Sinclair warns of 112 channels being dropped by DISH next Monday (8/16)

S

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,332
1,140
Lexington, ky
He didn’t say Dish didn’t need SunckIr. Just that Sinclair needs Dish a lot more than Dish needs Sinclair. Especially if Dush installs OTA antennas on the majority of Sinclair DMAs, however the impact will also be great on the other channel owners in the DMA as well. Yes, Dish needs Sinclair, just not as badly as they need Dish for RSNs.
Thats an opinion. Dish needs the locals. The locals are helped by Dish. They're probably not helped as much as people around here think they are. The majority of viewers are in OTA range.

Are there viewers that can't get locals without satellite? Of course. Are they in big enough numbers to have a significant impact on ratings? In my opinion, no.
 
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
28,724
6,972
Moscow Russia
Thats an opinion. Dish needs the locals. The locals are helped by Dish. They're probably not helped as much as people around here think they are. The majority of viewers are in OTA range.

Are there viewers that can't get locals without satellite? Of course. Are they in big enough numbers to have a significant impact on ratings? In my opinion, no.
Since the digital transistion
There are MANY more that can't receive OTA
Because just about everything is UHF
 
ChadT41

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,061
4,445
Mesa, Az
Since the digital transistion
There are MANY more that can't receive OTA
Because just about everything is UHF
This is incorrect. The vast majority can receive OTA. And to your previous statement, it is still incorrect. Please go reread what I wrote. Both conditions met, Sinclair would be hurting bad while Dish customers still had their locals, paying less and Dish paying less. And due to the OTA and no contract, PTAT rules don’t apply(minus the ones the home base built into O&O contracts).
 
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
28,724
6,972
Moscow Russia
This is incorrect. The vast majority can receive OTA. And to your previous statement, it is still incorrect. Please go reread what I wrote. Both conditions met, Sinclair would be hurting bad while Dish customers still had their locals, paying less and Dish paying less. And due to the OTA and no contract, PTAT rules don’t apply(minus the ones the home base built into O&O contracts).
I can tell you in the NYC dma..since the twin towers fell..there are many without OTA..cable made it irrelevant...if you look around your neighborhood..you will only see a handful of OTA antennas
Less than 10 million people use a OTA antenna
 
navychop

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
54,313
19,590
Northern VA
I think the value of locals, at least thru satellite deliver, is waning. Too many other options. And some/many stream out at least the news and weather.

And RSNs seem to be heading towards streaming more and more.
 
ChadT41

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,061
4,445
Mesa, Az
I can tell you in the NYC dma..since the twin towers fell..there are many without OTA..cable made it irrelevant...if you look around your neighborhood..you will only see a handful of OTA antennas
Less than 10 million people use a OTA antenna
You’re bringing up one DMA with one very specific situation and applying it to the whole country. And even still, the majority in NYC can still get OTA per the FCC.
 
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
28,724
6,972
Moscow Russia
You’re bringing up one DMA with one very specific situation and applying it to the whole country. And even still, the majority in NYC can still get OTA per the FCC.
OTA is not really relevant anymore
The FCC might think one thing but reality is different when you stretch a DMA over 4 states
 
ChadT41

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,061
4,445
Mesa, Az
OTA is not really relevant anymore
The FCC might think one thing but reality is different when you stretch a DMA over 4 states
And this is why I was asking for supporting information above. You’re giving your opinion as fact. Juan, your opinion on the value of OTA, or locals has absolutely no bearing on this conversation and I have been struggling to see where you were coming from throughout, however it just became clear that you’re not providing anything of value to the conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dishdude
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
28,724
6,972
Moscow Russia
And this is why I was asking for supporting information above. You’re giving your opinion as fact. Juan, your opinion on the value of OTA, or locals has absolutely no bearing on this conversation and I have been struggling to see where you were coming from throughout, however it just became clear that you’re not providing anything of value to the conversation.
The bottom line is that if Dish dumps locals..customers will dump dish for someone else
And those are the facts
 
Tampa8

Tampa8

Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
18,101
7,690
Tampa/Eastern Ct
One aspect for me is clearly true both in Florida and Connecticut. Since digital it is harder to get channels. I could give several examples one is WTNH channel 8 in Connecticut. We could get it OTA - granted it took a good antenna and booster. Now since Digital not a whiff of it. Others have become more directional to get them, in Florida not as big a deal in Tampa as most are from the same area. But it makes getting stations in Connecticut much harder.

