Dish dispute with KFJX Joplin

[sam_gordon]

So Sagamore wants paid for subs that do not subscribe to their channels, just as long as they live in the area? Sounds like Sagamore really is stretching here... and should honestly lose their broadcast license for that one. That is not something that is reasonable. OTA should always be their main source of income. It’s not on Dish customers that can receive OTA to pay for channels they can and do choose to receive OTA. That is crappy.

*IF* Dish's claim is true, I agree with you. But it seems like such a strange leap, I have a hard time believing it on face value.

The broadcasters shouldn’t get anything to retransmit their signal.

If anything they should be happy to be on as many platforms as possible.

IMHO, if they want to charge for their content they should shut down their transmitter and return their license to the FCC. TheY can then be a cable channel

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if MVPDs wouldn't have charged customers to get the locals in the first place, I think stations wouldn't have charged them for the signal. MVPDs could have done one of their annual price increases and said "we're now providing your locals for free, because it's important you get them". They still get their money, but the PR side make it look like they're doing a service.

Carrying locals was a HUGE benefit for Dish/Direct. Whether you (general) want to admit it or not, but LiL was needed to make the satellite providers a true competitor for cable.

 

[pattykay]

*IF* Dish's claim is true, I agree with you. But it seems like such a strange leap, I have a hard time believing it on face value.

Wasn't it widely speculated on this site that that was the reason why Dish started force-bundling the locals into every base package in the first place, because their contracts required them to pay the broadcasters for every subscriber in the market anyway, so Dish might as well actually provide the channels to every subscriber in the market? Obviously, Dish has gotten away from that stance since then, but it just sounds like Sagamore is trying to put things back the way they were before.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if MVPDs wouldn't have charged customers to get the locals in the first place, I think stations wouldn't have charged them for the signal. MVPDs could have done one of their annual price increases and said "we're now providing your locals for free, because it's important you get them". They still get their money, but the PR side make it look like they're doing a service.

And, if memory serves, that is precisely what Dish did in 2010, when they started carrying locals in every market, and also started force-bundling the locals into every package.

 

[sam_gordon]

Wasn't it widely speculated on this site that that was the reason why Dish started force-bundling the locals into every base package in the first place, because their contracts required them to pay the broadcasters for every subscriber in the market anyway, so Dish might as well actually provide the channels to every subscriber in the market? Obviously, Dish has gotten away from that stance since then, but it just sounds like Sagamore is trying to put things back the way they were before.

As smart as the folks are on here, I wouldn't accept speculation as "fact". But, if the contracts did originally require they pay broadcasters for every subscriber, that was stupid on Dish's part. I agree if that's what a local wants (and holding up contract negotiations until they get it), they are flat out wrong.

And, if memory serves, that is precisely what Dish did in 2010, when they started carrying locals in every market, and also started force-bundling the locals into every package.

By that time, it was too late.

Just my opinion (or speculation if you'd rather).

 

[Claude Greiner]

*IF* Dish's claim is true, I agree with you. But it seems like such a strange leap, I have a hard time believing it on face value.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, if MVPDs wouldn't have charged customers to get the locals in the first place, I think stations wouldn't have charged them for the signal. MVPDs could have done one of their annual price increases and said "we're now providing your locals for free, because it's important you get them". They still get their money, but the PR side make it look like they're doing a service.

Carrying locals was a HUGE benefit for Dish/Direct. Whether you (general) want to admit it or not, but LiL was needed to make the satellite providers a true competitor for cable.

I agree!

Remember what the cable companies used to say...

You can’t get your local channels

Then once they had locals it was, you don’t get all your locals

Then it was you have to pay for your locals.

I’m surprised nobody has said anything about the sub channels.

Any now if you have cable you pay for them too via the broadcast Tv fee.

However the cost on satellite is justified as it costs to get the signal usually via fiber several states away at the uplink center. Then you have to pay for several satellites at 250 million each to transmit the signal.

Compared to cable which locals take up a very small portion of the available bandwidth and are inserted locally, satellite has significantly more costs.

There are more locals uplinked on satellite than cable channels

 

[WB0JFC]

Friday the contract for the sister CBS station (KOAM) expires and it looks like will be off Dish.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Friday the contract for the sister CBS station (KOAM) expires and it looks like will be off Dish.

I got tired of waiting for the KFJX dispute to end so I “moved” to Omaha. I get KC channels OTA and Omaha on Dish. So this gives me quite an assortment including 3 PBS affiliates.

 

[Claude Greiner]

I got tired of waiting for the KFJX dispute to end so I “moved” to Omaha. I get KC channels OTA and Omaha on Dish. So this gives me quite an assortment including 3 PBS affiliates.

If it was only that easy for everyone else.

I used to have an address in new Berry Michigan that got all the east and west Networks.

One of my customers used the same address and we would always joke saying it’s Great living in new Berry.

I drove through there a few months ago and sent him a picture of the sign.

 

[dare2be]

I hardly even watch locals anymore. I get my few network shows from the network websites, and any local news from their websites. The diginet subchannels I do watch more aren't even carried by Dish.

 

[sam_gordon]

I hardly even watch locals anymore. I get my few network shows from the network websites, and any local news from their websites. The diginet subchannels I do watch more aren't even carried by Dish.

Can you do that without an active subscription? A number of months ago I had missed Family Guy on Fox and tried to watch it online the next day. It had me put in my Dish account and said (since I don't subscribe to locals), that I wasn't allowed to watch the episode.

 

[dare2be]

Most if not all of my shows come from CBS and NBC

ABC and FOX, if you wait a week, they are unlocked. Works fine since I mostly binge watch on the weekends anyway.

 

[Brad Douglas]

It looks like they got an extension. KOAM wasn't taken down at midnight.

 

[Tampa8]

Friday the contract for the sister CBS station (KOAM) expires and it looks like will be off Dish.

It looks like they got an extension. KOAM wasn't taken down at midnight.

The smarter "Sister?"

 

[WB0JFC]

The smarter "Sister?"

They either got an extension or someone ran the notification by mistake. I'm sure of what it said because I rewound it and looked at it again. But I only saw it once which is unusual.

 

[joshjr]

Reviewing some of these comments I wants to share a few things. One is that while I agree we should get the locals free what we should not have to do is pay CBS an additional $7.99 a month for shows that only air online! That is pure greed. Also Viacom a few years ago was removed from CableOne. Fine with me as I have DirecTV. I missed a show and went to stream it with my DirecTV login and was blocked because my internet provider didnt offer Viacom channels to its TV customers. So I paid Viacom through DirecTV and again through Hulu and yet I was blocked because they wanted paid a 3rd time. NO WAY! I figured when it got close to the start of the NFL season they would pull their head out of their butt and get the deal done. I was right. Also, someone posted its not a big deal about losing channels, depends on who you ask. Is it the end of the world no but there are retired people or even elderly people that watch the same thing every day. Disrupting their routine can have dire consequences. Not to mention this always comes down to money and the customer is squeezed. I am always amazed that any station takes their channel down. I mean they want a massive increase and instead settle for no money? I find that odd. Every time the Congressional hearings come around for this I watch them and its a dance around the issue. The NAB lies and says its not a big deal and there are not that many black outs but yet the fact is the number of blackouts goes up every year. Quit putting the customers in the middle of this crap. If they cant get it figured out on their own then yeah lets let the government figure it out for them. I am guessing there is a reason the NAB does not want the government to step in. I bet they would frown upon 300% increases in fees from these people.