DISH Calls for Retransmission Reform as Raycom Treats Viewers as Negotiation Pawns

[nelson61]

First of all, I think the FCC needs to change policy so a company can own only 1 TV station in a market. This will prevent a situation like here in Hawaii where we lost 3 stations due to the Raycom dispute. Although Hurricane Henriette appears to continue on a southern trajectory at this time, losing two major news stations in a worse case scenario is a disservice. (And aren't the airwaves supposed to belong to the public?)

Second - as far as bundling vs ala carte, I consider this a microcosm of society in general. I accept paying for things I don't utilize because society exists for the good of all.

As an example, let's say you have kids. I don't. You get tax breaks because you have kids. I pay taxes to put your kids through school and pay for extra public services that your kids use above and beyond what my two person household uses .

Bringing it back to programming - yeah, I pay for things I don't usually watch. But I have also found some very interesting programming on those "other" channels that I or my wife do not usually watch and I'm glad we have access.

You need to send an email to Senator McCain. You are a glaring example of the problem he is trying to fix in his bill. He needs examples of how "the people" that really own the airways (us) are getting the short end of the stick. Your Senators and Representative also.

The commercial companies will fold 10 seconds after they sense they may get stripped of their special rights.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using SatelliteGuys

 

[yelraek]

I have to point out that the FCC does not make law. The FCC creates regulations to enforce laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. At this moment, the FCC does not have the statutory authority to do most of the stuff being discussed here. The Telecom act of 1996 is the law that the FCC has to use for its framework in rule-making.

I stand corrected. I changed my post to reflect this.

 

[yelraek]

You need to send an email to Senator McCain. You are a glaring example of the problem he is trying to fix in his bill. He needs examples of how "the people" that really own the airways (us) are getting the short end of the stick. Your Senators and Representative also.

The commercial companies will fold 10 seconds after they sense they may get stripped of their special rights.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using SatelliteGuys

What we need is for someone to start a petition requesting congress change the law in favor of the consumers. I would do it but I'm not sure I know how.

 

[sam_gordon]

IF DISH was smart they would of done that from the start or done just antenna installs at each home. Or make the antenna install part of the Satellite dish install. Provide the guide information that they pay for anyway to Tribune via software an you would have your local channels and no disputes with the local channels. The only problems would be in areas that have no access to the towers. But if DISH hadn't of broken the law and sold distants to everyone , they could of just sold them to people that couldn't use the antenna. Just imagine how much better the satellite channels would of looked in picture quality if they didn't have to have all those local channels up on the satellite? OF course the hopper Ptat feature wouldn't work like it is today,but you wouldn't of had to have all these disputes over local channels.

I agree with this. Why not just put an antenna feed at each house, then they don't need to pay the locals for those customers? The only thing I use my local subscription for is the guide. I watch & record everything OTA.

BUT, we all know there are viewers who can not receive OTA. So the signals would still need to be on satellite to take care of those customers.

 

[sam_gordon]

But on the subject of LiL retrans, a solutions needs to be found. How about this: if a channel chooses retransmission consent, and an agreement cannot be reached, providers should be permitted to import a channel from another DMA.

I appreciate where you're coming from, but if they can do that, what's the motivation for Dish to negotiate "in good faith"? Most customers (I'm guessing) are looking for the national feeds more than the locals. So Dish ships in another DMA, and the majority of customers are happy. So why should Dish even negotiate with locals?

 

[HDRoberts]

I appreciate where you're coming from, but if they can do that, what's the motivation for Dish to negotiate "in good faith"? Most customers (I'm guessing) are looking for the national feeds more than the locals. So Dish ships in another DMA, and the majority of customers are happy. So why should Dish even negotiate with locals?

I disagree with the notion people want national feeds. Most consumers prefer their own locals to national feeds, at least in larger markets with a variety of local news and programming. I would not be a customer of Dish if they did not have Cleveland locals. At least bringing in an out of market channel would allow network programming to continue, and incentivise the local to negotiate fairly, knowing they lack the monopoly they have now.

Simply having an antenna will not work as a solution. First, many areas lack good OTA reception. Second, there are major DVR interface problems in most set top boxes.

I see only 3 solutions:
-The government eliminates retrans fees all together
-The government mandates and/or regulates what retrans fees are charged, either directly (publishing or approving fees) or indirectly (requiring binding arbitration, etc.)
-The government allows competition to end the LiL monopoly.

