The lawsuit is probably going to make many consumers think that Dish is in the wrong and make them switch to another provider.
Fisher Communications Channels are BACK on Dish!
- Thread starter skihoodoo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 436
- Views 51K
here is another story of locals being withheld for money
Contract dispute could force subscribers to use antennas for channel after Jan. 1
By Jeff McDonald / The Bulletin
Published: December 18. 2008 4:00AM PST
Central Oregon’s cable TV subscribers may need to erect rabbit ear antennas after Jan. 1 to watch some college football games, NFL football games and “American Idol.”
Or switch to satellite.
That’s the decision local BendBroadband subscribers would face if the cable company and Fox’s local affiliate cannot reach an agreement to extend their current contract, which expires Dec. 31.
KXFO, which is owned by St. Joseph, Mo.-based News Press & Gazette Company of Oregon, wants compensation for providing network, syndicated and local news programming, which until now has been free, said Chris Gallu, the station’s general manager.
Cable companies, while paying fees to cable television stations such as CNN and ESPN for their programming, have never paid local network stations for the programming they provide, Gallu said. “We will only allow the cable company to carry our signal in return for some type of compensation,” Gallu said. “We will not give the signal for free.”
Cable companies have historically broadcast local programming with the consent of the local stations.
The relationship offers stations a broader reach for their advertisers, but with declining ad revenues and increasing costs of programming for local stations, there is a need for more compensation, Gallu said.
But compensating local television stations could discriminate against cable subscribers because noncable subscribers get the service for free, said Amy Tykeson, the CEO of BendBroadband.
“We are not paying cash for the free over-the-air programming,” Tykeson said. “KXFO is demanding a substantial cash payment, and BendBroadband disagrees that customers should have to pay for programming that is available for free over the air.”
If the issue is not resolved, subscribers would need rabbit ears to watch college football’s Bowl Championship Series title game on Fox on Jan. 8.
Contract dispute could force subscribers to use antennas for channel after Jan. 1
By Jeff McDonald / The Bulletin
Published: December 18. 2008 4:00AM PST
Central Oregon’s cable TV subscribers may need to erect rabbit ear antennas after Jan. 1 to watch some college football games, NFL football games and “American Idol.”
Or switch to satellite.
That’s the decision local BendBroadband subscribers would face if the cable company and Fox’s local affiliate cannot reach an agreement to extend their current contract, which expires Dec. 31.
KXFO, which is owned by St. Joseph, Mo.-based News Press & Gazette Company of Oregon, wants compensation for providing network, syndicated and local news programming, which until now has been free, said Chris Gallu, the station’s general manager.
Cable companies, while paying fees to cable television stations such as CNN and ESPN for their programming, have never paid local network stations for the programming they provide, Gallu said. “We will only allow the cable company to carry our signal in return for some type of compensation,” Gallu said. “We will not give the signal for free.”
Cable companies have historically broadcast local programming with the consent of the local stations.
The relationship offers stations a broader reach for their advertisers, but with declining ad revenues and increasing costs of programming for local stations, there is a need for more compensation, Gallu said.
But compensating local television stations could discriminate against cable subscribers because noncable subscribers get the service for free, said Amy Tykeson, the CEO of BendBroadband.
“We are not paying cash for the free over-the-air programming,” Tykeson said. “KXFO is demanding a substantial cash payment, and BendBroadband disagrees that customers should have to pay for programming that is available for free over the air.”
If the issue is not resolved, subscribers would need rabbit ears to watch college football’s Bowl Championship Series title game on Fox on Jan. 8.
I'm in the Eugene, OR local market (where hd broadcasts are not availabe or in the forese able future). We lost CBS today because of the Fisher Dispute. Is there any chance of dish giving us another CBS feed, hopefully in HD?
Hey No hard feelings at all to you Patton.
I understand your position as well as its what you do and how you feed your family. I can't fault you for that. I might not agree with it but I understand, and thats ok.
Thats what makes the country great.
Happy Holidays!
