Borden Stations Now Off Air Due To Dispute with Dish

[bluegras]

hello guys and gals i just checked james long uplink report and he is reporting about a bunch of other tv stations are now off air

this is on WCYB bristol website
http://www.wcyb.com/news/dish-network-subscribers-lose-wcyb-tri-cities-cw-programming/274413077

WCYB and Tri-Cities CW and DISH Network are currently in good faith negotiations to reinstate carriage of WCYB and Tri-Cities CW programming on DISH Network as quickly as possible.
While both DISH Network and WCYB and Tri-Cities CW are working earnestly to resolve this matter, there is the potential that this could be a long interruption of service.
Cable and satellite companies, such as DISH, distribute our programming to consumers for profit. WCYB and Tri-Cities CW ask DISH for a portion of the fees they charge customers to help WCYB and Tri-Cities CW pay for the quality local news, network, and other entertainment programming we provide.
Here are a couple of things you should know:
• Our need for compensation is largely driven by increasing costs placed upon us by the television networks.
\• Most other cable and satellite companies recognize that our request is justified and are already paying us Smilar amount.
You can still receive your favorite programs over-the-the air with an antenna, or by switching to DirecTV or your local cable company.
We are a small company that is attempting to negotiate with a large, multi-billion dollar company (DISH).
The future of local television depends on our being able to be adequately compensated for the programming weprovide.

We hope to continue negotiating with DISH and to return our signals to their packages as soon as possible.

from me i think these stations are the borden stations since gray television has come to a agreement.

 

[Bruno]

I would only hope Charlie does not beat up on these smaller stations.

 

[hvarma2008]

DISH's AirTV is starting to look very attractive now!

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Stations give away their programming for free if you use an antenna, so why must satellite and cable viewers pay for it?

They say they need to pay for their programming, but isn't that what the commercials are for?

When stations fight cable and satellite companies and they come to an impasse their signals are dropped, which means their viewing audience is less which means less ad revenue right?

It is my thought that since cable and satellite companies help these stations expand their viewer base as people wont put up antennas that these stations should pay them for helping them get more viewers. After all more eyeballs = more ad revenues.

Ok Sam... now tell me why my thinking is wrong.

 

[Troch77]

Stations give away their programming for free if you use an antenna, so why must satellite and cable viewers pay for it?

They say they need to pay for their programming, but isn't that what the commercials are for?

When stations fight cable and satellite companies and they come to an impasse their signals are dropped, which means their viewing audience is less which means less ad revenue right?

It is my thought that since cable and satellite companies help these stations expand their viewer base as people wont put up antennas that these stations should pay them for helping them get more viewers. After all more eyeballs = more ad revenues.

Ok Sam... now tell me why my thinking is wrong.

Hey I agree.
We pay money for all our satellite channels.
Shouldn't they be commercial free during Movies and TV Series?
Just like the premiums?

Locals can be obtained for free.
But 95% of the rest of network programming can't be.

 

[sam_gordon]

Stations give away their programming for free if you use an antenna, so why must satellite and cable viewers pay for it?

They say they need to pay for their programming, but isn't that what the commercials are for?

When stations fight cable and satellite companies and they come to an impasse their signals are dropped, which means their viewing audience is less which means less ad revenue right?

It is my thought that since cable and satellite companies help these stations expand their viewer base as people wont put up antennas that these stations should pay them for helping them get more viewers. After all more eyeballs = more ad revenues.

Ok Sam... now tell me why my thinking is wrong.

I've said before and I still believe, that if MVPDs (Dish in particular since I don't have experience with others) hadn't charged for locals when they first originated, the locals wouldn't have come up with the argument "Dish is making money from our signal". If Dish would have just said from the very start "We'll give you locals for FREE!" (even though we all know they wouldn't be free), I think we wouldn't have the mess we do now.

Let's compare it to a song. According to Billboard, "Shape of You" by Ed Sheeran is number 1 right now. You can turn on a Top 40 radio station and probably within an hour hear the song. You don't pay to hear the song. It's "free", right? Are you allowed to redistribute the song, much get paid to redistribute the song? Do you think you should be able to? After all, you can hear it for free. You can go online and watch the Youtube video. Can you sell that?

