I hardly watch CBS or My Network TV (the 2 affected affiliates in Cleveland) anyway. Screw them, keep my bills lower.
Raycom & Dish still quareling? -Dispute Settled. channels back 8/9
- Thread starter TNGTony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 283
- Views 80K
Of course the cable/satellite company does the dropping. When it comes down to "you must pay $X to carry our signal past this time/date" they will be dropped. It is not like the cable/sat company really had a choice...
I record a lot of local programming in the fall and spring, obviously, so it offers two things:
1) Protection from disputes
2) protection from rain fade
Bigger concern for me is disputes with channels like AMC, Fx, etc... Backup there is I wont miss the show with my Roku and Amazon HD streaming, but it'll cost me $2.99 a week...
I guess you can claim semantics, but Dish Network didn't drop them. They were forced to terminate the feed. WISTV makes it appear that it is all Dish's fault and that is not the case.
Just noticed this apparently affects me. *Yawn* What is My Network anyway? These disputes are inane. The Federal Government should change the must carry rule to include if a network refuses to let their channel be broadcast, they forfeit their rights to the territory and the provider can show the national feed of the network in lieu of the local channel (if such a thing could be done).
To some, empowering the consumer with information is tantamount to communism!
I would never believe anything a network says when it comes to negotiations. I don't care who they have a dispute with.
Let's be honest. BOTH sides (Dish & Raycom) are going to spin this dispute so they look like the "good guys". I agree with not believing what a network says, but I also don't believe what the providers say.
I also agree with Frank Jr. about the deals being made available to the public. I wonder if someone appealed to the FCC that the contracts should be part of a stations public file.
And, yes, I do believe stations should get SOME enumeration from the providers. But that cost should be reasonable. And I'll even agree right now what you (general) think is reasonable and what I think is reasonable is different. But that could probably be said of ANY channel (OTA or network).
GREED has taken over all TV broadcasts. Whatever happened to the original idea of OTA broadcasts are free compensated by AD revenue and pay TV has no ADs because you are paying up front for the service.
-That's the whole problem and where I respectfully disagree with sam_gordon. Receiving the affiliates is supposed to be free. If the carriers were the only ones benefiting from carrying the locals I would have to agree there should be some compensation. But that's far from the case. Especially with the changeover to digital it's even harder to get some locals, and the only way they are being seen is because of Satellite or Cable. I have no problem with an agreement the carrier can not charge over X amount because at this time it appears like DISH and DIRECT are not charging much over what it costs them. And beyond that, end all disputes over carriage. Make the carriers carry the locals (Which in effect they must now) and make the locals allow it's carriage. (If both agree a channel won't be carried that's ok too)
I don't feel that contract negotiations need to be public, but at the point when it becomes a dispute with service interruption the details should become public. That way "we" the public know the truth as to why. If this was to become a regulatory law there would be fewer channels being turned off.
*facepalm* So nice of ABC to show CBS shows on their site LOL!
Joshua McCurry: I'd like either a credit for my inconvenience or another way to get my CBS programming in the meantime.
Rep: I understand.
Rep: Let me check that for you.
Rep: You can watch CBS on abc.com. All your programming channels are there.
Joshua McCurry: I think you mean cbs.com
Rep: And I can offer you, $5 credit for 3 months. How does that sound?
Joshua McCurry: Ok
Rep: It's abc.com, Joshua.
Joshua McCurry: ok
Joshua McCurry: I'd like either a credit for my inconvenience or another way to get my CBS programming in the meantime.
Rep: I understand.
Rep: Let me check that for you.
Rep: You can watch CBS on abc.com. All your programming channels are there.
Joshua McCurry: I think you mean cbs.com
Rep: And I can offer you, $5 credit for 3 months. How does that sound?
Joshua McCurry: Ok
Rep: It's abc.com, Joshua.
Joshua McCurry: ok
I agree once the signal is terminated and both sides start bickering in public, the financial details need to be made public, so the consumers really know what is going on.
I also believe until the local stations provide a reliable signal to the entire viewing area they claim, then they should not receive a penny in retransmission fees, as Dish/Directv are doing what everyone knows, providing a reliable signal to viewers the OTA station has chosen to ignore but still claim. If they can't get provide a reliable signal, then don't claim an area and let those viewers have a distant feed or a regional feed of their choice.
I also believe until the local stations provide a reliable signal to the entire viewing area they claim, then they should not receive a penny in retransmission fees, as Dish/Directv are doing what everyone knows, providing a reliable signal to viewers the OTA station has chosen to ignore but still claim. If they can't get provide a reliable signal, then don't claim an area and let those viewers have a distant feed or a regional feed of their choice.
WBTV is NOT worth $5 a month - except maybe back when Jefferson-Pilot owned it.
This morning I woke up and saw the news, and as I was posting it I was wondering if we would see Sam poking in... and the answer to that is a firm yes. 
Why am I not surprised?
Welcome back Sam!
Why am I not surprised?
Welcome back Sam!
Thanks for the reply but there is different information in the subchannels. Why couldn't that be done in the -01 channels?
