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

[NYDutch]

As are the locals.

Of course they are. But what do retrans fees actually compensate them for? About the only costs involved on their end is for the lawyers that negotiate and write the contracts. On the other hand, they benefit from the increased viewership by charging higher ad rates. Retrans fees for the locals are virtually pure profit for them.

 

[sam_gordon]

Of course they are. But what do retrans fees actually compensate them for? About the only costs involved on their end is for the lawyers that negotiate and write the contracts. On the other hand, they benefit from the increased viewership by charging higher ad rates. Retrans fees for the locals are virtually pure profit for them.

Sigh, no they're not. And to quote Forest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that".

Do MVPDs get the signal to more homes? Yup. But not as much as you'd think. Do having locals help MVPDs sell their services? Yup. Symbiotic relationship. They both benefit.

And before we get too deep, go back and read my post #13. That explains my stance.

 

[NYDutch]

I read your "stance". Retransmission fees have increased from ~$215 million in 2006 to ~$7.7 BILLION in 2016, while network viewership has dropped by nearly half. That makes it pretty clear to me where the greed lies...

 

[Jim5506]

All of life is centered around greed.

We occasionally overcome our natural greed and are charitable.

Capitalists are greedy, socialists are greedy, it's human nature.

We Dish customers are greedy because we think the bill's too high.

Dish is greedy because they want to make more money, same for TV stations.

If it weren't for greed we'd all still be driving horse and buggys, maybe no buggys, just a horse, maybe we'd be walking along carrying a long stick we made into a spear.

 

[ChadT41]

All of life is centered around greed.

We occasionally overcome our natural greed and are charitable.

Capitalists are greedy, socialists are greedy, it's human nature.

We Dish customers are greedy because we think the bill's too high.

Dish is greedy because they want to make more money, same for TV stations.

If it weren't for greed we'd all still be driving horse and buggys, maybe no buggys, just a horse, maybe we'd be walking along carrying a long stick we made into a spear.

That sounds like an interview I watched of Ted Turner(I believe, may have been a Rockefeller). I want to say ABC, late 80’s.

 

[ncted]

As I mentioned before, it's not all greed from the station owners.

But, we don't know how much "greed" is in play here. It would be interesting to know how much greed is on Dish's part (charging $12/month for 5(?) channels). I still say Dish is making a profit from the locals charge. But I have no idea how much.

Correct, at reasonable 5-10% increase makes sense as expenses increase. The greed part, IMHO, is the 75-250% increases the station owners reportedly are asking for. The reality is they are trying to make up for lost audience by charging the remaining audience more, even though that will just push more people away. They need to find a business model that allows them to keep what they charge low enough to keep eyes around. Their inability to do so is because they are not willing to put in the effort to make it happen, so perhaps greedy isn't the right term -- perhaps I should have said lazy. Again, this isn't always the case, but seems to be common, especially for the large media conglomerates which could easily find synergies to cut costs.

 

[mdram]

i wonder if stations that yank channels offer advertisers a refund?
they are losing viewers as many people wont switch to ota, dont have a tuner in the tv, or plain boycott the station

 

[ncted]

i wonder if stations that yank channels offer advertisers a refund?
they are losing viewers as many people wont switch to ota, dont have a tuner in the tv, or plain boycott the station

I would expect so, based on my experience in the media business. I wasn't in TV, but I would think the same rules apply that allow after-the-fact true-up. If ratings were down 5% due to a retransmission dispute, advertisers should expect a discount on their bill. This was probably not the case when most people watched via OTA. This is the reason Nielsen exists after all.

 

[KaptainRandom]

As I mentioned before, it's not all greed from the station owners.

But, we don't know how much "greed" is in play here. It would be interesting to know how much greed is on Dish's part (charging $12/month for 5(?) channels). I still say Dish is making a profit from the locals charge. But I have no idea how much.

Let's take just the 4 major broadcast nets
ABC-CBS-FOX-NBC,
keeping in mind, not counting non-afiliate locals re-trans'd by Dish.
Just the big 4.
Substitute the ESPN package for the big 4,
ESPN-ESPN2-ESPNU-ESNWS.
Consider the cost to Dish for transmitting the ESPN package.

Now, multiply that by EACH/EVERY MARKET that has different local providers for the big 4.
AND don't forget the BANDWIDTH all those individual local-market providers require to be re-trans'd.

So, I figure the cost to Dish for the 4 most popular networks, presented on different channels in every market,
must be the single most expensive cost group carried by Dish.

Footnote, don't forget to add in those non-afiliate locals too.


All this for channels that are free ota.

 

[Tampa8]

What has happened is the Networks/affiliates have changed to making the cost to Cable/Sat a major point of income rather than an auxiliary one. It's been easy because to most it's the cable/Sat's that are the villians for raising the cost with little backlash against the local. DISH took steps to change that perception with Directv and Cable following now.
I happen to agree both need each other, the networks are generally far more watched in primetime and especially since the digital change there are alot of people who can't or won't try to get them OTA for various reasons. In Ct I gave up it is very hard in Eastern Ct to get many of the networks. WTNH is near impossible since the change and in general VHF is harder to get now even VHF High. In Tampa even with no hills and towers and no more than about 35 miles getting all the channels took quite alot, a bigger antenna with an AMP something alot of people are just not going to do. Before digital I could get some of the Orlando locals even WINK from Fort Myers, almost never now.

Bottom line the system needs to be changed. No charge to cable/sat customers who can not get a signal OTA by FCC standards.(Only expenses) Any apartment/Condo complex should by law allow antennas to receive OTA if they can be received even if not in a common area. Could be a/some community antennas. If there is no obligation for a local to send a signal that can be received by all in the DMA then they should not profit from that shortcoming.
And bigger change needs to come by changing the present locals system but that is more complicated.

