Dish gets into more retrans kerfuffles, this time with stations in Arizona, Colorado

[sam_gordon]

My understanding is someone (Charlie or station owner) would still have to pay the retransmission fees to the copyright holders in the case of invocation of the must carry rule. Not sure if this has ever been tested in court though.

I don't think that's correct.

 

[ncted]

I don't think that's correct.

See post 59. It was licensing fees I was thinking of.

 

[ChadT41]

Take one take all.

 

[sam_gordon]

Take one take all.

So if Dish retransmits one local station, they have to retransmit all? So why are there negotiations? A station can just say "pay us $50/subscriber" and MVPDs would have to take them?

 

[pattykay]

So if Dish retransmits one local station, they have to retransmit all? So why are there negotiations? A station can just say "pay us $50/subscriber" and MVPDs would have to take them?

If Dish retransmits one local station, they have to retransmit all stations in the market that meet the must-carry requirements, and Dish must negotiate in good faith with all other stations in the market that elected retransmission consent. The good-faith negotiation requirements apply to both sides, and are enforced (at least in theory) by the FCC.

 

[sam_gordon]

I wonder how far the "in good faith" extends. We know MVPDs aren't forced to agree to anything the stations offer (otherwise there would never be blackouts). And the reverse is true also, stations don't have to agree to everything MVPDs offer (or again, no blackouts). So could an MVPD say, after some attempts at negotiating that it's simply too much?

 

[ChadT41]

Yes, but if the FCC got involved and disagreed... they did say they try to stay out of negotiations when possible.