I understand your position as well as its what you do and how you feed your family. I can't fault you for that. I might not agree with it but I understand, and thats ok.
Thats what makes the country great.
Happy Holidays!
Nope... that would be illegal.
Dish wouldn't do anything illegal like that
<tongue firmly planted in cheek>
One thing that sucks about this is not only is Dish's KOMO signal in Seattle off the air, but the *guide* info is gone as well, replaced by the "Call KOMO and complain" message. This would probably not bother me too much, but I can get KOMO OTA and the OTA guide is equally jacked. So if I want to record something on KOMO OTA, I end up with "Important Info..." in my DVR. It'd be nice if the OTA channel in the guide still had the proper info...
I'll be sending a note to KOMO b/c I think Fisher is in the wrong here.
I'll be sending a note to KOMO b/c I think Fisher is in the wrong here.
Well, Dish certainly disabled EIT program guide info in their OTA tuner. If this were enabled you'd get program guide without spending $6 or whatever it is for locals.
Why did they disable EIT? I can tell you what a skeptic would think...
AFAIC this makes Dish at least equally complicit in ripping us off.
Why did they disable EIT? I can tell you what a skeptic would think...
AFAIC this makes Dish at least equally complicit in ripping us off.
If dish was not making money off of the local channel add on they would not withhold guide data from OTA users who do not subscribe to locals.
According to my wife, apparently KOMO 1000 am is now running ads (or is it Direct TV?) stating something about Dish Network denying us KOMO TV and how it's not American etc... then it goes into a Direct TV ad talking about the the choices they provide... *sigh*
Here's a generic response I received to an email from the GM of KATU.
KATU Viewer,
Thank you for making us aware of your concerns, I understand your frustration.
It's important to know that while the specific terms of our negotiation with Dish Network cannot be divulged, we are not asking for anything more than many much less significantly viewed cable networks are receiving.
The increase that is being reported has been grossly exaggerated and is comparable to other broadcast stations. KATU has been negotiating in good faith with DISH for a new retransmission agreement. We have asked for an extension to keep KATU on DISH while negotiation but we were turned down. We are asking for nothing different than other broadcast companies and cable networks. KATU produces quality news and entertainment programming, at our own expense, which DISH in turn, charges you an additional fee. We will continue to work diligently to reach an agreement, our hope is for a rapid resolution
John N Tamerlano
VP / General Manager
KATU TV
_______________________________
Here is my response to him:
Dear Mr. Tamerlano, Thank you for your response and explanation
I think you will discover that Satellite viewers on average are more knowledgeable about how the industry works than your average viewer. Here is why I have a problem with your position.
To people who have always had cable or satellite there is no difference between an over-the-air (OTA) broadcast channel and cable offerings. However, in both the business and regulatory environments, the difference between OTA television and cable matters. The business models are different, the ad revenue streams are different, the content regulation is different. Whether you run a local TV station or a cable system, a broadcast network or a cable net, you live with these differences everyday. One of the big differences it that a broadcast network is obligated to provide a free signal to viewers within their DMA.
To most viewers, those differences are invisible. They cruise around the channel lineup, probably not paying any attention when they’re tuned to a cable channel and when they’re looking at a broadcast station. They may be vaguely aware the rules for swearing vary between basic cable and networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, or the CW – although, as broadcast standards have changed over the years, the differences aren’t as stark as they used to be. Even if they see that distinction, they may not know this is because broadcasters are granted use of the public airwaves, while cable programmers are not.
Another example: If a cable programmer – Animal Planet, Comedy Central, Turner Classic Movies – wants to be carried by a satellite/cable operator, then that network has to make its pitch. It has to demonstrate the value it will deliver and then an agreement is negotiated. An OTA broadcaster can choose between Must Carry or Retransmission Consent status in order to gain carriage, that precludes real free market negotiation. For example, if negotiations between a satellite/cable operator and a broadcaster go badly, that operator can’t turn to an out-of-market broadcaster that carried the same programming.
