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

[NYDutch]

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

We're getting off topic of course, but it's about time they gave the USPS more flexibility in setting their rates. The Congress caused losses have been unsustainable for years. FEDEX and UPS don't have artificial rate caps, why should the USPS that has to compete with them...

 

[AZ.]

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

The USPS was bound by a law by congress, that they had to fund pensions for 75 years, in a 10 year window!
So that means someone who hasnt even been hired needs there pension set aside!
The USPS is one of the most efficient parts of the US government.

 

[comfortably_numb]

The USPS was bound by a law by congress, that they had to fund pensions for 75 years, in a 10 year window!
So that means someone who hasnt even been hired needs there pension set aside!
The USPS is one of the most efficient parts of the US government.

“Efficiency” and “government” are two words that should rarely be used in the same sentence

 

[AZ.]

“Efficiency” and “government” are two words that should rarely be used in the same sentence

So you ignore my point and give an opinion?.....should of expected that around here...point out where someone is wrong and they just pursue their agenda?

You want lower prices and controls of the problem?.....Only way to fix it is to pass laws....But its easier to blame everything else?

 

[comfortably_numb]

So you ignore my point and give an opinion?.....should of expected that around here...point out where someone is wrong and they just pursue their agenda?

You want lower prices and controls of the problem?.....Only way to fix it is to pass laws....But its easier to blame everything else?

I know where you stand. And there’s no debating it with you because you don’t want to hear anyone else’s opinion.

 

[ChadT41]

What if we had less laws, and let things naturally work themselves out?

 

[comfortably_numb]

What if we had less laws, and let things naturally work themselves out?

sam_gordon and AZ. wouldn’t like that very much.

 

[sam_gordon]

What if we had less laws, and let things naturally work themselves out?

sam_gordon and AZ. wouldn’t like that very much.

Well, let's see... there is no law saying MVPDs must pay for retrans. Aren't they free to say "we won't carry you"? Did you ever think MVPDs feel the price they're paying for locals must be worth it? Otherwise, why pay?

What stops Charlie from saying "We won't pay one cent for your station."? Oh, wait, he'd lose customers.

I think it's great that Dish allows you to opt out of locals. You don't even need an OTA antenna to do so.

ETA: In order to fully do away with retrans, wouldn't you need a law saying stations couldn't charge it?

 

[comfortably_numb]

I think it's great that Dish allows you to opt out of locals. You don't even need an OTA antenna to do so.

Something we both can agree on!

 

[ncted]

Well, let's see... there is no law saying MVPDs must pay for retrans. Aren't they free to say "we won't carry you"? Did you ever think MVPDs feel the price they're paying for locals must be worth it? Otherwise, why pay?

What stops Charlie from saying "We won't pay one cent for your station."? Oh, wait, he'd lose customers.

I think it's great that Dish allows you to opt out of locals. You don't even need an OTA antenna to do so.

ETA: In order to fully do away with retrans, wouldn't you need a law saying stations couldn't charge it?

If it weren't for copyright laws that require payment for retransmission and this:

S. Rept. 106-42 - SATELLITE HOME VIEWERS IMPROVEMENTS ACT

 

[comfortably_numb]

If it weren't for copyright laws that require payment for retransmission and this:

S. Rept. 106-42 - SATELLITE HOME VIEWERS IMPROVEMENTS ACT

Can you give us the Cliff’s Notes summary of what that act is?

 

[ChadT41]

You wouldn’t need a law saying stations couldn’t charge for it. You can remove the law saying you have to pay for it. Let free market ride. But we are really playing semantics there.

As it is now, Dish cannot day we want a Fox from Detroit and a NBC from Phoenix in MS

 

[NYDutch]

Well, let's see... there is no law saying MVPDs must pay for retrans. Aren't they free to say "we won't carry you"? Did you ever think MVPDs feel the price they're paying for locals must be worth it? Otherwise, why pay?

What stops Charlie from saying "We won't pay one cent for your station."? Oh, wait, he'd lose customers.

Charlie could certainly refuse to pay, and if the station felt they needed the viewership they'd lose, they could invoke the "must carry" rule. Of course Charlie still wouldn't have to pay them anything...

