Tribune Broadcasting Company Blacks Out DISH Customers in 33 Markets;

[Tampa8]

Its double dipping on the networks and affiliates part. MPVD are being forced to pay for the same programming hundreds of times. At least with ESPN, History, MTV they are only paying once to broadcast nationwide to all customers.

Something DISH has brought up before.

 

[Hall]

It would be interesting to see after a year of the Flex Pack offerings, where locals are in a paid seperate package, just what percentage of those subscribers opted not to get the locals pack.

In the end, I suspect that most customers will buy the locals package. They are still the most popular channels on cable and satellite and only a small percentage of customers bother with OTA capability.

 

[ChadT41]

In the end, I suspect that most customers will buy the locals package. They are still the most popular channels on cable and satellite and only a small percentage of customers bother with OTA capability.

Normally I would agree with you, but I'm guessing that by putting a price tag on locals, and allowing customers to see how much of their bill goes just to locals, they may no be so inclined to want them.

 

[Brussam]

For me I want the Broadcast Channels, I couldn't care less about Local programming. Life was good when there was DNS.

 

[STDog]

or those who do have access to the Networks programs online, don't mind watching them that way and generally don't care if it isn't live (Generally a minority especially if they are willing to pay for Satellite service). Even those who have OTA would be restricted in how many tuners they can record OTA unless they then also bought another OTA DVR.

As I said, there are options today we didn't have 20 years ago.
I haven't watched a "live" broadcast since I got my 501 (when it was a new receiver). The stuff I've read says I'm not alone, not even a minority, in time shifting (decoupling from the schedule) thanks to DVRs.

Satellite was doing pretty good back then without locals. Yes, having them helped, but it wasn't required then.
I think with the alternatives available now they are less required.

It was actually DISH who spearheaded the legislation to allow local into local (locals carriage) because they recognized the importance. It's the system to carry them that is unbalanced imo the importance is still there. Too many events happen on Network programming having a missing network during a dispute is one thing, having no locals a very different thing. I would be forced to get Directv if that happened.

I had C-band before DBS existed. I watched network content, but "local" content wasn't important. The same was true when I first got Dish in '97 or '98 and locals weren't an option. I honestly was happier with PT24E/W than with locals.
I paid for distant nets even when I could get usable local signals.

I remember the push to get locals. There was more to it than just locals though.
I recall Charlie's court fights and saying he thought we should be able to watch ANY channel we wanted.
That included distant nets. He lost that fight in the courts.

 

[Troch77]

As I said, there are options today we didn't have 20 years ago.
I haven't watched a "live" broadcast since I got my 501 (when it was a new receiver). The stuff I've read says I'm not alone, not even a minority, in time shifting (decoupling from the schedule) thanks to DVRs.

Satellite was doing pretty good back then without locals. Yes, having them helped, but it wasn't required then.
I think with the alternatives available now they are less required.



I had C-band before DBS existed. I watched network content, but "local" content wasn't important. The same was true when I first got Dish in '97 or '98 and locals weren't an option. I honestly was happier with PT24E/W than with locals.
I paid for distant nets even when I could get usable local signals.

I remember the push to get locals. There was more to it than just locals though.
I recall Charlie's court fights and saying he thought we should be able to watch ANY channel we wanted.
That included distant nets. He lost that fight in the courts.

This is your Opinion

If you think Customers don't want their Local channels you are Delusional.

Dish drops locals , they will be completely finished.
Except for maybe 10 customers.
Demand is why satellite has locals.
Someone in PA doesn't give a crap about LA news.
We could watch that on CNN.

Locals were a huge impact in subscribers gains in the late 90s and Early 2000s.

1997 Satellite was more for the Customer that lived in the middle of no where who couldn't get Network TV, so just having and East or West local was welcome.

But if you wanted to sell satellite service to a local guy in town, you better have the local channels that he's had on Cable since the 1970s.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

 

[MikeD-C05]

Back in 97 when we first got DISH , we had east/west coast locals + Super stations for 5 supers for like $7.00 a month. We could watch one live show on east coast and record one show by vcr . Then do the same on West coast for one live and one recorded. We were able to do a rough simulation of Primetime anytime , sort of. We also has UPN for Star Trek Voyager -the whole reason why I wanted DISH in the first place. I only used my ota antenna for local news on an A/B switch so I could watch on A switch ota rabbit ears for local news and on B switch satellite. The only thing I need locals for is for local news & weather at 12:00pm ,6:00pm and at 10:00pm. The network shows could easily come from a national network and it would matter less to me if it was local or not.

All they need is just national versions of ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX & CW & PBS to give you their programming. Then it would be nice is if a national news channel like CNN could have one affiliate in each dma, that could then show their local news segments during those same times that most people watch local news and weather. Then there would no longer be a need for networks and affiliates to be duplicated across the country. You could also do away with broadcast channels too. It is an antiquated system left from the 1950s and is no longer needed.

 

[mwdxer1]

The demands of the subscriber brought us "Locals:, as cable had them. E/W Networks were fine with me, but some want their "locals". Back in the 90s, we did not have all of these constant disputes that disrupts things. It was a different world with satellite TV then. I can see why more and more Americans are opting for streaming and OTA. They know what they are getting and know what they are paying for. The OTA signals is there every day and their streaming services are too. These constant disputes is ruining the the enjoyment of watch TV for many. the cost goes up and we less for it. I remember Dish back in the 90's when we got our package of $30 a month. Now we pay $100 a month. Sure we get more channels, but more disputes. After the first of the year after my discounts run out, I am going to look at what Dish has to offer at that time. I may go with the Flex pack and some add ons. I am tired of paying plenty for dozens of sports channels I never watch and yet when new channels are rolled out like BBC World, we may no longer get them in AT250.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I am hearing some buzz that they could be CLOSE to a deal.

