DISH Sues Networks

[sam_gordon]

It will be a free market when the government enforced monopoly protecting local stations against competition is gone. Providers carry locals because that's the only way they can get the programming customers want. Absent government coercion, the so called "broadcast" networks would be distributed just like every other network, without the outrageously expensive infrastructure - multiple satellites, spotbeams, POP's and backhauls for hundreds of markets, not to mention the untold number of wasted man hours expended dealing with each and every one of them at contract renewal time. Only then will the marketplace be just like ESPN, Discovery, et al.

So then you can have charges of $4/subscriber/month vs. <$1/subscriber/month.

It IS still a free market. Providers don't have to carry locals. They are making a business decision to do so. Does that come with a price? Yes. Just like they make a decision to carry/not carry other available channels.

 

[GaryPen]

So then you can have charges of $4/subscriber/month vs. <$1/subscriber/month.

It IS still a free market. Providers don't have to carry locals.

Cable carriers surely are required to carry them. I don't know about Sat carriers.

 

[sam_gordon]

Cable carriers surely are required to carry them. I don't know about Sat carriers.

I'm not sure. I know for sat carriers, stations can choose whether they use "must carry" or "retrans". I think the majority of stations by far have selected "retrans".

 

[Neutron]

Cable does have one advantage, and that is they can carry multiple DMAs whereas satellite can only give you one. My city would be one of those situations.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I think I figured out why Sam is so anti consumer.

Sam Gordon of Wlex Tv - Lexington, KY 40505

 

[Tampa8]

I think I figured out why Sam is so anti consumer.

Sam Gordon of Wlex Tv - Lexington, KY 40505

 

[sam_gordon]

Cable does have one advantage, and that is they can carry multiple DMAs whereas satellite can only give you one. My city would be one of those situations.

I'll agree that's not right/fair. But I wonder if cable is fighting satellite having that option or if it's the locals.

 

[GaryPen]

Thank you for noticing the correlation and next logical step in my argument. Normal free-market forces should dictate that the channels should be low-bidding each other to be placed in the providers' lowest package tier for expanded exposure. The current system of extortion of subscription fees by content providers is BROKEN.

Not really. Content is king. Nobody chooses a carrier because they like the logo. They choose because they have the content they want at a price they can afford. If Dish doesn't provide the content that the people want to watch, they will not have any exposure to offer the providers.

It's no different than a retail store. Will you shop at one with stock or empty shelves?

 

[sam_gordon]

I think I figured out why Sam is so anti consumer.

Sam Gordon of Wlex Tv - Lexington, KY 40505

So it's ok for everyone to be biased against the big bad "network", but once someone tries to explain the other side, they are "anti-consumer". Nice to know your forum accepts all viewpoints.

Look, I get no one wants to pay any more money than they have to. But I think some of the logic on this rant doesn't make sense.

"Locals get more viewers from satellite, so they shouldn't charge." But true networks get ALL viewers from satellite/cable, so why is it ok that THEY charge?
"Locals air commercials to make money, so they shouldn't charge." But true networks also run commercials, so why is it ok that THEY charge?
"Locals don't air any good content, so they should be taken off the satellite spectrum." Someone has that opinion about EVERY channel Dish/Direct/Cable puts out.
"Locals give their content away, so they shouldn't charge." But people aren't allowed to profit off of their reception. You can't charge anyone a fee to come watch Amercian Idol at your house. So should companies be able to?

No, I'm not worried about losing my job because locals go away. There will ALWAYS be a market for local television... local news if nothing else.

Personally, I hate watching commercials. I skip over them just like the next guy. And if you notice, I haven't said anything about the hopper suit.

 

[dare2be]

Look, I get no one wants to pay any more money than they have to. But I think some of the logic on this rant doesn't make sense.

"Locals get more viewers from satellite, so they shouldn't charge." But true networks get ALL viewers from satellite/cable, so why is it ok that THEY charge? It isn't ok, at least at the rates most are asking for.
"Locals air commercials to make money, so they shouldn't charge." But true networks also run commercials, so why is it ok that THEY charge? It isn't ok, since they now run as many commercials as the broadcast networks.

No logic problems from me.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Sam honestly the only thing good local stations are going to be good for IS local news. The networks themselves have already started putting the nail in the c0ffin for the affiliates. The networks don't really need them anymore, there are so many ways now to watch network shows without ever watching the local affiliate. And if you ask me I think its a shame, but in other aspects it is the evolution of television.

We may agree to disagree but I think TV Stations should pay satellite and cable companies to broadcast their signals much like many tv stations rent space on tv towers to broadcast their signal. Without cable or satellite carrying these signals TV stations would be without millions of eyeballs which as we know equals lower ratings which in turn means less revenue for the station.

Now with that said I dont understand why the industry is canabelizing itself, and I also dont understand all the fighting and why these companies dont work together better. DISH is a prime example they should be partners with all of these channels yet instead it seems that are always fighting in one way or another... I dont get it... if they work together then they both profit...

