Cox Media running channel scrolls for Dish Dispute

[The Fat Man]

My proof regarding MVPDs benefiting from carrying locals? Pick any market. Look at the subscriber base before they carried locals (hard to do with cable since they probably always carried locals) and after they launched LiL in a market. In my area, satellite subscriptions EXPLODED once LiL started. I'm guessing you think that was just a coincidence.

My use of the term "plagiarism" wasn't supposed to be a direct term. Do you disagree with my statement about you not being able to sell a picture I took, even though I posted it on the internet?

Regarding greed? I'm curious if you had the power to get more money from your employer, would you just sit by and say "no, I'm good."? EVERY business and most humans are "greedy". I know I'd like more money.

Everything has a value. Dish has determined what they're willing to pay. Some owners have obviously asked for more. Others they have come to an agreement with. So Dish doesn't think those prices are out of line. Every buyer needs to determine the value of what they pay for.

Makes sense to compare numbers from 35 to 40 years ago to numbers today. After all, the last time satellite providers didn't carry locals was about then? Or was it Primestar that didn't carry locals in every market? I'll compromise to somewhere around 1995 when most markets locals were carried on the top two providers. My point still remains that there is obvious copious amounts of variables that could also play into those numbers. Quite short sighted to think that today's subscriptions are directly linked solely to local channels.

As for greed, as you aren't a Pit dweller, it is at least fair to understand that you do not know my occupation. I work for a public school in an empoverished inner city. Therefore, no I am not one to hold my employer's feet to the fire on extra money. Even if I did, that has no bearing on my point of the station owner's greed. I see that as a deflection from my point.

If you did not mean plagiarism in the literal sense, I suggest you do not use the term. By using plagiarism, your statement implies that rettansmitting a signal that is given away for free is stealing the signal owner's work and claiming it to be the work of the entity who is rettansmitting. The day I see the Dish or DirecTV logal covering the FOX 5 station bug during the local news in New York, and dubbing every reference of it being FOX 5 to being Dish 5 News or DirecTV 5 News, then that's plagiarism.

You want an end to retrans negotiations? Simple... through arbitration, come up with a formula that equates ratings to cost. The higher the ratings for a station, the more they get in retrans. Obviously there are details that would need to be worked out, but then EVERY station across the country uses the same formula. AND they have an incentive to produce better programming.

I've also suggested in the past that those who can't receive an OTA signal shouldn't have to pay to get one from an MVPD. Again, details would need to be worked out, you can't just slap a "paper thin" antenna on top of your tv and say "it doesn't work".

As far as the argument "satellite gives them more viewers"... obviously that is true. But if you want to use that argument, how do you explain that it's ok for ESPN, Discovery, Lifetime, History, et al to charge. If it wasn't for MVPDs, those networks would have ZERO viewers. I'd say MVPDs help those networks as well.

I do think satellite, when they started LiL, bit themselves in the butt by charging for the service. But they opened the door and now it's going to be extremely hard to close.

Last but not least, if local programming wasn't important to the consumer, they have the option (at least Dish customers do) of dropping the local and saving $12/month. I thought that was a great move by Dish and have been taking advantage of it for years. And if that programming wasn't important, we wouldn't be hearing people complain when it was taken away.

I never spoke against arbitration. Simply put, it does not escape me that something given away for free is then bitched and moaned about compensation from cable and satellite companies. That is just it. Don't give something away for free then complain that it is bundled into a subscription service. Make your local station be only viewable by subscription. Then I take no issue.

 

[The Fat Man]

So what business is going to pay for something and not charge customers for it (especially since the customers are willing to pay to get the product)?

Then it's a bad buisness decision to give it away for free in the first place.

 

[dare2be]

So what business is going to pay for something and not charge customers for it

That's called the advertising model that's been in place since television began. Google still does a great job of it.

 

[The Fat Man]

That's called the advertising model that's been in place since television began. Google still does a great job of it.

Its the same model for terrestrial radio. I'm not charged to listen to local radio.

