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.
I knew that was what someone would argue. I guess I could say the Pepsi I get out of the vending machine is "free" since the cost is negligible to what my actual salary is.^ those lease numbers are peanuts, compared to the retransmission fees collected. For all intents and purposes, the spectrum is "free" as the fees are negligible.
Wrong. Spectrum gets paid for in yearly license fees, plus the cost to buy a station to start with.
I knew that was what someone would argue. I guess I could say the Pepsi I get out of the vending machine is "free" since the cost is negligible to what my actual salary is.
So how many Dish subscribers are in market 100? Heck, how many are in market 1? So how much money does an individual station take in through retrans fees? You must know.
Bottom lines...
1) Stations owners PAID for the spectrum rights when they purchased the station.
2) Stations PAY a yearly fee in order to continue using the spectrum.
Argue all you want that they don't pay enough, but they DO pay. Therefore, it's not free.
I guess you and Les are not going to end up as friends after this. I think he is thinking a bit north of that judging from the sword rattling.
Wrong. Spectrum gets paid for in yearly license fees, plus the cost to buy a station to start with.
What was his role at the station. Would he have been in a position to know about yearly FCC licensing?I still think they shouldn't have their cake and eat it to. Man I remember way back we had a guy from one of the local stations talk to us about this stuff. I know he said they got that spectrum for free and that is why we have free OTA TV.
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.
Their monthly electric bill to run the transmitter could be as much as the yearly fee, couldn't it ?
Sent from my d2lte using Tapatalk
Don't forget they now have 8 Thursday night football games,better make that an $11 increase.
Aren't all these same games on NFL Network?
I just cannot see Charlie paying twice for the SAME content. As a customer I don't undertstand that eoither.
Don't think so,CBS afaik gets 8 exclusive Thursday night games.NFL net does 4 or 5 at the end of the season.
Interesting,seems kind of dumb that CBS would pay that much to simulcast games.I know NFL Network isn't available everywhere,but still...