As far as your second point... Do cable and satellite companies help get more viewers? Sure. But how many subscribers would the satellite and cable companies have if they didn't have locals?

And as Troch pointed out, ESPN, USA, History, TBS, etc, etc all sell commercials also. Using your argument, shouldn't they be commercial free? After all, without cable/satellite providers, they would have minuscule viewership (I used to say 0, but am allowing for streaming now).

Last but not least, presumably the MVPDs find the retrans fees "worth the cost" (even if you don't).

ETA: I do think there's a limit on how much stations can ask for.

 

[sam_gordon]

Another thought...

I have a 211 and a 612 in my home. As I understand it, these are fairly old receivers and they're not really developing them any more. Yet I still pay $14/month in "fees". Until I called and got it taken off, I was paying an additional $10/month for HD. So $24/month in extra charges. I'm guessing if most people look at their bill, there's probably $10-20 (if not more) in these "fees". Yet people stomp their feet over the ~$5/month their locals (combined, not singular) are charging.

Which brings up another question... how many locals in a market is Dish providing? 4? 5 (add PBS)? 6 (add CW)?

 

[Bobby]

Another thought...

I have a 211 and a 612 in my home. As I understand it, these are fairly old receivers and they're not really developing them any more. Yet I still pay $14/month in "fees". Until I called and got it taken off, I was paying an additional $10/month for HD. So $24/month in extra charges. I'm guessing if most people look at their bill, there's probably $10-20 (if not more) in these "fees". Yet people stomp their feet over the ~$5/month their locals (combined, not singular) are charging.

Which brings up another question... how many locals in a market is Dish providing? 4? 5 (add PBS)? 6 (add CW)?

In the San Francisco Bay DMA, Dish carries 23 locals..... Those are satellite channels, not OTA provided...

 

[sam_gordon]

In the San Francisco Bay DMA, Dish carries 23 locals..... Those are satellite channels, not OTA provided...

Wow. That's a lot.

Of course, that also means I'm subsidizing your locals (because we both pay the same, but I only get 6 locals).

That might mean the cost of locals is lower than what we think. Dish generally does a $5/month increase each year, right? That covers increased programming costs (including locals), raises, R&D, etc. So how much of the $5/month is truly attributable to retransmission costs?

 

[bluegras]

we get chicago locals on the sateliitle but i can pick up OTA bloomington,peoria,quad cities,decatur

 

[sam_gordon]

we get chicago locals on the sateliitle but i can pick up OTA bloomington,peoria,quad cities,decatur

How many locals via satellite?

 

[Joe891]

Wow. That's a lot.

Of course, that also means I'm subsidizing your locals (because we both pay the same, but I only get 6 locals).

I only get 6 as well

 

[bluegras]

How many locals via satellite?

17

 

[Peter Parker]

Stations give away their programming for free if you use an antenna, so why must satellite and cable viewers pay for it?

They say they need to pay for their programming, but isn't that what the commercials are for?

When stations fight cable and satellite companies and they come to an impasse their signals are dropped, which means their viewing audience is less which means less ad revenue right?

It is my thought that since cable and satellite companies help these stations expand their viewer base as people wont put up antennas that these stations should pay them for helping them get more viewers. After all more eyeballs = more ad revenues.

Ok Sam... now tell me why my thinking is wrong.

The problem is that the revenue received from cable and satellite companies paying for rights is not chump change. Ad revenue would drop but not immediately. It is simply more lucrative to the stations to do what they are doing. Is it right? hecj no but it is an economic reality.

 

[Deadlocked]

When your most watched local is included but you just signed a 2 year price lock the CSRs be like

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[pattykay]

Of course, that also means I'm subsidizing your locals (because we both pay the same, but I only get 6 locals).

This is exactly why I think Dish should add all of the available OTA subchannels to the satellite-delivered local package in the smallest markets, to help level the playing field with subscribers in the largest markets, who already get more primary local stations, but pay the same price as the smallest market subscribers.