Quite frankly, perhaps cable and satellite should take the terrestrial radio model from SiriusXM receivers inside many newer cars. Put in OTA capabilities inside cable/satellite receivers and don't uplink anything. See how fast the local owners would be crying that they lost viewers due to intermittent signal range and be scrambling to put up repeaters. That's my point of which Sam is debating against. Cable and satellite does these stations a favor, but their greed leads them to think that they should be compensated for this favor.

If it wasn't for my wife's obsession with PTAT, I would have dropped locals a long time ago and either saved the money or added the national action or Showtime pack to my flex pack. I pay for the regional action pack.

 

[The Fat Man]

Symbiotic. Both sides benefit with LiL.

So both sides should split the uplink and distribution costs ONLY, and evenly. Neither side charges for the channels themselves. Simple. Ratings should only matter in what the channels get for advertising rates.

I would agree with that. Or, as I said, go the Satellite radio receiver route and don't uplink any OTA channel to any cable or satellite service. Simply put OTA capabilities into a receiver and allow the customer to attach an OTA antenna if they choose to. See how fast the local owners lose their minds when their ratings sink substantially.

I remember until Hurricane Bob blew the antenna off the roof of my house, back in 1992, I used to be able to connect the antenna to the "Cable B" input on my dinosaur Gerald cable box (nice 70s and 80s style wood look). If Continental Cablevision (at the time) didn't carry locals on our 36 channel cable system, or if cable went out, we just switched to Cable B for the antenna. Then, during Bob, I looked in my flooded backyard and asked my parents why an antenna was floating in the yard.

 

[sam_gordon]

Simply put, it does not escape me that something given away for free is then bitched and moaned about compensation from cable and satellite companies.

OK, so I take a picture of something and post in in my blog. I OWN that picture. Anyone can see that picture and not pay me a dime. Are you saying you can legally download my picture and sell it? So I guess it's "copyright infringement" not plagiarism. Sorry.

Put in OTA capabilities inside cable/satellite receivers and don't uplink anything. See how fast the local owners would be crying that they lost viewers due to intermittent signal range and be scrambling to put up repeaters.

See how fast the satellite companies would be crying because THEY are losing subscribers. Oh, wait, they already are losing subscribers. MANY (most?) who "cut the cord" include OTA in their plans. I haven't heard a hue and cry over Dish giving folks the capability to drop locals. Have you?

 

[The Fat Man]

OK, so I take a picture of something and post in in my blog. I OWN that picture. Anyone can see that picture and not pay me a dime. Are you saying you can legally download my picture and sell it? So I guess it's "copyright infringement" not plagiarism. Sorry.

See how fast the satellite companies would be crying because THEY are losing subscribers. Oh, wait, they already are losing subscribers. MANY (most?) who "cut the cord" include OTA in their plans. I haven't heard a hue and cry over Dish giving folks the capability to drop locals. Have you?

Again, nobody is taking a program from a free broadcast and then adding it to their own channel. That isn't an accurate comparison, as I stated yesterday.

So isn't local channel owners having a tizzy fit over Locast. We can do this back and forth all day. And, you have yet to address my point that you are reciting a 25 to 35 year old argument that is archaic in today's viewing climate. Losing subs is not due to local channels being pulled, it's due to increased subscription fees, partially due to greedy local station owners, combined with a multitude of options for accessing content. You are short sighted in this debate if you think that local channels hold the level of clout that was held in the days when there were much less channels. You might as well say that the current success of NBC, ABC, and CBS in this day and age is specifically due to the closure of DuMont.

 

[sam_gordon]

Again, nobody is taking a program from a free broadcast and then adding it to their own channel. That isn't an accurate comparison, as I stated yesterday.

No, yesterday you said it's not plagiarism because they're not claiming the work as their own. I'll grant you that. But my picture example has nothing to do with adding to someone's channel. I OWN the copyright for that picture. I can post it for free on the web, I can make copies and stick them on telephone poles around the city. I can rent a helicopter and drop copies over a crowd. That still does not give you the right to take that picture and sell it to anyone. Regardless of whether you admit that I took the picture. You can't sell it without my permission. Now, you can come to me and say "I want to sell your picture." Then I can say "Ok, I want 5% (or 10% or $1 or whatever) of what you sell it for." Totally legal. Sound familiar?