You can argue that the average viewer doesn’t need to know the difference. They watch what they want to watch and they don’t care whether the programming is cable or broadcast. But you cannot ignore the impact of these differences. They can be seen all the time. The fees you propose discriminate against satellite/cable viewers. Why should a satellite or cable subscriber be treated differently than a viewer that receives your programming via off-air antenna? If you want to be a cable station then give up your broadcast license, exclusivity to ABC programming and go compete with the other cable channels, otherwise stop trying to have it both ways. Finally, if you want to provide me with proof that the fees I pay for receiving my local stations via satellite do more than cover the expense of providing them, I'll be more sympathetic to your position.
Thank you
KATU Viewer,
Thank you for making us aware of your concerns, I understand your frustration.
It's important to know that while the specific terms of our negotiation with Dish Network cannot be divulged, we are not asking for anything more than many much less significantly viewed cable networks are receiving.
The increase that is being reported has been grossly exaggerated and is comparable to other broadcast stations. KATU has been negotiating in good faith with DISH for a new retransmission agreement. We have asked for an extension to keep KATU on DISH while negotiation but we were turned down. We are asking for nothing different than other broadcast companies and cable networks. KATU produces quality news and entertainment programming, at our own expense, which DISH in turn, charges you an additional fee. We will continue to work diligently to reach an agreement, our hope is for a rapid resolution
John N Tamerlano
VP / General Manager
KATU TV
_______________________________
Here is my response to him:
Dear Mr. Tamerlano, Thank you for your response and explanation
I think you will discover that Satellite viewers on average are more knowledgeable about how the industry works than your average viewer. Here is why I have a problem with your position.
To people who have always had cable or satellite there is no difference between an over-the-air (OTA) broadcast channel and cable offerings. However, in both the business and regulatory environments, the difference between OTA television and cable matters. The business models are different, the ad revenue streams are different, the content regulation is different. Whether you run a local TV station or a cable system, a broadcast network or a cable net, you live with these differences everyday. One of the big differences it that a broadcast network is obligated to provide a free signal to viewers within their DMA.
To most viewers, those differences are invisible. They cruise around the channel lineup, probably not paying any attention when they’re tuned to a cable channel and when they’re looking at a broadcast station. They may be vaguely aware the rules for swearing vary between basic cable and networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, or the CW – although, as broadcast standards have changed over the years, the differences aren’t as stark as they used to be. Even if they see that distinction, they may not know this is because broadcasters are granted use of the public airwaves, while cable programmers are not.
Another example: If a cable programmer – Animal Planet, Comedy Central, Turner Classic Movies – wants to be carried by a satellite/cable operator, then that network has to make its pitch. It has to demonstrate the value it will deliver and then an agreement is negotiated. An OTA broadcaster can choose between Must Carry or Retransmission Consent status in order to gain carriage, that precludes real free market negotiation. For example, if negotiations between a satellite/cable operator and a broadcaster go badly, that operator can’t turn to an out-of-market broadcaster that carried the same programming.
You can argue that the average viewer doesn’t need to know the difference. They watch what they want to watch and they don’t care whether the programming is cable or broadcast. But you cannot ignore the impact of these differences. They can be seen all the time. The fees you propose discriminate against satellite/cable viewers. Why should a satellite or cable subscriber be treated differently than a viewer that receives your programming via off-air antenna? If you want to be a cable station then give up your broadcast license, exclusivity to ABC programming and go compete with the other cable channels, otherwise stop trying to have it both ways. Finally, if you want to provide me with proof that the fees I pay for receiving my local stations via satellite do more than cover the expense of providing them, I'll be more sympathetic to your position.
Thank you
They are not a cable network, they are a broadcast television station that provides their signal for free via over the air. Any cable of satellite company delivering their signal is helping them gain more viewers which turns into increased ad revenue.
Perhaps the key to this is indeed their sponsors, perhaps its time viewers contact them and let them know whats going on and how many eyeballs are no longer seeing their ads.
I'm with Dish on this one. Where I previously lived, we could not get the Mpls, MN local channels by antenna. I could receive the from Dish. Dish made it possible for the stations to almost double the viewing area with Dish. They should be happy to let cable and satellite companies carry their signal for free.
I also have a problem with cable networks charging cable and satellite companies for carrying their networks. With all the commericals we get bombarded with (over 30 minutes in a 2 hour movie) there should be enough income to provide the network free to the cable and satellite providers. They should be happy to have the ability to reach such a large audience for their advertisers. The networks that have very few commericals, or none at all, would be the exception, like HDNET, etc.
I also have a problem with cable networks charging cable and satellite companies for carrying their networks. With all the commericals we get bombarded with (over 30 minutes in a 2 hour movie) there should be enough income to provide the network free to the cable and satellite providers. They should be happy to have the ability to reach such a large audience for their advertisers. The networks that have very few commericals, or none at all, would be the exception, like HDNET, etc.
Excuse my naivety, but I have a hard time understanding why the OTA stations don’t pay the satellite and cable providers to pick up their broadcasts. They would lose a large percentage of their viewers without cable and satellite.
I said essentially the same in an email to KOMO Seattle. No reply of course.
I said essentially the same in an email to KOMO Seattle. No reply of course.
Dentist use collusion. Call around and get a price for a crown or bridge. Every dentis in town charges the exact same price and raises prices exactly at the same time. Yet, I have not seen OUR government do any thing to the dentist for collusion.
Because DBS satellite only jumped from 10 million to 20 million subscribers in just over four years after legislation was enacted to provide local channels via satelite.ckgrick said:
In other words, it is a symbiotic relationship, one where most of the subscriber expansion was driven simply by having local channels and networks available.
It appears DBS and cable need the local channels and networks, not the other way around. Remove those channels, and you will see subscribers flee from the provider.
I like a good show down gun fight as much as the next person.
One gunslinger is Fisher, a long time owner of broadcast tv
and radio stations. You know, those upstanding local broadcasters
who paid $0 for their license and just got a big fat slice of the
digital spectrum for free. Congress likes them and likes things
that way.
The other guys is Charlie. Hasn't treated his customers very good
even though our value to him is about $5,000 per dish. He got
HD up and running, but I defy anyone to watch the Bourne
Ultimatum without a few action packed HD Freezes. And now
Fisher has called him out, times are tough.
I called Charlie, said, WTF, I'm not getting ABC....so how about giving
me a west coast ABC affiliate. Of course Sam, from India, said, 'no
I can't do that." But I insisted. And so he said, "yes, Mr. Birkoff, we
will transfer the LA channel and not charge you, would that be alright."
I said, Yes, thank you Sam." Sam lied to me, no LA ABC channel is
in my line up.
I hope Fisher gets wounded, feels the pain of advertisers who say, ".... but you
are losing score." I feel sorry for Charlie, he's probably bigger than Fisher and
should be able to win the fight, but he has to stay in this one horse town and
has to live with his Wyatt Earp reputation.
One gunslinger is Fisher, a long time owner of broadcast tv
and radio stations. You know, those upstanding local broadcasters
who paid $0 for their license and just got a big fat slice of the
digital spectrum for free. Congress likes them and likes things
that way.
The other guys is Charlie. Hasn't treated his customers very good
even though our value to him is about $5,000 per dish. He got
HD up and running, but I defy anyone to watch the Bourne
Ultimatum without a few action packed HD Freezes. And now
Fisher has called him out, times are tough.
I called Charlie, said, WTF, I'm not getting ABC....so how about giving
me a west coast ABC affiliate. Of course Sam, from India, said, 'no
I can't do that." But I insisted. And so he said, "yes, Mr. Birkoff, we
will transfer the LA channel and not charge you, would that be alright."
I said, Yes, thank you Sam." Sam lied to me, no LA ABC channel is
in my line up.
I hope Fisher gets wounded, feels the pain of advertisers who say, ".... but you
are losing score." I feel sorry for Charlie, he's probably bigger than Fisher and
should be able to win the fight, but he has to stay in this one horse town and
has to live with his Wyatt Earp reputation.
