Dish accounts for half of all retrans disputes, NAB says

[sam_gordon]

never mind

 

[osu1991]

I have NEVER said the stations are "always right". I even said in this thread IN THE POST YOU QUOTED that folks that can't receive OTA shouldn't have to pay retrans. I've said in the past stations can charge too much. If you still believe I think stations are "always right", I don't know what else to say.

It was brought up earlier in this thread that networks used to pay affiliates to carry their signal, now they're (networks) having the affiliates pay them (usually a portion of retrans). It's the price of doing business. Same with an MVPD needing to pay for programming. Go ahead and argue they (locals) are charging too much. I guarantee you the locals are saying the networks are charging too much. "The price of doing business".

I have seen you state that about people with no reception, the rest I stand by. It is very one sided in the affiliates favor.

I have the unfortunate pleasure of knowing a station owner and he annoys the hell out of me every time I see him at events. He is of the opinion they don't charge enough. He doesn't care if they preempt programming, its more time for his reporters/meterologists to be on the air. Viewers can go stream it from the network site or Hulu, as he wont take airtime away to air a repeat. As soon as they preempt something the first they do on the newscast is say CBS or CW wont allow them to replay the episodes and go watch it online. Apparently his sales team finally figured out not to call anymore after we pulled our advertising last year, when they pulled their signal from Dish and then ATT.

 

[Tampa8]

never mind

Lol.... Yes, if there was to be retrans fee only for some, you have it right as far as I am concerned, if you can get it free OTA but still want to get it from Cable/Sat then you pay the fee. If you can not get it free OTA then you are not subject to the retrans fee. In fact that would be a good start to modernizing the system. If the way disputes are handled could also be modified some I would say we really have something...

 

[Troch77]

Lol.... Yes, if there was to be retrans fee only for some, you have it right as far as I am concerned, if you can get it free OTA but still want to get it from Cable/Sat then you pay the fee. If you can not get it free OTA then you are not subject to the retrans fee. In fact that would be a good start to modernizing the system. If the way disputes are handled could also be modified some I would say we really have something...

Agree,
Many many people can't get OTA.
In fact it should go back Old school, and have locals optional.
But that's only my opinion.

Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

 

[Claude Greiner]

When Charlie Ergen blacked out Fox News Channel, it was a suicide mission. I wish he had blacked out Viacom but he blinked.

I remember that day well. Sold so many Directv systems that day to angry pissed off Dish customers

 

[DishSubLA]

Fine with me. Too bad Dish isn't responsible for 100% or the filthy rich, ultra greedy OTA's whose signal we should be accessing via ANY provider at no charge because those frequencies belong to We the People and the FCC has been giving those Free Lunch temporary authorizations for decades while the OTA's make all the money with tax payers not receiving so much as one penny for it. FWIW, the FCC ought to auction off all the "Public Airwaves" the OTA's use and let them pay for it. We taxpayers get the financial windfall, and the govt. is out of the censorship business and OTA's would have to see who is willing to pay for their content. I would not pay a dime for their content, but others would. It would really be a true free market capitalism for the OTA's rather than protectionism by the FCC, and no low or no interest loans or "grants" to commercial OTA's to pay for new transmission technologies like the free lunch we provided the OTA's to convert to digital OTA.

 

[sam_gordon]

and no low or no interest loans or "grants" to commercial OTA's to pay for new transmission technologies like the free lunch we provided the OTA's to convert to digital OTA.

I would agree with you if it was the broadcasters choice to convert to digital.

 

[sam_gordon]

Let's also not forget there's no "Free Lunch". The broadcasters DO pay the government for use of the frequencies. You can argue they don't pay enough, but they do pay. AND they paid to purchase the license to start with (granted not from the government).

 

[The Fat Man]

They do, but that's why they get revenue for advertising. By my logic, if you are charging Satellite and Cable providers to carry your content, then commercials should have stayed the same (minutes per hour of ads) or gone down. Instead,they increased the amount of ad time and increased the among of money they want from the service providers.

 

[Troch77]

They do, but that's why they get revenue for advertising. By my logic, if you are charging Satellite and Cable providers to carry your content, then commercials should have stayed the same (minutes per hour of ads) or gone down. Instead,they increased the amount of ad time and increased the among of money they want from the service providers.

See now that I agree with.
OTA AND Locals sure commercial that sh*t out of it.

But the rest of the content that everyone has no choice but to pay for in order to watch it, like TBS ,FX, Comedy central that do nothing but stretch a 90 minute movie into 3 even 4 hours.
That is ridiculous.


Samsung Galaxy S6 Active