So isn't local channel owners having a tizzy fit over Locast. We can do this back and forth all day. And, you have yet to address my point that you are reciting a 25 to 35 year old argument that is archaic in today's viewing climate. Losing subs is not due to local channels being pulled, it's due to increased subscription fees, partially due to greedy local station owners, combined with a multitude of options for accessing content. You are short sighted in this debate if you think that local channels hold the level of clout that was held in the days when there were much less channels. You might as well say that the current success of NBC, ABC, and CBS in this day and age is specifically due to the closure of DuMont.

So the ONLY reason people are cutting the cord is the subscription fees? No one has found out they can actually get an OTA signal and decide that Dish isn't worth it? And yes, I think decisions made 25 years ago affect things today. Does a decision that was made last year affect things today? What about five years ago? 10? What's the cutoff?

As far as Locast, as well as Aereo, I agree with them (Locast/Aereo). You want to provide the locals to someone AND not charge them (that's the key IMO)? More power to you. Of course, this is just my opinion, which won't get you very far with anyone.

 

[dare2be]

So the ONLY reason people are cutting the cord is the subscription fees? No one has found out they can actually get an OTA signal and decide that Dish isn't worth it?

Well, yes, because they realize it's FREE. Free is still better than paying subscription fees, especially when they rise at 2-3x the rate of inflation. What people then pay for is the convenience of DVR and integrated guide (Tablo, Tivo, etc), but the content is still FREE.

 

[The Fat Man]

No, yesterday you said it's not plagiarism because they're not claiming the work as their own. I'll grant you that. But my picture example has nothing to do with adding to someone's channel. I OWN the copyright for that picture. I can post it for free on the web, I can make copies and stick them on telephone poles around the city. I can rent a helicopter and drop copies over a crowd. That still does not give you the right to take that picture and sell it to anyone. Regardless of whether you admit that I took the picture. You can't sell it without my permission. Now, you can come to me and say "I want to sell your picture." Then I can say "Ok, I want 5% (or 10% or $1 or whatever) of what you sell it for." Totally legal. Sound familiar?


So the ONLY reason people are cutting the cord is the subscription fees? No one has found out they can actually get an OTA signal and decide that Dish isn't worth it? And yes, I think decisions made 25 years ago affect things today. Does a decision that was made last year affect things today? What about five years ago? 10? What's the cutoff?

As far as Locast, as well as Aereo, I agree with them (Locast/Aereo). You want to provide the locals to someone AND not charge them (that's the key IMO)? More power to you. Of course, this is just my opinion, which won't get you very far with anyone.

Your picture example is again a claim that they take this one item and specifically sell that one item. They bundle a bunch of items, some of which have an agreement to be sold and others are free which are included for convenience. Its semantics that you argue. In the end, the service was built (as Dare2be said) on an advertising model. So, I use food as my comparison. McDonalds gives away free Big Macs, every day at every location. I start a buisness where I will deliver multiple kinds of food from various restaurants, and I will include a free Big Mac. The person pays for the food that had a cost and my delivery expense. If McDondalds started complaining about this, my answer would still be the same. "You give these away for free." Whether the Big Mac was a point for more orders is irrelevant. You imply that they were charging specifically for access to local channels. I argue that such wasn't the case, and only starting charging for locals after the station owners started complaining that they wanted their cut..for something they gave away for free.

I don't see anywhere where this was copyright infringement. In the advertising model, you get more money based on more viewers. Therefore, by supplying equipment and a stronger distribution method, I helped you get your signal out to more people, equating to more viewers, equating to more advertising revenue. They saw that they could make more money without needing to do anymore work. So they went with that, hence greed.

The reason that people are cutting the cord, as I already stated, is a combination of subscription fees and new means of accessing content. If you don't see that, I need to ask if you are living in the 80s or 90s?

