It almost seems like it should be the opposite....the broadcast channels should pay the the cable/sat companies to carry their signal, as they are actually increasing the reach of that broadcast channel to more viewers. Obviously one of the main reasons people buy the locals package is because they can't pull a decent signal with their OTA antenna.
It is a common complaint here that the broadcasters are double-dipping, charging cable/sat companies for retransmission consent, while also charging advertisers for the increased number of eyeballs watching their stations. If your suggestion were implemented, it would then become the cable/sat companies who are double-dipping, collecting payment from both the broadcasters and the cable/sat subscribers. So, by that logic, the cable/sat companies should then be paying us, the subscribers, to watch the local channels.
The local station owners make the argument that they've lost eyeballs due to the large number of non-OTA channels the cable/sat providers offer. I don't have any idea what the actual eyeball numbers are, but common sense says there's some validity to that.
Thank you. I was the one who pointed out that argument in another thread recently.
Here's another argument against that...
The problem is that many people in fringe areas may be able to receive some of their locals OTA, but not all of them. Even if all of the locals do come in, they may not always come in reliably all of the time. So, there would have to be some way to pro-rate the charge for the locals package, based on what happens to be available for free at that location, at that particular time. Since Dish does not even bother to differentiate between different local markets when it comes to the price they charge for the locals package, they are definitely not going to want to have to set different local package rates for individual subscribers within a market. Dish does not even necessarily want to offer their current Locals Only core offering, but it is something that they are being required to do. Anything that would make such a plan more complicated would likely lead to Dish just saying "screw it" and dropping all local channels they carry, everywhere across the country.
And if Dish did just that, I wonder if the local channel owners would then gripe about how "unfair" it is that Dish is not extending their reach to more of the population, and that they are being deprived of the Dish revenue stream to which they're entitled.
Just called and was denied the package by Advanced Technical Support. Texas is not one of the States that can get this package.
I guess I'm lucky to be in Ohio, then. For what it's worth, I called the Loyalty Department number (1-888-496-1260) which had a nine-minute wait time on hold, due to "higher than normal call volume." So, it may be worth a shot to try that number, if you haven't already.
If they want to extend their reach to more of the population, then they can get off their collective arses and launch more low-power translator stations to serve the areas in their DMA where their OTA signals do not already reach. There is no real need for a pay-TV service to carry the free OTA broadcasters at all. It is basically just all about laziness and convenience.
Naw, they don't want to do that. That would cost them money instead of make them money! Of course you knew that...
Totally agree. I don't think it would be an easy thing to prove... well, maybe in some counties. But, what should be required? If someone is 60 miles away and they try an indoor antenna next to the TV and they don't get anything, should they be entitled to free content? Or would/should they be expected to put up an outdoor antenna at some height above the ground?
You weren't around when LiL came about, were you? Dish & Direct put in the LiL in order to compete with cable. They didn't put it in because the broadcasters begged them to. Contrary to what some would have you believe, locals ARE desired by many (most?). Once Dish/Direct put in LiL, their subscribers ballooned. Please don't act like MVPDs don't benefit by carrying locals.
I wonder what the Dish stats are on the number subscribers that have dropped the locals since the option was introduced...
Won't tell you much unless you plot where those subscribers are. Just because they dropped locals doesn't mean they don't want locals. I've dropped locals because I have an antenna and can pick them all up through the Dish receiver. So, I get locals on the receiver (same source to the TV), AND save $12/month. Add in that OTA reception will (generally) be higher quality than what you get from Dish, and it's win for me.
