DISH urges FCC to take immediate action against Sinclair

[Hall]

I remember when Dish did the "no increase" thing and read about what DirecTV did at the same time. What Iceberg posted is what I recall happened.... Dish just played a shell game. Unless you joined Dish and quit within a 2-year window, it was a marketing gimmick.

 

[mdram]

Looking back on DTV, I cannot find specific increases, but what I have seen are direct increases of 6% each year.

utter bs
11/10/2013 - 110.63
8/10/2015- 114.53 changed an h24 to a genie, and kept hr24

 

[Yespage]

I remember when Dish did the "no increase" thing and read about what DirecTV did at the same time. What Iceberg posted is what I recall happened.... Dish just played a shell game. Unless you joined Dish and quit within a 2-year window, it was a marketing gimmick.

Actually it was worse than a shell game. Because at Year 0 of the freeze, they started the Year 1 increase already. So instead of paying a Year 0 rate, then Year 1 rate (a couple bucks more), then Year 2 rate (a few more bucks), we paid the Year 1 rate for the first and second years!

Dish: We didn't raise your rates.
Customer: Yes you did, right before you "froze" them you raised them two years worth.

But in other news, what does this have to do with Sinclair?

 

[Bobby]

Actually it was worse than a shell game. Because at Year 0 of the freeze, they started the Year 1 increase already. So instead of paying a Year 0 rate, then Year 1 rate (a couple bucks more), then Year 2 rate (a few more bucks), we paid the Year 1 rate for the first and second years!

Dish: We didn't raise your rates.
Customer: Yes you did, right before you "froze" them you raised them two years worth.

But in other news, what does this have to do with Sinclair?

That is exactly how it went down. That was pointed out, right here on this website, when it happened....

 

[CK SatGuy]

Dish and Sinclair talks continue. http://deadline.com/2015/08/dish-si...rken-153-local-channels-dish-says-1201499796/

Honestly, the FCC and Congress need to make a new law to limit the amount of TV stations and affiliate group can own. Sinclair should NOT be allowed to own 121 stations. It's just too many to deal with in one big contract and it puts more pressure on the TV provider to give in to Sinclair's greedy demands.

As for the other 32 stations that are supposedly owned by Cunningham and Deerfield media, well, there's been some evidence that those 2 companies are just shell companies that Sinclair owns so they bypass FCC ownership rules. There have been complaints in the past about this and the FCC should force Sinclair to sell these stations to other affiliate groups and probably even fine Sinclair for trying to break the rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunningham_Broadcasting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerfield_Media

 

[sam_gordon]

Honestly, the FCC and Congress need to make a new law to limit the amount of TV stations and affiliate group can own. Sinclair should NOT be allowed to own 121 stations. It's just too many to deal with in one big contract and it puts more pressure on the TV provider to give in to Sinclair's greedy demands.

I agree. I think they need to go to the old rules where (paraphrasing from my generally faulting memory), one owner couldn't own more than one station in a market, nor in a certain percentage (10%?) of markets.

 

[Yespage]

I agree. I think they need to go to the old rules where (paraphrasing from my generally faulting memory), one owner couldn't own more than one station in a market, nor in a certain percentage (10%?) of markets.

Let them own them all. The law should be a free for all for ownership... but if a company owns more than 1 station, they aren't allowed to charge a carriage rate to cable/sat companies.

 

[Mr Tony]

Looking back on DTV, I cannot find specific increases, but what I have seen are direct increases of 6% each year.

I have a spreadsheet at home that I kept of all my Directv bills from 2010-2014 that I could verify the info. But nowhere near home for a while

But I know D* went up $2 or $3 a year. One year the DVR fee went up too

 

[Yespage]

Let's not quibble over quarters. In general, they have been both going up about the same.

 

[ChadT41]

I have a spreadsheet at home that I kept of all my Directv bills from 2010-2014 that I could verify the info. But nowhere near home for a while

But I know D* went up $2 or $3 a year. One year the DVR fee went up too

Ice, will you email me that whenever you have an opportunity. I didn't start watching them til about 2012, and am just curious. Not trying to be in a pissing match.

 

[Mr Tony]

Honestly, the FCC and Congress need to make a new law to limit the amount of TV stations and affiliate group can own. Sinclair should NOT be allowed to own 121 stations. It's just too many to deal with in one big contract and it puts more pressure on the TV provider to give in to Sinclair's greedy demands.

let them own how many they want. Honestly some of the stations they bought were horribly being run before that and I'm sure some of the smaller market stations would have gone under.

As for the other 32 stations that are supposedly owned by Cunningham and Deerfield media, well, there's been some evidence that those 2 companies are just shell companies that Sinclair owns so they bypass FCC ownership rules.

companies did that for YEARS. Create shell companies or have a high up official own a separate station

There have been complaints in the past about this and the FCC should force Sinclair to sell these stations to other affiliate groups and probably even fine Sinclair for trying to break the rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunningham_Broadcasting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerfield_Media

Well if you are going to fine Sinclair, then do it to all the other companies who did it too.

The FCC has cracked down on it. So what do companies do now to get around the rules? Buy the assets of the other station they cant buy outright and move the programming to their own station as a subchannel. Thats what Gray is doing too. Or buy a low power station, then move the programming to that as LP stations dont count towards the "cant own 2 of the big 4 in a market"

 

[Mr Tony]

I agree. I think they need to go to the old rules where (paraphrasing from my generally faulting memory), one owner couldn't own more than one station in a market, nor in a certain percentage (10%?) of markets.

The rule is still in place. One owner cannot own more than one of the Big 4 in a market (unless they have more than 8 stations in the market). But again companies are getting around the rules. Gray buys the assets of a station, shuts it down and then moves the programming to a subchannel on its owned station. They did it in Nebraska (moved NBC to a subchannel on CBS), North Dakota (Fox in the west and CBS in the east to the NBC), Wisconsin (moved FOX in Wausau to the CBS) or they buy a low powered station and moved it there (Gray in Wausau). LP stations dont count towards the rule. Thats why the same people in Jonesboro, AR got FOX and CBS on 2 LP stations in a couple months.

 

[Claude Greiner]

Actually it was worse than a shell game. Because at Year 0 of the freeze, they started the Year 1 increase already. So instead of paying a Year 0 rate, then Year 1 rate (a couple bucks more), then Year 2 rate (a few more bucks), we paid the Year 1 rate for the first and second years!

Dish: We didn't raise your rates.
Customer: Yes you did, right before you "froze" them you raised them two years worth.

But in other news, what does this have to do with Sinclair?

I remember that.