 

[sam_gordon]

i wonder if stations that yank channels offer advertisers a refund?
they are losing viewers as many people wont switch to ota, dont have a tuner in the tv, or plain boycott the station

Well, if you do any research in cord cutting, step #1 is to try an OTA antenna. So saying people won't switch to OTA isn't true. If they don't have a tuner in the tv, then it's not a tv, it's a monitor. If I understand things correctly, if ratings numbers are lower than allowed, advertisers will get a credit (I believe).

If ratings were down 5% due to a retransmission dispute, advertisers should expect a discount on their bill.

Well, you'd have to prove the ratings are down because of retrans dispute. Keep in mind how ratings work... not everyone is a ratings household. So if a station is blacked out on Dish (for example), it will depend on how many ratings household are subscribers are to Dish in that market.

Bottom line the system needs to be changed. No charge to cable/sat customers who can not get a signal OTA by FCC standards.(Only expenses) Any apartment/Condo complex should by law allow antennas to receive OTA if they can be received even if not in a common area. Could be a/some community antennas. If there is no obligation for a local to send a signal that can be received by all in the DMA then they should not profit from that shortcoming.
And bigger change needs to come by changing the present locals system but that is more complicated.

OTARD allows people to put antennas in areas they control. Installing Consumer-Owned Antennas and Satellite Dishes. A landlord can't prevent that.

I personally can agree that those who legitimately can't receive OTA shouldn't be charged retrans fees. However, you would need to regulate that. Because I guarantee there will be someone who can receive all the OTA stations with a set of rabbit ears/loop and claim they can't get OTA.

 

[ncted]

Well, you'd have to prove the ratings are down because of retrans dispute. Keep in mind how ratings work... not everyone is a ratings household. So if a station is blacked out on Dish (for example), it will depend on how many ratings household are subscribers are to Dish in that market.
.

Nielsen will claim they have a representative sample in each market, whether they do or not. I doubt the advertiser would go back and say, "Dish wasn't carrying your station during this time, so give us money back." More likely, the resultant dip in ratings would mean that the advertiser just gets charged less at the end of the contract term.

 

[mdram]

Well, if you do any research in cord cutting, step #1 is to try an OTA antenna. So saying people won't switch to OTA isn't true. If they don't have a tuner in the tv, then it's not a tv, it's a monitor.
.

but many people that have cable/sat do not have an antenna, they depend on thier provider to give them the channels, and for those channels to work with the receiver/dvr. they see loss of a channel, and think they cannot get it.
as for tuners, some people dont know thier tv has, or doesnt have one. again they depend on the receiver

yes people are that oblivious of things.

 

[comfortably_numb]

The reality is they are trying to make up for lost audience by charging the remaining audience more.

This. It's just like newspapers that keep increasing the cost for hardcopy delivery, and the USPS that increases the price of stamps every 6 months. They're passing along their losses to the path of lease resistance (existing customers). The way to counter it is to do exactly what Dish is doing, IMO. Shine the spotlight on the network and reveal the true cost. Market forces work! Either buy the product or let it go out of existence. IMO, letting people opt-out of locals was a very, very smart move on the part of Dish, as well as helping people install OTA antennas.

 

[Tampa8]

OTARD allows people to put antennas in areas they control. Installing Consumer-Owned Antennas and Satellite Dishes. A landlord can't prevent that.

Ok except that isn't what I proposed. I said OTA antennas should be allowed in areas NOT controlled. Then suggested they could be community used. (and my extension installed by the owners of the complex)
"These common areas may include the roof or exterior walls of a multiple dwelling unit." is exactly what I referenced.

If they don't have a tuner in the tv, then it's not a tv, it's a monitor.

Call it what you will (and yes technically it would be a monitor) some TV's including a very popular brand now come with no OTA tuner and are sold as Displays so if that becomes the trend that's an additional cost and effort to get OTA.

Tuner Free Televisions and Displays | VIZIO
"All VIZIO SmartCast™ 4K Ultra HD displays are tuner?free."

 

[ChadT41]

Except Nielsen has partnered with dish, and other providers, to give real market data as well, so there definitely will be a drop in ratings from just those numbers alone.

 

[AZ.]

This. It's just like newspapers that keep increasing the cost for hardcopy delivery, and the USPS that increases the price of stamps every 6 months. They're passing along their losses to the path of lease resistance (existing customers). The way to counter it is to do exactly what Dish is doing, IMO. Shine the spotlight on the network and reveal the true cost. Market forces work! Either buy the product or let it go out of existence. IMO, letting people opt-out of locals was a very, very smart move on the part of Dish, as well as helping people install OTA antennas.

Using Post office is a failed response to the problem at hand!....

 

[comfortably_numb]

Using Post office is a failed response to the problem at hand!....

You fail to provide a reason why that is a “failed response.”

 

[NYDutch]

Using Post office is a failed response to the problem at hand!....

And a misleading response as well, since the USPS has never changed rates more than once in a year. And the current first class $0.49 rate is still a bargain. The rate was $0.03 in 1917, which would be $0.63 today when adjusted for inflation.

 

[comfortably_numb]

And a misleading response as well, since the USPS has never changed rates more than once in a year. And the current first class $0.49 rate is still a bargain. The rate was $0.03 in 1917, which would be $0.63 today when adjusted for inflation.

They are now letting them go beyond the rate of inflation: The U.S. Postal Service Is Increasing Prices and Businesses Are Not Happy