Tulsa and OKC Dish customers could once again lose the Griffin stations.

[dare2be]

No different than Toyota deciding what manufacturers to use for their subassemblies. Consumers don't get to decide what radio is put in the car. Yes, oversimplifying, but the point still stands.

As far as "collusion", wouldn't you have to prove the locals are working with each other to set prices?

Not just an oversimplification, but off the mark. The analogy would hold true if I could pick a model (provider) that has a different radio (locals) for a cheaper price. Consumers don't get to choose how much to pay (or how much they cost) for LiL between providers.

The collusion comes in as the prices for locals (or basically any other channel) is set (or extorted, in the case of channel disputes) by how much other providers are paying for them. Although, Dish is starting the consumer choice trend with the Flex Pack and breaking out locals costs in their billing.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Not just an oversimplification, but off the mark. The analogy would hold true if I could pick a model (provider) that has a different radio (locals) for a cheaper price. Consumers don't get to choose how much to pay (or how much they cost) for LiL between providers.

The collusion comes in as the prices for locals (or basically any other channel) is set (or extorted, in the case of channel disputes) by how much other providers are paying for them. Although, Dish is starting the consumer choice trend with the Flex Pack and breaking out locals costs in their billing.

...AND what the locals "perceive" their value to be, apparently. I still think it's double dipping. An ad-supported local TV station that people can receive for free with an antenna claiming that it's more valuable to a pay-tv customer than ESPN and then extorting the provider to pay THEM to carry it!


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[sam_gordon]

The collusion comes in as the prices for locals (or basically any other channel) is set (or extorted, in the case of channel disputes) by how much other providers are paying for them.

I think you might want to look up the definition of collusion.

...AND what the locals "perceive" their value to be, apparently. I still think it's double dipping. An ad-supported local TV station that people can receive for free with an antenna claiming that it's more valuable to a pay-tv customer than ESPN and then extorting the provider to pay THEM to carry it!

But more people do watch local stations than watch ESPN. Here's a chart showing ratings for NFL games this past year.

 

[comfortably_numb]

I think you might want to look up the definition of collusion.


But more people do watch local stations than watch ESPN. Here's a chart showing ratings for NFL games this past year.

ESPN is a pay TV channel unavailable OTA


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[osu1991]

Take out sports (NFL and college football) and only CBS and NBC are averaging more viewers this past year than cable networks.

 

[sam_gordon]

ESPN is a pay TV channel unavailable OTA


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

Most people have some sort of pay TV.

Take out sports (NFL and college football) and only CBS and NBC are averaging more viewers this past year than cable networks.

Source?

I found this from 2015: http://www.tvinsider.com/article/62572/most-watched-tv-networks-2015/. According to this chart, Fox (#4 behind CBS, NBC, ABC) had more than twice the viewers than ESPN. In 18-49 year olds, Fox (still at #4) had nearly three times the viewers as ESPN.

I wish there was somewhere where you could compare a specific local channel to cable nets, but I haven't found one yet.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Most people have some sort of pay TV.

What's your point? That because statistically 83% of the population has SOME kind of pay TV service, that it means non-pay TV nets have the right to value themselves the same as traditional pay-TV channels like ESPN?



Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[sam_gordon]

What's your point? That because statistically 83% of the population has SOME kind of pay TV service, that it means non-pay TV nets have the right to value themselves the same as traditional pay-TV channels like ESPN?



Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

My point is more people watch the local stations, so yes, they have the right to compare their value to ESPN. If you go back and look, locals are still asking for a fraction of what ESPN is getting. Now, it may make sense to you that MVPDs should pay more for ESPN with fewer viewers than locals, but it sure doesn't to me.

 

[comfortably_numb]

My point is more people watch the local stations, so yes, they have the right to compare their value to ESPN. If you go back and look, locals are still asking for a fraction of what ESPN is getting. Now, it may make sense to you that MVPDs should pay more for ESPN with fewer viewers than locals, but it sure doesn't to me.

What makes sense to me is letting people pay for what they DO use and not make them pay for what they DONT use, but since that's not quite the system we have (yet) I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[dare2be]

I think you might want to look up the definition of collusion.

I realize I'm using the term loosely, but it is definitely closer to collusion than what others have claimed as "market competition setting the price." It's the antithesis of competition.