 

[sam_gordon]

Your picture example is again a claim that they take this one item and specifically sell that one item. They bundle a bunch of items, some of which have an agreement to be sold and others are free which are included for convenience. Its semantics that you argue. In the end, the service was built (as Dare2be said) on an advertising model. So, I use food as my comparison. McDonalds gives away free Big Macs, every day at every location. I start a buisness where I will deliver multiple kinds of food from various restaurants, and I will include a free Big Mac. The person pays for the food that had a cost and my delivery expense. If McDondalds started complaining about this, my answer would still be the same. "You give these away for free." Whether the Big Mac was a point for more orders is irrelevant. You imply that they were charging specifically for access to local channels. I argue that such wasn't the case, and only starting charging for locals after the station owners started complaining that they wanted their cut..for something they gave away for free.

So you have the solution. Dish simply needs to go to court and say they have the right to redistribute the content at no charge. How come they haven't done that? They could have done that 25 years ago and we wouldn't be fighting about it now. Oh wait, the law says they need to pay the locals. If you open your delivery business and McDonald's takes you to court, and the court agrees with you, you're fine. But if they agree with McDonald's, then you'd have to pay them. We can bitch and complain that the laws aren't fair, but they are what they are.

I don't see anywhere where this was copyright infringement. In the advertising model, you get more money based on more viewers. Therefore, by supplying equipment and a stronger distribution method, I helped you get your signal out to more people, equating to more viewers, equating to more advertising revenue. They saw that they could make more money without needing to do anymore work. So they went with that, hence greed.

So cable networks shouldn't charge Dish? With rare exception, they all function on an advertising model, and without MVPDs, they would have near zero viewers (I used to say zero, but with the advent of streaming, that slightly changes). So they charge the MVPDs AND sell ads.

I never denied MVPDs get signals to people who otherwise couldn't receive them. Earlier in this thread, I even suggested coming up with a plan that those who can not receive OTA don't get charged for locals.

The reason that people are cutting the cord, as I already stated, is a combination of subscription fees and new means of accessing content. If you don't see that, I need to ask if you are living in the 80s or 90s?

And I'll say that people have forgotten they can receive OTA for (generally) minimal cost.

 

[The Fat Man]

Well, yes, because they realize it's FREE. Free is still better than paying subscription fees, especially when they rise at 2-3x the rate of inflation. What people then pay for is the convenience of DVR and integrated guide (Tablo, Tivo, etc), but the content is still FREE.

Let me add this anecdote, so take it at face value. WHDH (Independent) and WLVI (CW affielate) are locals in the Boston market. Sunbeam (station owner) pulled all their locals off Dish, months ago. With the small sample of Dish subs I know, compared with Dish subs here, I have not heard one person complain that these stations were removed. Nobody has fired off angry statements towards Dish, and nobody I know cancelled their subscriptions.

Sam has this opinion that without the local channels, the cable and satellite industry would implode. I disagree. I feel his argument had substantial validity 25 to 35 years ago. I feel that such isn't the case now. I feel that the station owners became complacent with this argument, and have an over-inflated perception of their worth. The rise of MTV, Comedy Central, HBO, ESPN, Local RSNs, etc have all pulled the value from locals. Occasional sports programming and local news are the only value they truly have left. Yet, they still argue that without their channels, cable and satellite will implode. I argue that with them and their greed, cable and satellite are imploding. It shouldn't cost us $12.00 a month to watch a channel that I can watch for free.

 

[The Fat Man]

So you have the solution. Dish simply needs to go to court and say they have the right to redistribute the content at no charge. How come they haven't done that? They could have done that 25 years ago and we wouldn't be fighting about it now. Oh wait, the law says they need to pay the locals. If you open your delivery business and McDonald's takes you to court, and the court agrees with you, you're fine. But if they agree with McDonald's, then you'd have to pay them. We can bitch and complain that the laws aren't fair, but they are what they are.

