That's sad that apparentlyA similar ad ran here in Charlotte except CBS was not mentioned. The station here is not O&O.
Where does it say CBS wants "big fee increases"? (bolding mine)? It says they want $2B in retrans & reverse compensation revenue by 2020, but how does that compare to what they're getting now?http://www.multichannel.com/news/ne...654?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Multichannel news has an article on it... Essentially rehashing that CBS wants big fee increases and Dish does not give in easily...
Naive ? All of the providers tell you that they may "snoop". That is no secret at all.Do not be naive enough to believe that DISH, DirectTV or whoever would not snoop on your activity for whatever reason using the receiver and satellite connection only. I am not saying they do
That's sad that apparently Dish is inserting this into the national feed (or requiring ALL CBS affiliates to insert it).
I don't think that was a Dish inserted adI saw the ad about Showtime on our local CBS last night. Not an O&O, and we were watching it over the air.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Typo on my part - I meant to say "CBS"I don't think that was a Dish inserted ad
Yea, that what I was asking...........is that clear enough?Ones that were previously recorded will playback, if that's what you're asking.
I could see Congress writing binding arbitration into the law for OTA retransmission since they are using the public airwaves. I would not support it for other cable channels. For instance, If HBO wants $20 a month for its channel either you pay it or you don't get it. If enough people won't pay it, the price comes down. It's not food, shelter or clothing. It's entertainment.Arbitration, just like negotiating a labour contract. Or mandated price controls in the public interest.
That works fine for ala carte channels like HBO, but when channels are forced-bundled in a carriage contract, then they should be game for a forced-binding arbitration to keep the channels from going dark. If the channel owner doesn't want a channel carriage to be subject to binding arbitration, then they can make it an ala carte channel for the consumer that would be subject to true market forces.For instance, If HBO wants $20 a month for its channel either you pay it or you don't get it. If enough people won't pay it, the price comes down. It's not food, shelter or clothing. It's entertainment.
It's just entertainment. Regardless of bundling practices, why should missing a football game or a movie rise to the level of federal law.That works fine for ala carte channels like HBO, but when channels are forced-bundled in a carriage contract, then they should be game for a forced-binding arbitration to keep the channels from going dark. If the channel owner doesn't want a channel carriage to be subject to binding arbitration, then they can make it an ala carte channel for the consumer that would be subject to true market forces.
I think if you're going to say all OTA channels must be "must carry", then MVPD's shouldn't be allowed to charge for them. Don't tell me Dish isn't making a PROFIT off the locals. I won't believe it.Even the locals are not the "necessity" they once were. Once you remove "good morning America" and all that other fluff, plus the PT shows, what are you left with? PBS and similar channels fit more into the public interest field. There should be no difference in locals as far as must carry. If you want to be a local, and have the benefits that locals carry, you should be must carry. If you want to be a national channel, and have the benefits of a national channel(picking your retrans price), then you should be included in the national lineup, losing your over the air status. These 4 major networks are getting the best of both worlds, and we are letting them, while we all sit back and bitch about how dish is a greedy company that only has interest for themselves. They may be responsible for stock holders, but they are the only one of the big companies actually fighting to do a little something for the customers.