 

[pattykay]

Can you give us the Cliff’s Notes summary of what that act is?

The act that created the copyright license for local-into-local re-transmission by satellite. Prior to that, satellite only had a distant-network copyright license.

 

[mwdxer1]

Dish needs to keep driving people towards OTA. Making locals optional with line-item pricing was also a very smart move.

Wish they could tell these stations “Sure, we’ll pay you more, but we’re going to pass those costs right on to the customer, and they are now free to drop your station at-will.”

I totally agree. Also with OTA, the viewer often gets more TV as many sub channels like Decades, COZI, METV, etc are not on Dish.

 

[ncted]

Charlie could certainly refuse to pay, and if the station felt they needed the viewership they'd lose, they could invoke the "must carry" rule. Of course Charlie still wouldn't have to pay them anything...

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.

 

[ncted]

Can you give us the Cliff’s Notes summary of what that act is?

The more I read this, the less I like it. Just read this bit from the reporting requirements:

(1) Initial lists.--A satellite carrier that makes
secondary transmissions of a primary transmission made by a
network station under subsection (a) shall, within 90 days
after commencing such secondary transmissions, submit to that
station a list identifying (by name and street address,
including county and zip code) all subscribers to which the
satellite carrier currently makes secondary transmissions of
that primary transmission.
(2) Subsequent lists.--After the list is submitted under
paragraph (1), the satellite carrier shall, on the 15th of each
month, submit to the station a list identifying (by name and
street address, including county and zip code) any subscribers
who have been added or dropped as subscribers since the last
submission under this subsection.

Section 3 says they cannot do anything with the information except monitor compliance, but who really thinks stations haven't used that data in a non-anonymized way for their own benefit.

 

[comfortably_numb]

The more I read this, the less I like it. Just read this bit from the reporting requirements:

(1) Initial lists.--A satellite carrier that makes
secondary transmissions of a primary transmission made by a
network station under subsection (a) shall, within 90 days
after commencing such secondary transmissions, submit to that
station a list identifying (by name and street address,
including county and zip code) all subscribers to which the
satellite carrier currently makes secondary transmissions of
that primary transmission.
(2) Subsequent lists.--After the list is submitted under
paragraph (1), the satellite carrier shall, on the 15th of each
month, submit to the station a list identifying (by name and
street address, including county and zip code) any subscribers
who have been added or dropped as subscribers since the last
submission under this subsection.

Section 3 says they cannot do anything with the information except monitor compliance, but who really thinks stations haven't used that data in a non-anonymized way for their own benefit.

At least this means the stations know for sure when subscribers drop their station by opting out of Locals on Dish.

 

[NYDutch]

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.

Cable and satellite television systems in the US pay royalty fees twice yearly to the Licensing Division of the U.S. Copyright Office based on percentages of their semi-annual gross receipts. The fees are then distributed to eight "Claimant Groups" covering various categories. In the overall scheme of things the fees are relatively small, amounting only to about $400 million annually divided among the two dozen or so US cable and satellite system operators.

 

[sam_gordon]

You wouldn’t need a law saying stations couldn’t charge for it. You can remove the law saying you have to pay for it. Let free market ride. But we are really playing semantics there.

Yes, we're talking semantics. But is there a law saying MVPDs MUST carry locals (and pay for it)? I thought the law said if a station elects "must carry" then they can't be paid. If a station says "retrans", then in order for MVPD to carry them, they get paid. Isn't that the free market? MVPDs shouldn't be (and aren't that I know of) forced to carry a local channel AND pay for it. Therefore Charlie (any MVPD owner) can simply says "nope, not going to do it". Why do you think they don't do that? Could it be their customers WANT those channels and TPTB have decided that what the locals are asking for is "worth it"? Isn't that letting market forces do their thing?

As it is now, Dish cannot day we want a Fox from Detroit and a NBC from Phoenix in MS[/QUOTE]
There are copyright issues at play for distant networks though. Using your example, the Detroit Fox isn't allowed to let their signal be shown outside of the Detroit market. If they could, they'd simply stream 24/7.