I'd prefer the first solution. But it isn't happening (and I imagine it would kill Autohop as it kills Dish's big argument as to why it's legal).

 

[yelraek]

BUT, we all know there are viewers who can not receive OTA. So the signals would still need to be on satellite to take care of those customers.

That would be me!!!

 

[sam_gordon]

I disagree with the notion people want national feeds. Most consumers prefer their own locals to national feeds, at least in larger markets with a variety of local news and programming. I would not be a customer of Dish if they did not have Cleveland locals. At least bringing in an out of market channel would allow network programming to continue, and incentivise the local to negotiate fairly, knowing they lack the monopoly they have now.

Simply having an antenna will not work as a solution. First, many areas lack good OTA reception. Second, there are major DVR interface problems in most set top boxes.

I see only 3 solutions:
-The government eliminates retrans fees all together
-The government mandates and/or regulates what retrans fees are charged, either directly (publishing or approving fees) or indirectly (requiring binding arbitration, etc.)
-The government allows competition to end the LiL monopoly.

I'd prefer the first solution. But it isn't happening (and I imagine it would kill Autohop as it kills Dish's big argument as to why it's legal).

I agree many AREAS lack good OTA reception, but I think most PEOPLE get good reception. I know OTA won't solve everyone's problem, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Like I said, the only thing I need Dish to provide is the guide info.

I'm not sure what DVR interface problems you're talking about. I'm assuming Dish would send out DVRs with OTA built in.

Regarding your three solutions, I prefer the second one. I do think stations are entitled to SOME retrans money, but not an exorbitant amount. Where that "break point" is, I'm not sure. Other things to consider... would retrans money go to a station no matter how many channels a provider has (ie: .2, .3, etc), or does each subchannel get its own $$? I also think Dish (or any provider) could use the retrans $$ to their benefit... "ok, we'll pay more in retrans money, but we want 'x' amount of free commercial time".

 

[osu1991]

I agree many AREAS lack good OTA reception, but I think most PEOPLE get good reception. I know OTA won't solve everyone's problem, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Like I said, the only thing I need Dish to provide is the guide info.

I'm not sure what DVR interface problems you're talking about. I'm assuming Dish would send out DVRs with OTA built in.

Regarding your three solutions, I prefer the second one. I do think stations are entitled to SOME retrans money, but not an exorbitant amount. Where that "break point" is, I'm not sure. Other things to consider... would retrans money go to a station no matter how many channels a provider has (ie: .2, .3, etc), or does each subchannel get its own $$? I also think Dish (or any provider) could use the retrans $$ to their benefit... "ok, we'll pay more in retrans money, but we want 'x' amount of free commercial time".

Yeah thats what we need. More commercials. The more commercials that are aired the less that should be paid by consumers and thats not happening

Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[HDRoberts]

I agree many AREAS lack good OTA reception, but I think most PEOPLE get good reception. I know OTA won't solve everyone's problem, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Like I said, the only thing I need Dish to provide is the guide info.

I'm not sure what DVR interface problems you're talking about. I'm assuming Dish would send out DVRs with OTA built in.

Regarding your three solutions, I prefer the second one. I do think stations are entitled to SOME retrans money, but not an exorbitant amount. Where that "break point" is, I'm not sure. Other things to consider... would retrans money go to a station no matter how many channels a provider has (ie: .2, .3, etc), or does each subchannel get its own $$? I also think Dish (or any provider) could use the retrans $$ to their benefit... "ok, we'll pay more in retrans money, but we want 'x' amount of free commercial time".

I'd venture to say that satellite has more customers that can't get OTA than other providers, as it appeals to rural clientele. But heck, here in Cleveland, one of the Raycom affiliate out, WOIO, has such poor OTA coverage, I know lots of people that can't get it despite living in the city. (They were one of the few channels that dropped from UHF to VHF so they could lower their power bill. They also chose a channel that competes with a Canadian channel across Lake Erie)

The DVR problems are simple. They run on separate tuners, so my 622 can only record ONE OTA program. Some may have 2 tuners, but that will not be enough for some. The challenge is also to distribute the signal to all boxes, which can create problems (and heck, my 622 can only show OTA on TV1). PTAT will not work. And, lastly, OTA is MPEG2 and takes up much more DVR space.

