Dish Could Lose 12 Network Affiliates Tonight

[sam_gordon]

feds could fix this, any station that pulls there feed, loose carriage for a year.......

stations would quit screwing around

Any MVPD that doesn't agree to retrans fees loses the agreement for a year.
It's a two way street.

 

[docdaddy]

The government, to some extent, considers local network providers as a service to their community. They require records, for example, of certain amounts of public service broadcasting. Also, in times of, for example, severe weather, the locals are considered to be of great service to the community.

The simple answer is that Congress should step up and say, here's the arbitration process, everyone has to follow it, and local networks cannot be removed from the air during this process. But - politics/lobbyists/etc.

 

[Tampa8]

The government, to some extent, considers local network providers as a service to their community.

Agreed. And as is being pointed out all the more reason to assure they can't be pulled during a dispute.

 

[Yespage]

Wouldn't that be for companies doing business with the government? If the government can't set a limit on gas prices, why do you think they can set retrains rates?

That was one example. There are plenty of others with government agencies setting prices on services. This isn't uncommon. GSA per diem rates would be similar to rates for channels, because it'd be a regional thing. Set a fair max rate and be done with it.

 

[ChadT41]

I gave the example of our power and water(including irrigation) here in Phoenix of Salt River Project.

 

[pattykay]

I got news for you, if DISH decided not to carry locals in some markets, things have gone to a point that they would have no care about losing the few fill ins at that point.

That was kind of my point. With Dish now feeling the need to break out a separate charge for locals, there may indeed be many markets that are costing Dish so much money that there would be a financial incentive to completely drop locals in those markets, just like they did with the RSNs in New York. However, Dish has to be careful about dropping entire local markets because if Dish issues a press release saying that they are going to completely drop several markets, especially if any of those markets are not served by Directv, then Congress may react by imposing a must-carry requirement (as opposed to "carry one, carry all") for both providers to serve every market.

Some markets may be so small that with Dish and Directv "splitting the vote" (so to speak) neither provider can attract enough subscribers to make offering locals there financially viable. However, if Dish became the exclusive satellite provider of locals in some markets, while Directv exclusively served other markets with satellite locals, perhaps each respective provider could attract enough subscribers to make it worth offering locals there. Of course, they would continue to compete against each other in markets that are large enough that they can still make money, even with competition. As long as every market is served with locals by at least one satellite provider, Congress would be less likely to step in and require carriage.

 

[ChadT41]

I don't think Dish nor DTV would be against must carry for all stations. That would end the retransmission fees.

 

[pattykay]

I don't think Dish nor DTV would be against must carry for all stations. That would end the retransmission fees.

I didn't mean must-carry for all stations. I meant must-carry for all markets. In other words, Dish and Directv can now choose not to offer locals in a market at all. If must-carry was imposed on all markets, they would be required to continue carrying (or start carrying) the PBS stations and any other channels that request must-carry status, whether Dish or Directv even want to carry locals in that market or not. They would still need to negotiate retransmission consent with the remaining stations if they want to offer a complete local package. Without a complete local package, the locals would not be financially viable for either provider. Some markets may be so small that it is not financially viable to offer locals there even with a complete local package.

 

[sam_gordon]

The simple answer is that Congress should step up and say, here's the arbitration process, everyone has to follow it, and local networks cannot be removed from the air during this process. But - politics/lobbyists/etc.

Agreed. And as is being pointed out all the more reason to assure they can't be pulled during a dispute.

I have no problems with preventing locals from being pulled by disputes, as long as an MVPD can't take advantage of it. Pulling the signal is the only "weight" the locals have. Let's make this simple... locals and MVPDs get to try to work out a deal on their own. If, by the end of the contract, there is no deal (or extension) in place, arbitration is automatically started. Once the arbitration is complete the MVPD pays the new rate post dated to the end of the previous contract. Seems fair to me.

I gave the example of our power and water(including irrigation) here in Phoenix of Salt River Project.

Personally, I wouldn't classify television with electrical service, but your point stands.