We could get two out of state stations one from Boston one from Rhode Island, in fact they were significantly watched and were part of the Cable system. Now again not a whiff of getting them OTA.

There is an however. However, (lol) when ATSC 3.0 is put in place the signal should be better in fringe areas if the broadcaster wants to set it up that way.
 
ChadT41

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,061
4,445
Mesa, Az
The bottom line is that if Dish dumps locals..customers will dump dish for someone else
And those are the facts
You’re proving the fact that you didn’t actually read what was written more and more. The customers would still be getting their locals. And still able to record their locals on Dish. And with streaming, the savings from not having to pay for the locals package, especially if it ends up getting built into the receivers, further takes more power away from the local channel owners. The fact is, you’re talking on an opinion only. The facts are that Sinclair currently needs Dish more than Dish needs Sinclair, and Sinclair is feeling the irrelevancy due to it.

Tampa, out of curiosity, how good is the internet up there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dishdude
ChadT41

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,061
4,445
Mesa, Az
So, just to clarify, if Dish did all of the above, they’d likely be fine with the masses…. They would still have solid access to locals, whether OTA or online, and Sinclair would still not be paid(atleast as much) retransmission fees? Meaning Sinclair would need Dish more than Dish would need Sinclair? Just trying to make sure all the facts are out there before Juan’s opinion without fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dishdude
Tampa8

Tampa8

Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
18,101
7,690
Tampa/Eastern Ct
Let us remember, many folks use rabbit ears and attic antennas and do just fine.

Actually you make me think if another reason I say digital has reduced the ability to get stations. We had an indoor antenna in Florida for years and got many stations, not all of them. After digital we got many less and went to an outdoor antenna. Even with that some channels are still not the easiest to get even with a flat terrain. I believe the AVS forums discussion for Tampa noted that.
 
S

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,332
1,140
Lexington, ky
You’re giving your opinion as fact.

The fact is, you’re talking on an opinion only. The facts are that Sinclair currently needs Dish more than Dish needs Sinclair,
Are you referring to the RSNs? If so, I'd agree with you. Sinclair needs the MVPDs for those. For their locals? Eh, nope. That's just opinion.

As far as who needs who more... go back to pre LiL... locals were doing just fine. Satellite was doing ok, but not really compared to cable. LiL came out and satellite subscriber numbers exploded. Why do you think that is?
 
ChadT41

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,061
4,445
Mesa, Az
Are you referring to the RSNs? If so, I'd agree with you. Sinclair needs the MVPDs for those. For their locals? Eh, nope. That's just opinion.

As far as who needs who more... go back to pre LiL... locals were doing just fine. Satellite was doing ok, but not really compared to cable. LiL came out and satellite subscriber numbers exploded. Why do you think that is?
Because of limited options back then. Not the case today.
 
Radioguy41

Radioguy41

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 7, 2008
2,420
2,009
Lehighton, PA
Actually you make me think if another reason I say digital has reduced the ability to get stations. We had an indoor antenna in Florida for years and got many stations, not all of them. After digital we got many less and went to an outdoor antenna. Even with that some channels are still not the easiest to get even with a flat terrain. I believe the AVS forums discussion for Tampa noted that.
I have just the opposite experience. My latest scan this week locked 78 OTA channels, infinitely more than I ever received prior to digital. Prior to digital the most I ever locked was 17 between UHF and VHF. Just to put it in perspective, I live 60 miles north of Philadelphia.
 

Similar threads

T
Replies
7
Views
1K
Chris Walker
C
dishcomm
Replies
1
Views
663
dishcomm
dishcomm
whatchel1
Replies
2
Views
1K
Mr Tony
M

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

Top