Phoenix Meredith stations dispute?

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
1,933
784
Lexington, ky
Well, I'm not willing to pay for it, but I'm being forced to. Not by Dish, but by Comcast.

I have Comcast for my internet, but the internet alone price ($60) is more expensive than a bundle of internet and limited basic cable + the required $10 local channels surcharge ($55).

If I had to buy eggs with my milk every time, then I'd go somewhere else. Instead I'm forced to either choose between buying milk alone at a price higher than buying milk and eggs together.

I don't want your eggs at the price being offered.
Isn't that the argument against bundled packages? If I'm not interested in ESPN (for example), why do I have to pay for it to get DIY? While I'd like to see an ala carte pricing model, I'm not convinced it would be cheaper than bundling.

Another argument for high % increase... is it not possible that early retrans rates were underpriced? Just throwing out a thought.
 

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,220
6,794
FL
Another argument for high % increase... is it not possible that early retrans rates were underpriced? Just throwing out a thought.
No, it's not, unless the early retrans rates didn't cover the cost of delivery and uplink. Even a 100% upcharge or profit margin probably would be in the millions of dollars, not billions.
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
1,933
784
Lexington, ky
No, it's not, unless the early retrans rates didn't cover the cost of delivery and uplink. Even a 100% upcharge or profit margin probably would be in the millions of dollars, not billions.
Sorry, not following. When I say "underpriced", I'm talking the value of the product. For example, if Ford releases car and only costs $1K new, that's underpriced. So they raise it to $2K and folks still snap them up. It's only at $15K that people are even trying to negotiate. Yes, this is a very simplified analogy.
 

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,220
6,794
FL
For example, if Ford releases car and only costs $1K new, that's underpriced.
That's what I'm talking about. Underpriced would be a price that doesn't cover the cost of production or delivery. A reasonable price would be a markup based on a percentage of the base cost. For example, Dish's historical profit margin is around 10%. so a 100% markup is plenty generous. I imagine the the cost + 100% markup is nowhere near the billions of dollars retrans generates now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSheridan

Cheddar_Head

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 13, 2008
547
686
Colorado Springs
That's what I'm talking about. Underpriced would be a price that doesn't cover the cost of production or delivery. A reasonable price would be a markup based on a percentage of the base cost. For example, Dish's historical profit margin is around 10%. so a 100% markup is plenty generous. I imagine the the cost + 100% markup is nowhere near the billions of dollars retrans generates now.
Problem you and Sam are working from different paradigms:
- you = reasonable profit, say cost + 10%
- Sam = whatever the market will bear, no relation to actual cost required, price gouging allowed and encouraged

Personally I think Dish/DirecTV ought to invoke the part of the law saying we won't carry you signal and make the station return to Must Carry status which means the station gets cost reimbursement only. Playing Hardball in negotiations. I do believe that all the free antennas and dongles that Dish is handing might just be in preparation for this type of tactic.
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
1,933
784
Lexington, ky
That's what I'm talking about. Underpriced would be a price that doesn't cover the cost of production or delivery. A reasonable price would be a markup based on a percentage of the base cost. For example, Dish's historical profit margin is around 10%. so a 100% markup is plenty generous. I imagine the the cost + 100% markup is nowhere near the billions of dollars retrans generates now.
Gotcha. So what's it called when the cost for something is less than the perceived value? If I'm willing to pay $20 for something, but it's priced at $10... ?
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
1,933
784
Lexington, ky
Problem you and Sam are working from different paradigms:
- you = reasonable profit, say cost + 10%
- Sam = whatever the market will bear, no relation to actual cost required, price gouging allowed and encouraged

Personally I think Dish/DirecTV ought to invoke the part of the law saying we won't carry you signal and make the station return to Must Carry status which means the station gets cost reimbursement only. Playing Hardball in negotiations. I do believe that all the free antennas and dongles that Dish is handing might just be in preparation for this type of tactic.
I agree with you. Obviously MVPDs do see a value in having the locals, and there's some cost they are willing to pay. If the cost was too much, no one (or very few) would pay it. I thought that's what most people here wanted... let market forces determine the cost.
 

Tampa8

Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
17,650
6,946
Tampa/Eastern Ct
Well, I'm not willing to pay for it, but I'm being forced to. Not by Dish, but by Comcast.

I have Comcast for my internet, but the internet alone price ($60) is more expensive than a bundle of internet and limited basic cable + the required $10 local channels surcharge ($55).

If I had to buy eggs with my milk every time, then I'd go somewhere else. Instead I'm forced to either choose between buying milk alone at a price higher than buying milk and eggs together.

