Here we go again, Hearst tv group is gone

As someone who does complain to the FCC, the FCC for the free complaints only tries to get the provider to have communications for you as this is what is actually in a FCC response to a billing issue I have with a certain provider as at the end, they want $ if you want a formal complaint which means you are the one who is paying to punish the provider and not the FCC which is atleast $540.00 + legal fees:
"The FCC’s informal complaint process provides consumers with an easy and informal way to raise issues with their providers.

The role of the FCC in the informal complaint process is to facilitate a conversation between the consumer and their provider to try to address the consumer’s issue.

In some instances, the consumer’s issue is not resolved to the consumer’s satisfaction once the informal complaint process has concluded. We regret that you were not satisfied with attempts by FCC staff to facilitate a dialogue between you and your provider to address your issue.

At this point, you might want to contact your provider directly to see if you and the provider can arrive at a resolution that is acceptable to you or pursue more formal legal options.

You also have the option to file a formal complaint with the FCC if your issue involves a violation of the Communications Act. Here is what to expect from the formal complaint process:

Formal complaint proceedings are like court proceedings.
The filing fee for filing a formal complaint is $540.00 but is subject to change.
You must comply with specific procedural rules, appear before the FCC, and file legal documents that address legal issues.
Attorneys almost always represent parties filing formal complaints, and legal fees, in addition to the $540.00 filing fee, can be substantial.

Complete information on how to file a formal complaint can be found in sections 1.720 through 1.740 of the FCC’s rules, located at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720 – 1.740 (see Please review Section 1.718 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.718, for additional information on applicable deadlines.

For a more detailed description of the formal complaint process, see EB - Market Disputes Resolution Division"
As far as channels being free ota, the only reason they have to broadcast is for emergency communications. No station is required to provide you free prime time programming or sports. If the local stations wanted to they could only broadcast news and emergency alerts and no other programming, but then they wouldn't make money.

It's always baffled me the amount if people that think they should get to watch all the shows for free just because it's being broadcast through a local station. Should consider yourself priveleged just to get them for free on ota.
My understanding is that it's "free" because our tax dollars have already paid for it...mostly.
Once again, MOST (granted, not all) people can get OTA for FREE by putting up an antenna. MANY people don't want to do that. Doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Second, OTA broadcasters do NOT get the spectrum for free. With a handful of exceptions, they had to pay to purchase the spectrum from whomever owned it before. ALL owners pay a yearly fee to the government for the use of the spectrum. Compare this to owning a house. You paid the previous owners for the house and pay the government in taxes every year. Did you get the house for free? Even if you're living on land that your ancestors "claimed" from the wilderness, you still pay property taxes. Would you say your house was free?

Those are facts.

Third, yes, satellite providers provide more viewers than can be reached by OTA broadcast. BUT, go back to point one.

Last but not least, if ALL MVPDs (including streaming) went away tomorrow, the number of viewers watching ESPN, Disney, History, Discovery, etc would be ZERO. The number of viewers watching OTA would be in the millions. But people don't complain (or at least not as much) over paying to watch ESPN, Disney, History, etc AND still having to watch commercials.

Now, all that being said, I do think the system is broken. My "simple" solution would be for 3rd party arbitration to determine how much a OTA "viewer" is worth. That is then how much a MVPD pays a broadcaster, based on average ratings over a year(?). So let's say they decide a viewer is worth $1/month. Look at the average rating a station gets. Let's say it's 25%. So the math would be $1 * .25 = .25/month/subscriber. Obviously the numbers are made up. That encourages stations to have better programming (better programming = better ratings = more viewers = more $$). It eliminates negotiation (because the negotiation is already done).
Does anyone have any idea how many local stations are in dispute with Dish? How many of them are on the FOX network? How many for more than a year?
Cox, Hearst, Mission Broadcasting, and White Knight Broadcasting stations are in dispute.
The last two are also in dispute with DirecTV and they are both "shell" companies of Nexstar Broadcasting.
77 stations in total (37 Hearst, 13 Cox, 25 Mission, 2 White Knight).
None for more than a year but that will change in about 2 weeks with COX.
15 of them are on the Fox network, and that's about a fifth of all the in-dispute stations.
It seems both satellite companies are in bad financial straights and they keep getting held up at gunpoint by the media conglomerates for outrageous increases. Don't the conglomerates know the goose is dying? Nobody is asking them to give it away for free, but come on! My bill is pushing $200 a month just for TV. Top 250 and no extras.
I wish I had the time and energy to help toward delivering a better solution for us the end users. My basic premise is that the approach we are using is a waste of time and energy. We are directed to this approach when we complain to Dish, or any provider, to call our local station….

Here I will try to summarize the issues as I see them, then contribute when I can, the best I can.

Here are the issues as I see them:

  • Complaining to the local station is a waste of time for the immediate incident and will not produce lasting results.
  • The same can be said for complaining to our provider on the single station incident (note: in the Boston area we have had three issues with the same channel in the last four years). Currently the ABC, FOX, CW networks plus another channel are blocked, the last 2 for a couple of years.
  • Based on the information in a recent post, complaining to the FCC is worse than I thought
  • We need to find effective ways to expose and put pressure on those holding companies pulling the strings.
  • We need to expand this issue beyond the Dish forum here first.
  • Then find ways to get the attention of the advertisers, sports leagues, program producers and any other affected group we can identify.
  • Protest to the providers at the group level and suggest they collaborate.
  • As we make progress, then we could take it to another level, social media, congressional rookies looking to make a name for themselves, etc.
As I stated, I will try to remain as connected as I can, but right now I am finding it hard to find time to watch TV. It is just that this stuff ticks me off.
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Cox, Hearst, Mission Broadcasting, and White Knight Broadcasting stations are in dispute.
The last two are also in dispute with DirecTV and they are both "shell" companies of Nexstar Broadcasting.
77 stations in total (37 Hearst, 13 Cox, 25 Mission, 2 White Knight).
None for more than a year but that will change in about 2 weeks with COX.
15 of them are on the Fox network, and that's about a fifth of all the in-dispute stations.
I'm curious about where you got that info about an impending Cox settlement with Dish.
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
For all the reasons stated in the recent posts:
- long standing disputes
- by multiple entities
- involving multiple networks

We need to try new approach(es).

Our area still cannot access the FOX network as part of Prime Time Anytime and we have not been able to access The CW and another channel for a couple of years. Those two channels are owned by the same entity which results in the OTA program guide to be the same for both channels which makes it difficult/impossible to schedule CW recordings.

This is the middle of the NFL season. Do you think NFL sponsors would like to know the size of the viewing audience they pay for is inflated. Or do you think that the NFL would like to know that loyal fans are having difficulty seeing games and the FOX network is partly to blame?

Does anyone have any suggestions of specific individuals to contact and how to contact them?