Keep your fingers crossed.

 

[HobbyTalk]

DISH would end up with only three types of customers. Those who don't care about the locals or get them OTA(a relative minority).

Do you have proof that only a relative minority can get the network channels OTA or is this just your opinion?

 

[lparsons21]

Do you have proof that only a relative minority can get the network channels OTA or is this just your opinion?

A better question might be what is having locals with your sat subscription really worth? By Flex Pack pricing, it is $10/month. And then the question might turn to, is it really worth $10/month or maybe I should rethink OTA?

I'm currently considering reconnecting my outdoor antenna for OTA. Would need to run a new coax as the Hoppers don't like using diplexers like I used to have.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tampa8]

Do you have proof that only a relative minority can get the network channels OTA or is this just your opinion?

Never said a minority can get network channels,you added the word can.

I can watch CBS live online, and find some other network programming online but would I make that my choice from now on? No I would switch first . Many can get OTA if they put up an antenna, hope the signal stays strong all the time, record just one channel at a time with DISH etc, but will they. No I don't think so not if they have a choice.

 

[kenskibum]

I am hearing some buzz that they could be CLOSE to a deal.

I figured that would happen as soon as I cancelled, which I did today after 8 years with Dish. I'm getting FIOS local channel package only installed today (OTA won't work for me). Now I can watch the Seahawks first preseason game on Saturday! You got to do what you got to do. I may go with Sling TV later to fill in the gaps.

 

[The Fat Man]

Back in 97 when we first got DISH , we had east/west coast locals + Super stations for 5 supers for like $7.00 a month. We could watch one live show on east coast and record one show by vcr . Then do the same on West coast for one live and one recorded. We were able to do a rough simulation of Primetime anytime , sort of. We also has UPN for Star Trek Voyager -the whole reason why I wanted DISH in the first place. I only used my ota antenna for local news on an A/B switch so I could watch on A switch ota rabbit ears for local news and on B switch satellite. The only thing I need locals for is for local news & weather at 12:00pm ,6:00pm and at 10:00pm. The network shows could easily come from a national network and it would matter less to me if it was local or not.

All they need is just national versions of ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX & CW & PBS to give you their programming. Then it would be nice is if a national news channel like CNN could have one affiliate in each dma, that could then show their local news segments during those same times that most people watch local news and weather. Then there would no longer be a need for networks and affiliates to be duplicated across the country. You could also do away with broadcast channels too. It is an antiquated system left from the 1950s and is no longer needed.

Personally, would hate having national news outlets having local affiliates. I hate GMA, Today Show, and This Morning as it is. Less junk views from New York, and more local news coverage.

 

[TNGTony]

The Denver Post published this article yesterday:
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/1...g-tv-contract-with-dish-to-bring-back-fox-cw/
"We’re working every day to try to reach that agreement. We have historically had a very good relationship with DISH and they’re an important player in today’s television ecosystem. They serve a largely underserved constituency, and they really do help to keep the marketplace competitive. We continue negotiating with DISH using fair market goalposts and we’re very hopeful that we can come to an agreement soon for the sake of DISH’s subscribers and our audiences,” Liguori said. (Tribune CEO)

In Dish’s last earnings call, CEO Charlie Ergen said that anytime negotiations stall and channels are taken off the air, Dish is prepared to live without them. He also said the Tribune dispute was over pricing.

 

[Blackhawks]

I've resigned myself, like many others that Tribune Stations won't be returning anytime soon. Just glad it's only one station here in Chicago (wgn) which will be an independent effective 9/1/16 and no longer a CW affiliate. I feel for those with two or more stations in a market that are major network affiliates.

 

[schneider21]

The Denver Post published this article yesterday:
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/1...g-tv-contract-with-dish-to-bring-back-fox-cw/
" We have historically had a very good relationship with DISH and they’re an important player in today’s television ecosystem. They serve a largely underserved constituency, and they really do help to keep the marketplace competitive.

The toxic rhetoric is in the past - if there was any doubt about Scott's comment that the end *may* be near, it's these comments from the Tribune CEO.

 

[schneider21]

A better question might be what is having locals with your sat subscription really worth? By Flex Pack pricing, it is $10/month. And then the question might turn to, is it really worth $10/month or maybe I should rethink OTA?

I've thought about that as well, when considering the Flex pack - $10 seems like an awful lot for locals.
But I'll look at the lifeline package Comcast offers me and that's almost $25 now. So maybe $10 isn't outrageous.

 

[Tampa8]

The toxic rhetoric is in the past - if there was any doubt about Scott's comment that the end *may* be near, it's these comments from the Tribune CEO.

Translated;

 

[STDog]

But if you wanted to sell satellite service to a local guy in town, you better have the local channels that he's had on Cable since the 1970s.

I not talking about people who even remember the 70s.

I think you over estimate the value of locals today. I think the local stations over estimate their value too, which is why we end up with carriage disputes.

yes, they were a boon 20-25 years ago when they were added. But a lot has changed since then.

I haven't watched a local new broadcast in over 20 years. Between online resources and radio I get all the local new I want, when I want (not just at 6 and 10).

The only thing I use locals for anymore is storm tracking, and even that isn't needed now.
I can do that on my phone and computer much better than I could 5 yrs ago.
As soon as I loose power I'm stuck with the phone/radio anyway.