You got to admit the industry has gotten really strange over the past 5 or 6 years.

 

[stvlg1]

Sorry for a dumb question, but other than cost what would keep dish from giving all subs a OTA tuner and just tell the big 4 networks
to take a hike on retran's fees? Not only that but what if all Cable and satellite providers did this? It seems we are on our way to this
point now. I applaud Dish for they are doing. In a worst case scenario and Dish lost retrans rights to the big 4 networks, most would
already have plan B in place. So what is really at stake here? Ego, Bragging rights, bad image? I could care less how Dish is perceived
as long as I pay less and have access to best DVR's on the market.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I don't think that they could do that. I seem to remember the Government requiring them to cover a certain amount of the USA with their locals a few years ago.

I am sure DISH would love to drop all the locals, look how much space it would open up for other things.

 

[dfergie]

Sorry for a dumb question, but other than cost what would keep dish from giving all subs a OTA tuner and just tell the big 4 networks
to take a hike on retran's fees? Not only that but what if all Cable and satellite providers did this? It seems we are on our way to this
point now. I applaud Dish for they are doing. In a worst case scenario and Dish lost retrans rights to the big 4 networks, most would
already have plan B in place. So what is really at stake here? Ego, Bragging rights, bad image? I could care less how Dish is perceived
as long as I pay less and have access to best DVR's on the market.

Not everyone can get OTA, especially with the change over to digital from analog, many in rural areas lost tv in that deal.

 

[sam_gordon]

No logic problems from me.

Thank you for at least saying it.

 

[stvlg1]

Not everyone can get OTA, especially with the change over to digital from analog, many in rural areas lost tv in that deal.

Isnt that what Distant Networks is for?

 

[sam_gordon]

Sam honestly the only thing good local stations are going to be good for IS local news. The networks themselves have already started putting the nail in the c0ffin for the affiliates. The networks don't really need them anymore, there are so many ways now to watch network shows without ever watching the local affiliate. And if you ask me I think its a shame, but in other aspects it is the evolution of television.

I don't disagree with you.

We may agree to disagree but I think TV Stations should pay satellite and cable companies to broadcast their signals much like many tv stations rent space on tv towers to broadcast their signal. Without cable or satellite carrying these signals TV stations would be without millions of eyeballs which as we know equals lower ratings which in turn means less revenue for the station.

I don't disagree with the argument. I simply think if you make the argument, you should make it for EVERYONE (locals, ESPN, Discovery, MTV, etc). ALL networks benefit from more eyeballs.

Now with that said I dont understand why the industry is canabelizing itself, and I also dont understand all the fighting and why these companies dont work together better. DISH is a prime example they should be partners with all of these channels yet instead it seems that are always fighting in one way or another... I dont get it... if they work together then they both profit...

Again, I agree with you. Stop being logical. It's tough being "anti-consumer" when you are.

You got to admit the industry has gotten really strange over the past 5 or 6 years.

I don't know about strange... different, definitely.

 

[Rolling Joe]

So then you can have charges of $4/subscriber/month vs. <$1/subscriber/month.

As opposed to the hundreds of local station fees the operators pay now? Sounds like a bargain! Not to mention the god-knows-how-much E* and D* payed to build out that ridiculous infrastructure. Monthly subscriber fees might actually be 50% of what they are now.

It IS still a free market. Providers don't have to carry locals. They are making a business decision to do so. Does that come with a price? Yes. Just like they make a decision to carry/not carry other available channels.

You bet it comes with a price!

 

[sam_gordon]

As opposed to the hundreds of local station fees the operators pay now? Sounds like a bargain! Not to mention the god-knows-how-much E* and D* payed to build out that ridiculous infrastructure. Monthly subscriber fees might actually be 50% of what they are now.

Huh? Let's even use CBS as an example. Dish pays the local affiliate in every market <$1/month/subscriber. Just for the sake of argument, let's say they have 1 million subscribers. So Dish pays out $1 million dollars to various local stations each month. Now, make CBS a "normal" network (ESPN, Discovery, etc). Now CBS charges Dish $3-4/month/subscriber. Granted, the locals aren't getting the money now, but Dish is paying more. That sounds like a bargain to you?

E* and D* built out that "ridiculous infrastructure" because that's what they needed to be competitive with cable. Look at the infrastructure a cable operator needs... a physical cable to EVERY subscriber. Aren't both of those costs "part of doing business"? If the sats didn't offer locals, do you think they would have survived? And now people want the locals to go away. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[mike123abc]

The real boom in DBS subscriber growth came when they added LiL. The locals are the most watched channels and people expect them from every provider. Dish & DIRECTV pretty much do not make any profit on them - between affiliate fees, backhaul and much more expensive satellites, it costs a ton to provide them. But, they would probably have less than half the subs they have now without locals.