While the government setting prices sounds appealing, I'd worry about corruption. Some Raycom or Belo exec gets on whoever sets the rates, and soon, the government is allowing massive increases.

 

[sam_gordon]

I'd venture to say that satellite has more customers that can't get OTA than other providers, as it appeals to rural clientele. But heck, here in Cleveland, one of the Raycom affiliate out, WOIO, has such poor OTA coverage, I know lots of people that can't get it despite living in the city. (They were one of the few channels that dropped from UHF to VHF so they could lower their power bill. They also chose a channel that competes with a Canadian channel across Lake Erie)

I don't deny there are folks who can't get OTA. I just think they are far in the minority.

The DVR problems are simple. They run on separate tuners, so my 622 can only record ONE OTA program. Some may have 2 tuners, but that will not be enough for some. The challenge is also to distribute the signal to all boxes, which can create problems (and heck, my 622 can only show OTA on TV1). PTAT will not work. And, lastly, OTA is MPEG2 and takes up much more DVR space.

OK.

While the government setting prices sounds appealing, I'd worry about corruption. Some Raycom or Belo exec gets on whoever sets the rates, and soon, the government is allowing massive increases.

I'll tell you what's bouncing around in my head, but it's not a "solidified" answer... take the amount a provider chargers their customers for locals (yes, I know on Dish, it's "free", but we all know that's not the truth), cut that by 50%, then divide by the number of locals in a market. I think the last cost I heard from Dish (on this board) was $6/month for locals. So, let's cut that to $3, then divide by the number of stations in a market. Now, if the provider raises their rates, the local cost goes up the same percentage and you do the math again. So lets say Dish ups their fees 5% in February. So now locals cost $6.30. Split that in half ($3.15) and divide by the number of stations in a market.

The 50% split is a number I made up and would be negotiable. But then stations are guaranteed 'x' amount of money, providers have another encouragement to keep rates low, and there's not much chance of corruption (because the added cost is already factored in).

But like I said, what does this do for subchannels? Let's say Dish only carries the "Big 4" in a market. Every station has at least one subchannel, two have two. So that's 10 'channels' in a market. Should subchannels factor in to the math? Does Dish have the bandwidth to provide that many channels (I think they only carry one subchannel in my market)?

?This is an extremely rough idea.

 

[osu1991]

I don't deny there are folks who can't get OTA. I just think they are far in the minority.


OK.


I'll tell you what's bouncing around in my head, but it's not a "solidified" answer... take the amount a provider chargers their customers for locals (yes, I know on Dish, it's "free", but we all know that's not the truth), cut that by 50%, then divide by the number of locals in a market. I think the last cost I heard from Dish (on this board) was $6/month for locals. So, let's cut that to $3, then divide by the number of stations in a market. Now, if the provider raises their rates, the local cost goes up the same percentage and you do the math again. So lets say Dish ups their fees 5% in February. So now locals cost $6.30. Split that in half ($3.15) and divide by the number of stations in a market.

The 50% split is a number I made up and would be negotiable. But then stations are guaranteed 'x' amount of money, providers have another encouragement to keep rates low, and there's not much chance of corruption (because the added cost is already factored in).

But like I said, what does this do for subchannels? Let's say Dish only carries the "Big 4" in a market. Every station has at least one subchannel, two have two. So that's 10 'channels' in a market. Should subchannels factor in to the math? Does Dish have the bandwidth to provide that many channels (I think they only carry one subchannel in my market)?

?This is an extremely rough idea.

Now thats a decent idea.

Dish and Direct are different than a cable company in that it requires enormous amounts of bandwidth to carry all these locals. I dont think they should have to carry subchannels just to retransmit 100 versions of MeTv or AntennaTv etc when its the same programming nationwide.

Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[mike123abc]

I have to point out that the FCC does not make law. The FCC creates regulations to enforce laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. At this moment, the FCC does not have the statutory authority to do most of the stuff being discussed here. The Telecom act of 1996 is the law that the FCC has to use for its framework in rule-making.

True, but is the station serving the public interest by limiting their carriage? If it was my local station and their license public comment period was going on, I would get everyone I know to put in negative comments that they should not have their license renewed. I suppose the contract that cable/DBS sign probably keeps them from leading a "grass roots" campaign to try to have licenses denied.