So cable networks shouldn't charge Dish? With rare exception, they all function on an advertising model, and without MVPDs, they would have near zero viewers (I used to say zero, but with the advent of streaming, that slightly changes). So they charge the MVPDs AND sell ads.

I never denied MVPDs get signals to people who otherwise couldn't receive them. Earlier in this thread, I even suggested coming up with a plan that those who can not receive OTA don't get charged for locals.


And I'll say that people have forgotten they can receive OTA for (generally) minimal cost.

I do have the answer. Stop uplinking, give away free OTA modules and antennas, in markets where available, push the use of Locast, and let the locals greedy business model crumble.

Now, I said I didn't take issue with cable channels charging Dish. That's called reading, left to right the symbols are letters. Put the letters together and you get a word, and put the words together and you get a sentence. Repeat the process. My issue is complaining that one wants money for something they chose to give away for free. Retransmission is not the same as your picture analogy. The argument that people went to cable and satellite due to having locals was a strong argument in 1985. Now that the offerings on cable and satellite are expanse, such isn't the case anymore. Yet, local owners push this narrative in the hope of keeping their cash cow milking for them. As I said, look at how fast they flipped their lids about Locast. Locast doesn't make any profit, yet the owners are suing to shut them down. Heck, Locast doesn't even charge for the distribution method.

Again, why would I be fined. I never charged for a Big Mac. I charged for the convenience of my driving to McDonalds then driving to your house. That's what the customer should be paying for. That's what Dish should be charging. But the owners complained and of course the FCC showed how useless it always is. That's not political at all. I simply have no use for the FCC. They ruined territorial radio, and they supported buisness that screws over the customer.

And, you are suggesting that people who can't get an OTA signal not having to pay for locals, yet Dish should still pay the owners for distributing the station over their service? Isn't this greed, where the people who can't otherwise see the channel being forced to pay, where the problem begins in the first place?

 

[sam_gordon]

Sam has this opinion that without the local channels, the cable and satellite industry would implode. I disagree. I feel his argument had substantial validity 25 to 35 years ago. I feel that such isn't the case now. I feel that the station owners became complacent with this argument, and have an over-inflated perception of their worth. The rise of MTV, Comedy Central, HBO, ESPN, Local RSNs, etc have all pulled the value from locals. Occasional sports programming and local news are the only value they truly have left. Yet, they still argue that without their channels, cable and satellite will implode. I argue that with them and their greed, cable and satellite are imploding. It shouldn't cost us $12.00 a month to watch a channel that I can watch for free.

Dish & Direct survived just fine before LiL, and I do not think they'd implode if they drop LiL, but they will suffer significant subscriber loss.
Did cable nets pull some value from locals? Sure. Never denied that. BUT, IMO, more people watch programming coming from the locals than cable nets. I've tried to find ratings comparing the two, but can't find anything. Sure, there are news articles that might show how many people watched LSU/Clemson the other night, but I'm not talking about one program/event. If you can find some ratings numbers to compare the two, I'd be interested in seeing them.

And it does NOT cost you $12 a month to watch a channel for free. I pay $0 for locals. Thanks to Dish, I have that option.

 

[The Fat Man]

Dish & Direct survived just fine before LiL, and I do not think they'd implode if they drop LiL, but they will suffer significant subscriber loss.
Did cable nets pull some value from locals? Sure. Never denied that. BUT, IMO, more people watch programming coming from the locals than cable nets. I've tried to find ratings comparing the two, but can't find anything. Sure, there are news articles that might show how many people watched LSU/Clemson the other night, but I'm not talking about one program/event. If you can find some ratings numbers to compare the two, I'd be interested in seeing them.

And it does NOT cost you $12 a month to watch a channel for free. I pay $0 for locals. Thanks to Dish, I have that option.

um, look at most people's bill. They pay $12.00 per month to watch the locals. If we remove the locals and use an OTA module, then it's free. Hence, the greed from local owners resulted with a $12.00 charge to view local channels through Dish's distribution. Yes, thanks to Dish you have the option, YET OTHERS DON'T!!! You looked completely foolish making that statement. The fact that you don't pay for the locals is irrelevant to the debate at hand.We established that a while ago.