 

[sam_gordon]

What makes sense to me is letting people pay for what they DO use and not make them pay for what they DONT use, but since that's not quite the system we have (yet) I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

I totally agree with the bolded. I am not convinced a true a la carte will be cheaper than the package (for me). The flex pack sounds good, but for my family, in order to get all the channels we watch, it would cost as much as AT200 (ok, not quite, but really close). I think it's a step in the right direction though.

 

[dare2be]

in order to get all the channels we watch, it would cost as much as AT200 (ok, not quite, but really close).

I get the channels I used to watch (except for 2 of them), when I want to watch them, and don't pay anywhere near the AT200 price. You don't have to have the channel packs on all the time.

 

[sam_gordon]

I get the channels I used to watch (except for 2 of them), when I want to watch them, and don't pay anywhere near the AT200 price. You don't have to have the channel packs on all the time.

I have a wide range of viewers in my household. Sports to kids shows to Halmark type stuff. I just went through it again, leaving off the locals (I get OTA, but would prefer having them on satellite also) and the "intro" price is $72/month. I just did a deal with Dirt and my AT200 package will be $88. If I add the locals to the Flex pack, that brings it up to $82. Again, not a big difference compared to the package.

 

[Bruno]

I have OTA and get these channels but what really upsets me is spending time having to setup timers to record the shows, and then they all have the same title once they record. Would be nice if Dish could get a longer contract. We have this about every years since all the networks are not on the same schedule.

Its really all screw up IMHO. Lot of the PPL that pay taxes and elect officials in Oklahoma cannot even get Oklahoma news. Lot of PPL attend OU and OSU and other OK. state colleges cannot watch there state teams. Tax payers in the state should be able to see what kind of job their elected government is doing. But maybe its better they can't. The whole DMA system is messed up. This is what the FCC needs to FIX.We didnt have this problem until the Must carry rules the FCC put into effect. You want to fix the problem of shutting off local networks give the customer the option of national feed. PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

[ralfyguy]

I have OTA and get these channels but what really upsets me is spending time having to setup timers to record the shows, and then they all have the same title once they record.

Yep, same here.

Sent from my LG-H900 using SatelliteGuys mobile app

 

[dare2be]

Would be nice if Dish could get a longer contract.

That is probably part of the negotiations. "We'll accept this lower price but you must shave a year off the contract length so we can extort for more money sooner."

 

[sam_gordon]

I have OTA and get these channels but what really upsets me is spending time having to setup timers to record the shows, and then they all have the same title once they record.

I use OTA for my locals and Dish supplies full guide data (ok, not for every subchannel, but the 'big 4'). I don't understand why it's such a hassle for you.

 

[Bruno]

I use OTA for my locals and Dish supplies full guide data (ok, not for every subchannel, but the 'big 4'). I don't understand why it's such a hassle for you.

When Dish shuts off one of your locals i guess you will find out. You don't just lose the guide for the Dish local channel but you also lose the guide for that OTA channel on the Dish receiver. Non of your OTA timers work for the OTA channel you lost. Every time slots say "KWTV removed by CBS" So you setup hourly times but they all say "KWTV removed by CBS".

BE LUCKY YOU DON'T HAVE A LOCAL OWNED BY "GRIFFIN COMMUNICATIONS".

 

[sam_gordon]

When Dish shuts off one of your locals i guess you will find out. You don't just lose the guide for the Dish local channel but you also lose the guide for that OTA channel on the Dish receiver. Non of your OTA timers work for the OTA channel you lost. Every time slots say "KWTV removed by CBS" So you setup hourly times but they all say "KWTV removed by CBS".

BE LUCKY YOU DON'T HAVE A LOCAL OWNED BY "GRIFFIN COMMUNICATIONS".

But IMO, that issue is purely on Dish. Even if they aren't allowed to send the guide data because they're in dispute (doubtful), the stations send guide data OTA (called PSIP). The information is IN YOUR RECEIVER. Dish refuses to decode it. Every TV manufacturer has been decoding and displaying this data for years (since digital broadcast became required). Dish wants to hamper their customers on one hand (by not using PSIP), but say they're "looking out for the customers" when negotiating. Granted, PSIP won't have 7 days worth of data, but even if it's 6 hours, your DVR settings would still work.

 

[dare2be]

Dish could certainly do better with OTA support, and they get disparaged for not using PSIP that is available, but they still do more than any other of the major providers already. What other provider includes OTA support as part of their standard equipment? DTV no longer does. Comcast doesn't AFAIK. Any other cable companies do?