Good to know there's an unbiased source reporting on this issue.2017 was a record year with 213 blackouts on cable and satellite systems, and the American Television Alliance knows why more carriers are fighting back:
"Retrans fees have grown an astonishing 22,400% [no, that’s not a typo] since 2005 and even more troubling, they have seen 40% annual increases over the last 3 years."
Well, let's see, 40% times 3 = 120%, which is a far cry from the total of 22,400% being reported. So, the rate of the increases lately must have really slowed down, compared to the ten-year period prior to the last three years. (I am just having fun with numbers. Obviously, they must have started with a really small number to get such a large percentage increase.)2017 was a record year with 213 blackouts on cable and satellite systems, and the American Television Alliance knows why more carriers are fighting back:
"Retrans fees have grown an astonishing 22,400% [no, that’s not a typo] since 2005 and even more troubling, they have seen 40% annual increases over the last 3 years."
I know that. I said I was making fun of the numbers. The problem with using percentages is as the base number grows larger, another increase of the same dollar amount will result in a smaller percentage increase.The 40% is year over year, in the last 3 years. The 22,000% is since 2005.
Oh I know. That is why I liked it. I also know that people will unfortunately misread it. No challenge to you, sirI know that. I said I was making fun of the numbers. The problem with using percentages is as the base number grows larger, another increase of the same dollar amount will result in a smaller percentage increase.
What would the numbers look like with a starting base of $0.07 out of curiosityUsing an online percentage calculator, assuming the cost was one cent in 2005, a 22,400% increase would now be $2.24. That would be an 18 cent increase each year.
I'm guessing that extremely large % number is a total from all the stations. Does that mean everyone is paying 22,400% more than they did in 2005? I'm not convinced. Again, spin.
Just like when the broadcasters say "it's only pennies a day." Sure it is. My monthly mortgage is pennies a day also, but I don't want to pay that amount for TV.
Let's not forget that both Dish and Directv carried a lot fewer local channels in 2005. So, of course the total for all stations is going to have a huge increase over that time frame.Using an online percentage calculator, assuming the cost was one cent in 2005, a 22,400% increase would now be $2.24. That would be an 18 cent increase each year.
I'm guessing that extremely large % number is a total from all the stations. Does that mean everyone is paying 22,400% more than they did in 2005? I'm not convinced. Again, spin.
Just like when the broadcasters say "it's only pennies a day." Sure it is. My monthly mortgage is pennies a day also, but I don't want to pay that amount for TV.
It would be $15.75. $1.20/year.What would the numbers look like with a starting base of $0.07 out of curiosity
Thank you for the list. I'll have to sort out which ones are still active, because I live in the Mobile area and the two stations in the Mobile area are up and running but I do remember they were down for about two weeks in the years they show.There is: DISH blackouts since 2010
Good to know there's an unbiased source reporting on this issue.
But it's just "pennies a day". Listing a percentage is nothing more than spin. Why can't someone say "It cost you a dime/channel a decade ago and now it's $1.70"? Oh, that's right, because THEY DON'T KNOW. But it's more incendiary to throw out a number like 1700%.Here is a more realistic sounding quote from Warren Schlichting, in a Dish local take-down video:
"Broadcasters across the country have been doing this to all pay-TV providers for years. In fact, in just the past decade, the fees broadcasters charge TV providers like Dish to carry local channels is, believe it or not, up an incredible 1700%. That's 17 times what it was just a decade ago. I know that sounds crazy. It is crazy. But unfortunately, it's also true."
OK, I'll bite. What exactly are they doing to "fight for us"? Putting up a web page? Sound like when I was three and my family took me to the ocean for the first time. According to them, I stood at the edge of the water and said "Stop Waves!". Wonder if that worked?I can't verify their numbers, but at least the ATVA is fighting for us...
Is the new XFL going against the NFL head to head? I thought they were doing the new XFL during the NFL off season, just as the original XFL did.I think the NFLs ability to listen to its Players Assoc more than it’s fans is probably the leading factor in their decline. Signing contracts get higher, and players are still less happy, and fans are getting tired of the new rules and watching players tell them what to do or think. That is where they are losing the most money. NASCAR even went through this, and are stabilizing some, but can turn for the worse at any time.
It is going to be interesting in 2020 with the XFL 2.0 to see what impact the NFL May have. We will just have to sit back and wait.
The ATVA... isn’t Dish the leader of it?