given price, they should have quoted me a better price, if their "better" price makes them uncompetetive in the market, then they should do some trimming. Dish chose 5.99 for locals, they have to live with it, or raise the price.
Last edited:
Has not Dish given credits in the past when people called in and complained. I think it is usually $1/local/month.
Which are already paid by advertisers. Advertisers don't pay Dish anything, WE DO.
Once again, not my problem as a subscriber.
I see a lot of criticisms of DBS (that I agree with) about the blind defense of Directv. We have a lot of the same here when it comes to Dish and their practices. All Im saying.
They have no ADDITIONAL cost to be carried by sat. They would have the same cost structure if they were only broadcast. Except they would have less ad revenue from the lower viewership.
As others have said, locals are a loss leader. They take down a barrier to people signing up for satellite, but cost way more that $5/month to bring to us.
If it wasn't for Dish standing strong, TV would be a lot more expensive. DirecTV no doubt tries to get the same deal as Dish when they go for a contract, as do cable companies I imagine.
I don't know about the other Young stations, but I find it really ironic that at the same time WLNS is making announcements about how unfair Dish is and telling viewers to watch OTA or cable (or Direct), they are also making announcements on TV that they will begin broadcasting at low power shortly to finish their HD upgrade. Currently, only network shows are in HD (local and syndicated are not.) They say that they will be broadcasting at lower power until late in February (after the DTV cut date) so many of those that receive the WLNS signal OTA today will not be able to receive it until the upgrade is complete and they should watch WLNS on satellite or cable. No Dish viewers and a lot less OTA viewers--sounds like a plan.
This whole thing has irritated me for years. Before the satellite companies were even players, the cable companies were going through the same thing. Originally, on cable I had a choice of at least two stations carrying every network. Enter the government with "must carry". If a station wants to be carried, the cable channel had to carry them (excluding minor stations like shopping channels.) The other end of the law said that if a station did not want to be a "must carry", they could charge the cable company to carry them. The local channels all became "must carry" and the surrounding area channels started charging and were dropped. When multiple network statons were carried, the cable companies had equipement that would block the outside station when they were carrying the same program the local staton was if the "must carry" requested it but if the local station had a ball game, you could still watch the network station on the outside station.
I have no problem with a "must carry" requirement, but if a company decides not to be a “must carry and charge for the right to be carried, then the cable companies (and now satellite companies) should be allowed to negotiate with outside stations to find the best deal. The local stations shouldn't be protected from completion and allowed to bargain for their coverage at the same time. Let’s open up the market. By the way, in order to bring in an outside station, it had to have a signal that could be picked up on a viewer's roof antenna. Unfortuantely, this is not controlable with a spot beam. If a station doesn't want to be a must carry, it should be open to anyone.
This whole thing has irritated me for years. Before the satellite companies were even players, the cable companies were going through the same thing. Originally, on cable I had a choice of at least two stations carrying every network. Enter the government with "must carry". If a station wants to be carried, the cable channel had to carry them (excluding minor stations like shopping channels.) The other end of the law said that if a station did not want to be a "must carry", they could charge the cable company to carry them. The local channels all became "must carry" and the surrounding area channels started charging and were dropped. When multiple network statons were carried, the cable companies had equipement that would block the outside station when they were carrying the same program the local staton was if the "must carry" requested it but if the local station had a ball game, you could still watch the network station on the outside station.
I have no problem with a "must carry" requirement, but if a company decides not to be a “must carry and charge for the right to be carried, then the cable companies (and now satellite companies) should be allowed to negotiate with outside stations to find the best deal. The local stations shouldn't be protected from completion and allowed to bargain for their coverage at the same time. Let’s open up the market. By the way, in order to bring in an outside station, it had to have a signal that could be picked up on a viewer's roof antenna. Unfortuantely, this is not controlable with a spot beam. If a station doesn't want to be a must carry, it should be open to anyone.
I agree that we subs have issues that Dish needs to address - let's keep those separate from the piracy that poorly run networks are now attempting.
Instead of offering $5.00 flat fees, I'd offer those stations with a surcharge... is your local affiliate, KRIP (-off) charging Dish twice as much? Dish could offer that channel for twice as much to subscribers... a lot of folks would decide they could do without it and it would stop some of this mess. What do you guys think?
Charge a diff local fee for every market, depending. I mean some markets dont even have all big 4 in HD. Good idea.
I don't think you can measure every item a company (any company) invests money in as a 'profit' center. The bigger picture is that having locals BRINGS IN SUBS on to the platform. If DISH didn't offer locals you better believe they wouldn't have near the number of customers they have now (and of course true for ALL pay providers). The huge growth of satellite TV is directly attributable to 1999 when Congress 'lifted' the banning to even offer locals to ANY sub - not just those that required waivers.
So, adding up the total impact to DISH (and DirecTV) of being able to offer locals has been hundreds of millions of dollars in profits that they woudn't have if they couldn't offer them.
Linked is an article describing the benefits the satcos have gotten since the 1999 action by Congress. Please note the mention of local stations being allowed to either offer the signals for free or to try and get fees:
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume6/super.pdf
and another article from 2000 showing the HUGE ENONOMIC effect that offering locals had for DISH (and DirecTV of course):
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Cable/News/Agency/2000-08-09.htm
This is for Dish's benefit more than anyone's because the customer does not see a cheaper price if they negotiate a better deal. DirecTv is the same price and does not have near this many disagreements over price. Dish just wants to keep more of their money and the customers benefit ZERO!
