Here we go again, Hearst tv group is gone

[jimgoe]

Another dispute begins, which shows what a mess television distribution is in now. In central Florida we just lost our NBC affiliate and have been missing ABC for months. At least we still have ESPN, unlike our neighbors with Spectrum. I wonder when the Dish contract with Disney expires?

We have an antenna in the attic and an OTA adapter for our hopper so it doesn't make much difference for us.

 

[That American Girl]

I really wish we DIDN'T offer locals, except to those few who can't get Ota in their area...

 

[TheKrell]

I really wish we DIDN'T offer locals, except to those few who can't get Ota in their area...

You lost me. Why would you wish that? If all the satellite delivered locals were offered to fewer customers, then I think the cost would be way more than $12. Those who can't get their channels OTA would still be out of luck when disputes occur.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Dish Network forced to drop dozens of Hearst-owned ABC, NBC, CBS and CW Network affiliates

A contract allowing Dish Network to carry Hearst's local ABC, NBC, CBS and CW Network affiliates expired Friday morning.

thedesk.net

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HDdude24]

I just saw my local station post about this. Great right before football

 

[mwdxer1]

I really wish we DIDN'T offer locals, except to those few who can't get Ota in their area...

I think in the future, a lot of channels may not be offered by satellite/cable as the pricing is getting too high. The latest dispute with with Disney and Spectrum is another example. Both satellite & cable subs are going down all of the time. Ale carte is the only way. If a sub wants a channel, they pay the going rate.

 

[Radioguy41]

I think in the future, a lot of channels may not be offered by satellite/cable as the pricing is getting too high. The latest dispute with with Disney and Spectrum is another example. Both satellite & cable subs are going down all of the time. Ale carte is the only way. If a sub wants a channel, they pay the going rate.

and what goes around comes around, back to ala-carte like the old days (until ESPN messed it all up). Back in the 80s and 90s everything was ala-carte. Then ESPN pressured the satellite programming providers with an ultimatum; either package ESPN into a minimum 5 channel package or no go and that was the beginning of the giant mess we are confronted with today. It rapidly went from a 5 channel package of your choice to self-serving redundant bundles of repetitive programming from each individual content provider. Couple that with the FCC's myopic ruling that giant corps could own as many network channels as they could buy and here we are, stuck in the quicksand. Personally, if it were me I'd cut off all locals and let them hang out to dry until they came to their senses. I would replace each channel with a board showing the name of the corp and their headquarter's phone number suggesting viewers give them a call.

 

[jimgoe]

I have always believed that if broadcast stations are available for free ota the SAT and cable distributers should be allowed to distribute those channels in the broadcast area, at their expense, without any charge. Perhaps the broadcasters should start paying for access to the public airwaves.

 

[bnewt]

ota programming is free for now, but aren't they proposing a charge for it with the nexgen system?

the price of just watching tv is getting out of hand
the older generation on a fixed income will be forced to choose between food, medicine or tv.
the world is truly in a sad shape

 

[tanman]

First you stab me in the back by taking away my Judge Judy.Now you stab me in the heart by taking away Jeopardy/Wheel of Fortune!
Will the pain ever cease?

 

[That American Girl]

You lost me. Why would you wish that? If all the satellite delivered locals were offered to fewer customers, then I think the cost would be way more than $12. Those who can't get their channels OTA would still be out of luck when disputes occur.

Because every time this happens, Dish ends up sending out antennas at no cost, and some customers become more angry that they get channels for free when they were paying the $12 before.

Or threaten to go to another provider, who's probably in a takedown themselves...

Or demand we credit half the bill over 1 channel they can't get for the moment...

Not to mention the fact that these providers know how to play the game, and do this crap right before certain sports fire up again, hoping we'll cave to their demands.


Just a few reasons

 

[sam_gordon]

I have always believed that if broadcast stations are available for free ota the SAT and cable distributers should be allowed to distribute those channels in the broadcast area, at their expense, without any charge.

I think that's where MVPDs screwed up to start. Instead of giving away the locals, they wanted to charge extra for them. Station owners said "you're making money off of us, we want a cut!" BOTH MVPDs and Broadcasters benefit from the deal.

