DISH we lost our OK CBS but give us the OTA programming guide info!!

[Bruno]

Along with that change, the law needs to be updated so that providers can sell service without locals. I think satellite already can, but cable is legally (not contractually..there's an actual federal law) required to provide local channels with every level of service.

I have been scared to post since this threads seems to be going in the right direction. I might be WRONG but when the MUST carry rule came out just what did that require of the Satellite Company's? I know in OK they don't have them all. To me the GUIDE is more important than the CHANNEL.

I would have NO problem cancelling my locals if i could see the guide. Who REALLY is hurt by this is the CUSTOMERS who can not get their LOCALS by means of OTA.

 

[sam_gordon]

I have been scared to post since this threads seems to be going in the right direction. I might be WRONG but when the MUST carry rule came out just what did that require of the Satellite Company's? I know in OK they don't have them all. To me the GUIDE is more important than the CHANNEL.

I would have NO problem cancelling my locals if i could see the guide. Who REALLY is hurt by this is the CUSTOMERS who can not get their LOCALS by means of OTA.

I don't think you understand must carry. It's an "either/or" with retransmission. A channel can elect to be "must carry" and the MVPD must carry them, but they do so for free. Or the station can elect to partake in retransmission and negotiate with the MVPD for a rate. A station does not get to say "You must carry me AND pay me $x."

MVPDs (at least satellite, I'm not sure about cable) can say "we're not going to pay your requested rate." What some here at least seem to not realize is many people WANT the locals. Just like many people WANT ESPN. That "want" is why prices keep going up.

 

[dare2be]

What some here at least seem to not realize is many people WANT the locals. Just like many people WANT ESPN. That "want" is why prices keep going up.

If people really could see how much that "want" really costs them, perhaps the "want" would diminish.

 

[sam_gordon]

If people really could see how much that "want" really costs them, perhaps the "want" would diminish.

True. Of course the amount ESPN has been getting has been available for years. That price hasn't dropped.

ETA: I've said before I think locals can ask for too much. I don't think we're there yet.

 

[dare2be]

Locals are just trying to reach the level of extortion that other cable channel owners already enjoy. We don't want to get "there" at all.

 

[JosephB]

I have been scared to post since this threads seems to be going in the right direction. I might be WRONG but when the MUST carry rule came out just what did that require of the Satellite Company's? I know in OK they don't have them all. To me the GUIDE is more important than the CHANNEL.

I would have NO problem cancelling my locals if i could see the guide. Who REALLY is hurt by this is the CUSTOMERS who can not get their LOCALS by means of OTA.

Must carry refers to the fact that if a satellite provider carries *any* TV stations in a given city, it must carry all full power TV stations in those stations request to be carried. In return, they cannot demand payment for carriage.

This means for example if Dish carries ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and Fox in Atlanta, if the local Christian broadcaster who has a full power TV station wants to be carried, Dish is legally obligated to carry that Christian station. Dish can't unilaterally deny carriage.

However, if a station wants to be *paid* for their signal, then Dish is under no obligation to pay. They can deny carriage.

That's the only thing must carry refers to. There is no mandate that satellite providers send OTA guide data, because there's no mandate that satellite receivers even be capable of receiving OTA transmissions. It's purely optional that Dish receivers have OTA modules, and if Dish decided tomorrow to stop supporting OTA, they would be within their rights.

 

[Hall]

What some here at least seem to not realize is many people WANT the locals. Just like many people WANT ESPN. That "want" is why prices keep going up.

If people really could see how much that "want" really costs them, perhaps the "want" would diminish.

Locals are far, far more popular than many think. People here tend to be TV addicts and watch a TON of TV, but that's not necessarily what is typical. Then again, there's a pretty new thread here at this site, in the Dish forum, asking about people's favorite channels. I perused it just today and while there's not a lot of replies, almost everyone that did respond listed at least 1-2 of their locals as amongst their favorite channels.

 

[dare2be]

I don't have any favorite channels, just favorite content. Which is mostly older content as the newer content is less and less appealing to me. Even my daughter who used to watch a lot of Nick, Cartoon and Disney channels, now gets most of her content online and doesn't watch much TV anymore.

If I had to pick a favorite channel, it would be GSN, but only for the morning block of classic game shows.

 

[osu1991]

Som locals are still most viewed but that number is shrinking. The numbers can be skewed any way one wants by age group, viewing days, whatever. Big events still draw record numbers no matter whether ota or subscription channel, however for normal daily viewing, number of viewers are very close and getting closer.

Programming is getting diluted on both ota and subscription channels.

 

[comfortably_numb]

True. Of course the amount ESPN has been getting has been available for years. That price hasn't dropped.

ETA: I've said before I think locals can ask for too much. I don't think we're there yet.

The difference is you don't HAVE to have ESPN if you don't want it. Until recently, you couldn't opt out of locals and save money

 

[dare2be]

Programming is getting diluted on both ota and subscription channels.

That's another very good point. A channel owner can launch 2 new channels, triple their retransmission revenue, and just spread out their existing content over 3 channels instead of one. The average customer thinks "ooh, I'm getting new channels", the channel owners get more subscription revenue AND more advertising revenue as they now have more time slots for infomercials. It's a triple win$ for them.

 

[sam_gordon]

for normal daily viewing, number of viewers are very close and getting closer.

Do you have a source for that? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious and haven't been able to find anything.

The difference is you don't HAVE to have ESPN if you don't want it. Until recently, you couldn't opt out of locals and save money

Until recently, you DID have to have ESPN.

 

[osu1991]

Do you have a source for that? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious and haven't been able to find anything.
.

I had some saved that a friend at Cox gave me last May, that was from their own data, but I haven't been able to find it.

I'm kind of slow and more grumpy than my usual grumpy self at the moment. My truck got hit a couple weeks ago while on storm duty. Gave me a bad concussion and the headaches are still bothering me, so I haven't looked very hard.

 

[sam_gordon]

I had some saved that a friend at Cox gave me last May, that was from their own data, but I haven't been able to find it.

I'm kind of slow and more grumpy than my usual grumpy self at the moment. My truck got hit a couple weeks ago while on storm duty. Gave me a bad concussion and the headaches are still bothering me, so I haven't looked very hard.

No problem. I'm sorry for your injury. I am curious at how day to day ratings compare between local and cable nets.

 

[Cold Irons]

This is exactly the kind of knowledge the big media companies don't want the average viewer to see...So it'll never happen.

 

[Cold Irons]

How about a Flex-like pack where each conglomerate's channels are in its own pack, along with their relative cost. So, Viacom pack, Comcast/NBCU pack, Disney/ESPN pack, FOX pack, etc. Then we can really see who the bloodsuckers are. It would also open people's eyes on just how few companies control so many channels.

Once more, with dare2be's quote

This is exactly the kind of knowledge the big media companies don't want the average viewer to see...So it'll never happen

 

[dare2be]

Once more, with dare2be's quote

This is exactly the kind of knowledge the big media companies don't want the average viewer to see...So it'll never happen

Oh, I agree. It would take an external force to make it happen. By then, pay TV will be dead.

 

[sam_gordon]

Once more, with dare2be's quote

This is exactly the kind of knowledge the big media companies don't want the average viewer to see...So it'll never happen

Which knowledge? Who owns what? That's public information already for anyone who wants to look it up. What they're charging to be carried? I keep going back and forth on that. At times I think the public has a right to know. At others I think some business knowledge should be kept secret. Should your company be required to publicize what they pay you?

 

[Bruno]

I don't think you understand must carry. It's an "either/or" with retransmission. A channel can elect to be "must carry" and the MVPD must carry them, but they do so for free. .

YOU are so RIGHT i dont understand Must Carry. Hell i don't even know what a MVPD is. All i remember at one point the Sat guys had quite a discussion about having enough SAT capacity with must carry.

Must carry refers to the fact that if a satellite provider carries *any* TV stations in a given city, it must carry all full power TV stations in those stations request to be carried. In return, they cannot demand payment for carriage.

This means for example if Dish carries ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and Fox in Atlanta, if the local Christian broadcaster who has a full power TV station wants to be carried, Dish is legally obligated to carry that Christian station. Dish can't unilaterally deny carriage.

However, if a station wants to be *paid* for their signal, then Dish is under no obligation to pay. They can deny carriage.

THANKS, JosephB I think that is what i recalled about MUST CARRY in the old days.

 

[Bruno]

I'm kind of slow and more grumpy than my usual grumpy self at the moment. My truck got hit a couple weeks ago while on storm duty. Gave me a bad concussion and the headaches are still bothering me,

HEY OSU hope you get to felling better but at this point I am more worried about Steve Adams and his concussion.