Did those numbers from the game include streaming? Furthermore, I already stated that sports and local news are the only draws to the local stations. In fact, I watch TNF from Prime and never on my local. Your argument is hallow in my opinion.

FOX, ESPN, and NBC all have sports apps that allow subscribers to watch games. WGN lost the Cubs and the White Sox. In Boston, no team is broadcasted on a local channel, unless its nationally televised on a network. FOX pulled the MLB mostly from the locals and have game on FS1. Do I need to keep going?

 

[sam_gordon]

um, look at most people's bill. They pay $12.00 per month to watch the locals. If we remove the locals and use an OTA module, then it's free. Hence, the greed from local owners resulted with a $12.00 charge to view local channels through Dish's distribution. Yes, thanks to Dish you have the option, YET OTHERS DON'T!!! You looked completely foolish making that statement. The fact that you don't pay for the locals is irrelevant to the debate at hand.We established that a while ago.

And how many people paying that $12 COULD be watching the locals for free but they don't want to take the time or don't know to even try OTA for that option. I have said at least twice in this thread and multiple times in the past that those who truly can not receive OTA should not be charged. Keep ignoring that if you'd like.

Did those numbers from the game include streaming? Furthermore, I already stated that sports and local news are the only draws to the local stations. In fact, I watch TNF from Prime and never on my local. Your argument is hallow in my opinion.

Either your not understanding the point I made, or you don't have any facts to back up your opinion. More people watch local broadcasting than cable networks. That's it. It's that simple. Did cable networks take some viewers from local? Sure. Did it decimate local viewership? Not even close. If people weren't watching the locals, then they wouldn't be complaining when they're blacked out.

FOX, ESPN, and NBC all have sports apps that allow subscribers to watch games. WGN lost the Cubs and the White Sox. In Boston, no team is broadcasted on a local channel, unless its nationally televised on a network. FOX pulled the MLB mostly from the locals and have game on FS1. Do I need to keep going?

I'm not sure what your point is. Did I ever say nothing's getting sent over the internet?

Let me simplify things for you...
1) Locals should be paid by MVPDs to carry their signal (UNLESS MVPDs don't charge their customers).
2) Locals can ask for too much money to distribute their signal. "Too much" is in the eye of the MVPD and they should be free to say "nope, not paying that much, we're not going to carry you".
3) MVPD subscribers should be allowed to drop locals and therefore not pay for them if they so choose.
4) More people watch local broadcasters than cable nets.

If you'd like to argue those points, feel free. But you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

 

[dweber]

I have an amplified antenna that allows me to get 48 OTA channels from Dayton Ohio and Columbus Ohio. Yet I am willing to pay the $12 for satellite locals from Columbus because of the convenience of PTAT. PTAT allows me to sample new shows which I would never have set up a timer for. My son spends much more than $12 a month getting expensive drinks at Starbucks. Dish allows customers to decide whether they want to pay for locals if they can receive them OTA. So everyone should decide what is best for them. By the way Spectrum cable has a broadcast surcharge of $13.50 per month that they charge for locals. Of course you only see that if you read the fine print by the asterisk.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[The Fat Man]

And how many people paying that $12 COULD be watching the locals for free but they don't want to take the time or don't know to even try OTA for that option. I have said at least twice in this thread and multiple times in the past that those who truly can not receive OTA should not be charged. Keep ignoring that if you'd like.

Either your not understanding the point I made, or you don't have any facts to back up your opinion. More people watch local broadcasting than cable networks. That's it. It's that simple. Did cable networks take some viewers from local? Sure. Did it decimate local viewership? Not even close. If people weren't watching the locals, then they wouldn't be complaining when they're blacked out.

I'm not sure what your point is. Did I ever say nothing's getting sent over the internet?