I don't want your eggs at the price being offered.
You could throw them...... :devilish
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell

Tampa8

Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
17,650
6,946
Tampa/Eastern Ct
I've been suggesting that for years.

Regarding competition... it is there. Maybe not for the same shows, but if you don't think broadcasters have competition, I'm not sure what you're smoking.
That was the point though, the same shows.
 

Tampa8

Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
17,650
6,946
Tampa/Eastern Ct
And when the locals have a contract with the networks that they have exclusivity?
You are going down the wrong road with this. The locals are protected period. I can't watch any other CBS station besides WFSB if my DMA is Ct. And going to digital made sure to make it harder to the point where It is impossible to get out of market OTA anymore here. I can't get ABC OTA anymore as it is and it would take herculean efforts to get any of them now. That should not be allowed, they should be made to get me a signal for free or let another local of that network compete via Satellite/Cable since to get that network I have to pay.
 

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,220
6,794
FL
Personally I think Dish/DirecTV ought to invoke the part of the law saying we won't carry you signal and make the station return to Must Carry status which means the station gets cost reimbursement only.
It is my understanding that the Must Carry choice resides with the channel, not the MVPD. Am I mistaken?
 

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,220
6,794
FL
I agree with you. Obviously MVPDs do see a value in having the locals, and there's some cost they are willing to pay. If the cost was too much, no one (or very few) would pay it. I thought that's what most people here wanted... let market forces determine the cost.
Except I have demonstrated that "market forces" are skewed and those forces are not driven by the consumer as much as contractual and exclusivity agreements between conglomerates. Similar to the supposed market forces that drive gas prices. Most of the time the market will bear it because it's the only game in town. Dish presumably is the only provider that allows locals to be dropped because they played harder in negotiations at the expense of more disputes. But then they get the brunt of the blame from viewers when it happens. It's a no-win situation except for those that hold the monopoly cards.
 

Tampa8

Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
17,650
6,946
Tampa/Eastern Ct
Except I have demonstrated that "market forces" are skewed and those forces are not driven by the consumer as much as contractual and exclusivity agreements between conglomerates. Similar to the supposed market forces that drive gas prices. Most of the time the market will bear it because it's the only game in town. Dish presumably is the only provider that allows locals to be dropped because they played harder in negotiations at the expense of more disputes. But then they get the brunt of the blame from viewers when it happens. It's a no-win situation except for those that hold the monopoly cards.
Oh, totally agree in this case not driven by consumers. It may partially be so with DISH because you can opt to not get locals. But even then you must get them all or none.
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
1,933
784
Lexington, ky
You are going down the wrong road with this. The locals are protected period. I can't watch any other CBS station besides WFSB if my DMA is Ct. And going to digital made sure to make it harder to the point where It is impossible to get out of market OTA anymore here. I can't get ABC OTA anymore as it is and it would take herculean efforts to get any of them now. That should not be allowed, they should be made to get me a signal for free or let another local of that network compete via Satellite/Cable since to get that network I have to pay.
The move to digital was mandated by the government. If you want to complain, bring it up to them. It's the same as the repack going on now... Gov't is forcing it on broadcasters.
 

mwdxer1

SatelliteGuys Pro
Nov 3, 2015
1,003
828
Seaside Oregon
You are going down the wrong road with this. The locals are protected period. I can't watch any other CBS station besides WFSB if my DMA is Ct. And going to digital made sure to make it harder to the point where It is impossible to get out of market OTA anymore here. I can't get ABC OTA anymore as it is and it would take herculean efforts to get any of them now. That should not be allowed, they should be made to get me a signal for free or let another local of that network compete via Satellite/Cable since to get that network I have to pay.
I asked Charlie years ago on a Charlie Chat and he said, he would gladly sell any market(s) of locals to anyone, if he could. Some people have found ways around the rules too. But this "protection" of locals is garbage. No other satellite channel has that, other than maybe sports. I think if the channel is offered, you should be able to purchase it.
 

Cheddar_Head

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 13, 2008
547
686
Colorado Springs
It is my understanding that the Must Carry choice resides with the channel, not the MVPD. Am I mistaken?
No you are not mistaken. The station can choose Must Carry or to provide the signal for a fee. If they choose to want the fee then the MVPD aka Dish can refuse to pay and not carry the station. What I propose is Dish call the bluff and say we aren't paying and won't rebroadcast your signal. Then the station gets bupkis, no money and no additional viewers. At this point the station can choose to negotiate a fee acceptable to Dish or can return to Must Carry, meaning no fees above cost. I kind of think that is game Dish is playing be giving out antennas and dongles.

Just a theory.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top