Perhaps the broadcasters should start paying for access to the public airwaves.

They do. They paid to purchase the license to start with and pay the government fees every year.

 

[tjboston5676]

Because every time this happens, Dish ends up sending out antennas at no cost, and some customers become more angry that they get channels for free when they were paying the $12 before.

Or threaten to go to another provider, who's probably in a takedown themselves...

Or demand we credit half the bill over 1 channel they can't get for the moment...

Not to mention the fact that these providers know how to play the game, and do this crap right before certain sports fire up again, hoping we'll cave to their demands.


Just a few reasons

Then they get mad at the techs when we install the antenna and the channel they wanted doesn't have enough signal lol

 

[yelraek]

I really wish we DIDN'T offer locals, except to those few who can't get Ota in their area...

That would be me. I can't get Ota and I have lost my NBC channel because of Hearst.

 

[Mister B]

I really wish we DIDN'T offer locals, except to those few who can't get Ota in their area...

Back in the late 90's when Dish was new, I lived in a tiny New Mexico town and could only get one PBS translator. Dish offered the 4 major networks from far away cities for a small fee and I don't remember any problems. The city for a particular network would sometimes change but that just made it more interesting.

 

[nelson61]

Seems to me , things are backwards.
I would think the local stations would be PAYING for Dish, DirecTV, cable, etc to deliver advertising (their station) to customers since the more "eyes" they have watching, the more advertisers pay the station.

 

[HipKat]

Seems to me , things are backwards.
I would think the local stations would be PAYING for Dish, DirecTV, cable, etc to deliver advertising (their station) to customers since the more "eyes" they have watching, the more advertisers pay the station.

Once upon a time, ADVERTISING paid for the channels.
That and Telethons

Paying for something many of us pick up for Free - along with the subnets that Dish doesn't have makes this stupid to give the local broadcasters a dime

 

[chiodo]

Well without getting into political discussion the networks have been bending over backwards trying to appease politicians particularly of a certain party, but not exclusive to that,party and the politicians in turn, make sure the networks are taken care of. One just has to look at what's going on up north in Canada, the govt there made a law that social media companies must pay the pay the Canadian networks who all own the news outlets for use of their of their news content, even if a person shares a news article as the Canadian Networks control the goverment narrative, which also follows the USA networks narrative. And now Facebook (Meta) and Google (Alphabet) are blocking all Canadian news stories on their medium, including all previous news stories., so if a user in Canada shares a news story that story is automatically blocked the user is warned and if they continue they end up having their account suspended.

So the social media networks don't have to pay the Canadian Networks anything, if they don't show any of their content

Bottom line is the Networks want more money, and not everyone wants to pay out the money.

 

[sam_gordon]

Seems to me , things are backwards.
I would think the local stations would be PAYING for Dish, DirecTV, cable, etc to deliver advertising (their station) to customers since the more "eyes" they have watching, the more advertisers pay the station.

Streaming aside, if there were no cable/satellite providers, local stations would still have viewers. Cable networks (ESPN, Disney, TNT, etc) would have ZERO viewers. But for some reason people don't complain about paying for those. AND those also have ads. "But local broadcasters get/use the airwaves for free!". No they don't. Not any more than you got your house for free.

Yes, MVPDs help get eyes on the local channels. BUT, having local channels is also a selling point for MVPDs. Go back and look at when Dish/Direct really took off... it's when they were able to offer local channels.

MOST people do not NEED an MVPD to get their local channel. They want it however so it's a "one stop shop" to get all of their channels. You can watch your local broadcaster, then flip over to ESPN without changing sources on your TV.

I do wish there was a way for a 3rd party to determine the "cost per viewer", then that's the rate that's charged nationwide. But, is a viewer in NYC "worth" more than someone in Des Moines, IA?

 

[scoob83]

I really wish we DIDN'T offer locals, except to those few who can't get Ota in their area...

I would immediately cancel dish if they discontinued locals. I’d have to go to DirecTV or begrudgingly a streaming service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk