This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Good Job DISH

Love the peanut gallery. Who needs TV for entertainment?
 
I more convinced than ever, let the locals drop if they want to. It will only hasten to get the law changed. Right now it's all up to the networks, they can demand to be carried for no money, or demand money to be carried and threaten to refuse to be carried. BS.
That's not to say Dish doesn't need the networks (locals), they do. No one knows that better than Charlie, he was a pioneer in getting locals into locals for satellite. But the double dipping by the networks has to stop.
 

OK ... makes sense that way I guess.
 
Years ago, local stations chose the "must carry" option and generated all of their revenue from advertising. Today, corporate greed has taken over: They want to be paid by the carriers, i.e. cablecos and satellite, AND earn revenue from advertising. Today, being carried by cablecos or satellite is far, far more important to them given the low percentage of viewers who use OTA. They would never survive on advertising revenue based on OTA viewer numbers alone.
 
With regards to the "must carry", I think some people are confusing 2 different things (or maybe I am)?

There is the Must Carry vs Re-Trans in each market to determine if the channel is carried at all.

Then a separate issue is what is carried in HD, where if DISH is carrying NBC in HD, they must carry all the Networks in HD. This isn't true in every market, as Scott mentioned above, they were given target dates on when they had to have a certain % of markets covered. I think those are the dates and rollout that people are remembering, unless I'm just confusing myself.
 
Why did Dish have that push to add all of those smaller markets, i.e. in the 150-200 range based on market size ?
 

At least with an extension, both sides have time to breathe and work on a deal, and more importantly, the customer still gets to watch the channels.

But, an extension is still pretty good change for Dish. One of the complaints we users often had was that DirecTV and Cablecos were often able to arrange these extensions during negotiations, while Dish just removed the channels. It seems that Dish might now be thinking of its subs, and not just maintaining the hard-line negotiating style that perhaps is a reason Charlie appears to be so disliked among the business community.

So, kudos to Dish for taking a major step for your customers. Better late than never!
 
Why did Dish have that push to add all of those smaller markets, i.e. in the 150-200 range based on market size ?

That was because there is a clause in the new SHEVRA law or whatever its called that if Dish could carry all the DMA's they would be out from under the penalties imposed when they got caught providing distant locals to those of us who were not legally entitled to them. Because of those penalties dish could not even provide service outside a DMA to an unserved segment, i.e. if a DMA did not have a FOX station they could not import the neighboring DMAs FOX station. I believe it also freed up their ability to carry significantly viewed stations from neighboring DMAS. It gave DirecTV a competitive edge in locals.

To answer the question why do Satellite companies want to carry locals - because locals are the most heavily watched channels, believe it or not, if Dish or DirecTV dropped locals, they would lose a lot of subs.

Another part of the law requires that if a carrier carries one local station in a DMA in HD, then they must carry all the full power locals that are broadcast in HD in HD also. However if a low power station or a subchannel is in HD the carriage is not required, but the station that owns it may negotiate that in their retrains agreement.

So if your ABC or FOX is on a sub channel of a full power station, the carriage of it in HD is not mandatory, but negotiable with the station.
 
Last edited: