Les Moonves Calls Dish-Disney Deal “A Great Start” But “Not Enough For Us”

Toggle sidebar
I watch a lot of CBS, in our household it's definitely number 1. But I guess that's why they make Chevys and Fords (but that's another argument for another time). As for OTA, we can't receive any of our locals. I had waivers for all of them, but that's a gone issue now. So, this would be a really big issue for us.
 
Teehar said:
That is where your and Les's logic is flawed.CBS is a free ota channel,they should not be asking for $6 per subscriber.If they want to make all that money then they should be investing a huge chunk of it,to ensure that most everyone can get it with an antenna.If they want to become a cable only channel then it would be different.Same goes for Fox,NBC,and ABC.

I do absolutely agree with you about ESPN and other cable networks,that charge in my mind,exorbitant fees,and force everyone to pay.
Click to expand...

Well the logic is that most people would not choose a cable or DBS service without their local channels. So, the cable/DBS service is making money and attracting customers because of CBS programming, and CBS should get a share of that money. Dish proved this when they started offering locals - the number of Dish subs skyrocketed.
 
mike123abc said:
Well the logic is that most people would not choose a cable or DBS service without their local channels. So, the cable/DBS service is making money and attracting customers because of CBS programming, and CBS should get a share of that money. Dish proved this when they started offering locals - the number of Dish subs skyrocketed.
Click to expand...


Yea but the Networks get to double dip. They get money from commercials and re-transmission fees. They got all that TV spectrum for free. They didn't pay a dime for it. So if their getting re-transmission fees from Dish they shouldn't be pissed about people skipping commercials. If people are watching OTA without say a DVR then their getting money from commercials being viewed.

They should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it to. Just an opinion and as always opinions are like.....
 
mike123abc said:
Well the logic is that most people would not choose a cable or DBS service without their local channels. So, the cable/DBS service is making money and attracting customers because of CBS programming, and CBS should get a share of that money. Dish proved this when they started offering locals - the number of Dish subs skyrocketed.
Click to expand...

By the same token,if most folks were able to get an adequate ota signal,they wouldn't be having to pay Dish,or any other provider for them.The reason both sat companies started carrying locals were due to the fact that most people couldn't get them via ota.That is my main contention,none of the big 4 give a rats arse if people can receive their signals for free,they all want to milk the cash cow now.
 
Do the folks who subscribe to Showtime at DIRECTV, Fios, and U-verse pay more than us at Dish? They all get ShowTime anywhere and Dish customers do not. If you have a subscription, you should get all their services.
 
odbrv said:
Do the folks who subscribe to Showtime at DIRECTV, Fios, and U-verse pay more than us at Dish? They all get ShowTime anywhere and Dish customers do not. If you have a subscription, you should get all their services.
Click to expand...
Except this service wasn't covered in the contract that Dish has with CBS. In fact, it didn't even exist back then. Dish can't magically provide access to showtime anytime without having the contractual right to do so.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
odbrv said:
Do the folks who subscribe to Showtime at DIRECTV, Fios, and U-verse pay more than us at Dish? They all get ShowTime anywhere and Dish customers do not. If you have a subscription, you should get all their services.
Click to expand...

It is one of those things that SHO uses as leverage in negotiations.
 
Hmmm. Is Showtime really as good as it was a few years ago? I'm hearing of more reruns and older material.

CBS and related offerings just don't seem worth as much anymore.
 
When I decide to cut the cord I will have to put up a tall mast with antennae pointing toward LA and San Diego, both about 80 miles away with mountains inbetween, since I live in a valley.
I have done it before but now it is dificult to find a company that still installs OTA equipment around here.
No I don't do well with heights and am not likely to find myself on top of a ladder on top of my roof, any time soon.

As for newspapers, what ever those are, they have this new fangled thing called the internet,
 
Gobucks said:
Yea but the Networks get to double dip. They get money from commercials and re-transmission fees. They got all that TV spectrum for free. They didn't pay a dime for it. So if their getting re-transmission fees from Dish they shouldn't be pissed about people skipping commercials. If people are watching OTA without say a DVR then their getting money from commercials being viewed.

They should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it to. Just an opinion and as always opinions are like.....
Click to expand...

Wrong. Spectrum gets paid for in yearly license fees, plus the cost to buy a station to start with.
 
sam_gordon said:
Wrong. Spectrum gets paid for in yearly license fees, plus the cost to buy a station to start with.
Click to expand...

I thought the spectrum was bought a long time ago and no yearly fees are due? If that's not the case, what is the cost? I'll try and look it up in the meantime. The cost to start up the station - sorry, that's a business cost, not something they need to suck up themselves.

Sent from my d2lte using Tapatalk
 
Hall said:
I thought the spectrum was bought a long time ago and no yearly fees are due? If that's not the case, what is the cost? I'll try and look it up in the meantime. The cost to start up the station - sorry, that's a business cost, not something they need to suck up themselves.

Sent from my d2lte using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Here you go...
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fy-2013-regulatory-fees-fact-sheet-media

It depends on the market size.

For VHF, markets 1-10 pay $86K, markets 100+ pay $6K.
For UHF, markets 1-10 pay $38K, markets 100+ pay $3675.

Most homeowners (probably 99%+) paid for their house/land, would you agree? At one point, WAY back in the history of the country, the land was simply "claimed" or given by the government (land grant). No money was paid at that time. But now, you have to pay for your land. Since the land was FREE at one point, should we consider we got our land for free? I'm guessing not. Most stations have been sold multiple times. Part of that cost was for spectrum usage. Is it a business cost? Absolutely. But it's still a "cost".

IMO, "FREE" OTA doesn't refer to costs incurred by the broadcaster, but by the viewer. After the equipment cost (which they don't pay to the broadcaster), it is FREE. Yes, there are some people who can't receive OTA. I would support not charging them for locals. There are others who CAN receive OTA, but haven't even tried, simply because their sat/cableco provides it for them. I see no problem with charging them.

That being said, I don't think a local broadcaster should be able to get more than $1/subscriber, and that's on the high side. I think it should be closer to .50.
 

Similar threads

R
Satellite signal lost on some channels but not on others
Replies
7
Views
1K
Djae050811
D
hdflsts2002
Dish Anywhere FireStick and iPhone Not Working
Replies
46
Views
5K
tjboston5676
tjboston5676
A
Not targeted for Android software
Replies
16
Views
2K
Almighty1
Almighty1
bookworm370
    • Like
Are my eyes deceiving me? BOS - Blue Screen of Start!
Replies
4
Views
800
Scott Greczkowski
Scott Greczkowski
N
Dish anywhere not allowing timer to be set on OTA channel
Replies
11
Views
1K
NJeanA
N

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top
Back