Let me simplify things for you...
1) Locals should be paid by MVPDs to carry their signal (UNLESS MVPDs don't charge their customers).
2) Locals can ask for too much money to distribute their signal. "Too much" is in the eye of the MVPD and they should be free to say "nope, not paying that much, we're not going to carry you".
3) MVPD subscribers should be allowed to drop locals and therefore not pay for them if they so choose.
4) More people watch local broadcasters than cable nets.

If you'd like to argue those points, feel free. But you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

They charge their customers because owners of local stations complained that they should be compensated. You spun around in a circle to end up making a collection of loaded statements that contradict each other. This was done all while becoming condescending with me, for the purpose of being right.

Cable and satellite companies charge for access to locals, because they have to pay locals to redistribute. Owners charge simply to get a cut of profit, as observed with their attempt to shut down Locast. Therefore, they are the issue. Their greed specifically is the issue. Either stop giving away your signal for free, or don't charge cable and satellite companies to redistribute.

You play on the assumption that cable and satellite make profit off having locals. In the 80s, the argument was that having the locals led to increased subscriptions. However, the state of viewership is profoundly different today. Therefore, they have an over-inflated sense of their value.

Beyond that, as I stated, I find you to be contradicting yourself. First, you were all for charging cable and satellite companies. Then it became that cable and satellite companies shouldn't charge people who can't get a signal via OTA, while never explaining whether the cable and satellite companies should still have to pay to carry the locals. Now its they should only have to pay, if they charge the customer.

Well, they will charge for the use of equipment and upkeep of their distribution, so does that count as charging to view the channels? I say no.

You go on about the value of locals, to which I said occasional sports and local news. You then agree with me citing the National Championship game. Yet, you then choose to overlook that there were multiple ways to watch the game. The game was on ABC. However, it was also streamed on the ESPN app, and if I'm correct it was also broadcasted on ESPN. So, how did that entitle the owners of local ABC affiliates to demand compansation for redistribution?

All the while, statements with "making it easy" for me is just a sign of a flawed debate. You stick to your argument vaguely and jump around. The equivalent is throwing whatever against the wall to see if it sticks. You use antiquated points, (again) contradicting points, and comparisons that aren't completely accurate to this debate. When I make my own comparison, you then deflect into a statement of "what's right and what's the law are two different things." You're bouncing around in the hope of stumping me into saying you're correct. I do not see anywhere where you proved that it is right for locals in today's climate to charge for redistribution of a signal that they give away for free.

Therefore, this is a stalemate. You and I have to agree to disagree. I simply will not go deeper beyond my opinion of the matter. I don't take issue with you, but I disagree with your opinion and the manner in which you debated to defend it.

 

[The Fat Man]

I have an amplified antenna that allows me to get 48 OTA channels from Dayton Ohio and Columbus Ohio. Yet I am willing to pay the $12 for satellite locals from Columbus because of the convenience of PTAT. PTAT allows me to sample new shows which I would never have set up a timer for. My son spends much more than $12 a month getting expensive drinks at Starbucks. Dish allows customers to decide whether they want to pay for locals if they can receive them OTA. So everyone should decide what is best for them. By the way Spectrum cable has a broadcast surcharge of $13.50 per month that they charge for locals. Of course you only see that if you read the fine print by the asterisk.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

That's your choice. My issue is not with people choosing to pay for locals if they want to. My wife also wants PTAT, as I previously stated. So, I too pay the $12.00 charge for locals. My stance however is that the station owners charging these fees causes subscription hikes and is just not right, as these are given away for free OTA. Again, if you would prefer to pay for it is not an issue that I have, at all.

However, I do think you should pay Dish for equipment use for PTAT, and shouldn't have to pay an extra $12 per month to watch the locals that you can watch OTA.

In fact, I argue that PTAT without Autohop only helps locals gain more potential viewers.

 

[epokopac]

A 7pm ET deadline of Jan 14 for DISH and Apollo Global-owned Cox Media Group to strike a new retrans agreement has been extended to 1:59am on Wednesday, Jan 15.

The program guide for that station appeared to be normal this morning (WED 1-15).