 

[HDRoberts]

I'll tell you what's bouncing around in my head, but it's not a "solidified" answer... take the amount a provider chargers their customers for locals (yes, I know on Dish, it's "free", but we all know that's not the truth), cut that by 50%, then divide by the number of locals in a market. I think the last cost I heard from Dish (on this board) was $6/month for locals. So, let's cut that to $3, then divide by the number of stations in a market. Now, if the provider raises their rates, the local cost goes up the same percentage and you do the math again. So lets say Dish ups their fees 5% in February. So now locals cost $6.30. Split that in half ($3.15) and divide by the number of stations in a market.

The 50% split is a number I made up and would be negotiable. But then stations are guaranteed 'x' amount of money, providers have another encouragement to keep rates low, and there's not much chance of corruption (because the added cost is already factored in).

But like I said, what does this do for subchannels? Let's say Dish only carries the "Big 4" in a market. Every station has at least one subchannel, two have two. So that's 10 'channels' in a market. Should subchannels factor in to the math? Does Dish have the bandwidth to provide that many channels (I think they only carry one subchannel in my market)?

?This is an extremely rough idea.

So penalize large markets with more stations beyond the big 4?

Also, CW, MNTV, Ion, Univision, and the independents should get the same retrans money as the big 4?

We need a more refined formula if that is to work.

 

[sam_gordon]

True, but is the station serving the public interest by limiting their carriage? If it was my local station and their license public comment period was going on, I would get everyone I know to put in negative comments that they should not have their license renewed. I suppose the contract that cable/DBS sign probably keeps them from leading a "grass roots" campaign to try to have licenses denied.

Since the beginning of television, there have been people who could not receive their "local" broadcasts. I don't think not coming to an agreement with a provider is against "serving the public interest". My opinion.

So penalize large markets with more stations beyond the big 4?

Also, CW, MNTV, Ion, Univision, and the independents should get the same retrans money as the big 4?

We need a more refined formula if that is to work.

Well gee, it's too bad I neglected to put that my idea was just a "rough" one, and that there are still issues that would need to be resolved. Oh wait, I did. At least I'm offering a suggestion.

 

[sam_gordon]

Now thats a decent idea.

Dish and Direct are different than a cable company in that it requires enormous amounts of bandwidth to carry all these locals. I dont think they should have to carry subchannels just to retransmit 100 versions of MeTv or AntennaTv etc when its the same programming nationwide.

Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!

I agree with you. I'm not quite sure how subchannels factor in.

 

[HDRoberts]

Well gee, it's too bad I neglected to put that my idea was just a "rough" one, and that there are still issues that would need to be resolved. Oh wait, I did. At least I'm offering a suggestion.

Did I not offer a couple suggestions?

I was just pointing out a few big flaws in your suggestion.

 

[Tampa8]

Since the beginning of television, there have been people who could not receive their "local" broadcasts. I don't think not coming to an agreement with a provider is against "serving the public interest". My opinion.

I would have to agree. In fact they can choose not to be carried at all if they wish. But the rub is, there has to be some mechanism that allows for the carrier to then carry another like channel. If X local will not agree to an amount, but Y affiliate will, then Y should be allowed to be carried. Those with antennas won't get Y, only those with Cable/Satellite. At anytime should X and the carrier decide they can agree to terms, then X would be carried.

 

[TroubleshooterMike]

I just really wish that as consumers we had a way to have our voices heard... I for one agree something needs to change (regardless what the best resolution is) as long as something is done. This seems like a step in the right direction tho.

 

[sam_gordon]

I would have to agree. In fact they can choose not to be carried at all if they wish. But the rub is, there has to be some mechanism that allows for the carrier to then carry another like channel. If X local will not agree to an amount, but Y affiliate will, then Y should be allowed to be carried. Those with antennas won't get Y, only those with Cable/Satellite. At anytime should X and the carrier decide they can agree to terms, then X would be carried.

I don't totally disagree with you. I think a better solution is finding some way to avoid negotiations/blackouts to begin with.

The other question is whether X local's contracts with their advertisers & syndicated programs allow them to be shown in Y's market. As I understand it, that's a big sticking point keeping locals from streaming their own signal (unless something is in place to confirm the viewer is in the DMA).