Fisher Communications Channels are BACK on Dish!

[NightRyder]

I received a reply from Fisher. This one isn't canned!

Thanks XXXX - the best argument I can provide to you is that the satellite companies charge you a separate fee to receive the local stations. So, if you sign-up with their service, you maybe pay $5.99 (for example) to receive the local stations. Do you believe that all $5.99 should go to DISH without any compensation to the broadcasters for the programming we provide? Why is it that cable networks (that run commercials too), receive subscriber fees from cable and satellite companies, but broadcasters should not?

Our stations are free if you chose to receive it over-the-air. But if a cable or satellite company is going to charge you to watch it, its only fair that we receive a modest portion of fee as compensation for the product we provide. I would not assume that any business out there believes that the product they produce (however it may be regulated) should be subject to another business taking it and reselling to its own customers and keeping all the money.

We want to see this issue resolved as quickly as possible for the sake of our viewers and advertisers. I appreciate do appreciate the thoughtful points you've outlined below and maybe we just disagree on philosophy.

Best regards,

Rob

Robert I. Dunlop
Senior Vice President Operations
Fisher Communications, Inc.
100 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 510
Seattle, WA 98109
Tel: (206) 404-3065
Fax: (206) 404-3665
_________________________________

My Response:

Rob - Thanks again for the reply. No we are not going to agree on this because your comparing apples and oranges. A broadcast station is not a cable network. How would you like to have to bid against cable channels for the use of public air waves? If you want to be a cable station then give up your broadcast licenses, exclusivity to network programming and go compete with the other cable channels, otherwise stop trying to have it both ways.

I would love to be able to throw up an OTA antenna and receive free HD or even analog programming, but KATU has chosen not to serve the area I live in. I should not have to pay 1 cent more to view your programming than a viewer in Portland using rabbit ears does, but I am left with no alternative. Now you want me to pay more for something that I should be receiving for free? Explain how that is fair?

If you believe Dish is doing more than just recovering costs, and overcharging myself and other Dish subscribers for the expense of delivering network channels to us than we'll be right behind you, but that is not what I'm seeing. All I see is another company trying to extract money from me that they have no right to. When it comes to delivering free OTA broadcast networks to viewers, Dish shouldn't be making money on them, and neither should you. If you have no right to charge that Portland viewer using rabbit ears you should have no right to charge me for the exact same product, directly or indirectly.

Regards,

 

[DishSubLA]

I'll certainly retract if in fact Scott verifies that his site is not compensated for referrals.

All Scott did was post the letter and his, obviously, short subjective comment. Your insinuation of any business arrangement Scott may have with Dish is irrelevant, as he merely posted the letter for all of us to see for ourselves. Scott did not launch into an advocate's rant.

I think the rest of us are smart enough to read the letter and glean the from it to make our own conclusions. Would you rather Scott not post the letter? That wouldn't be very intelligent. The broadcasters have their soapbox, paid for and owned by the taxpayers (many federal grants and "loans" handed out to broadcasters) to put any spin they want on the negotiations, and often that is the only source of information we can get, what the broadcasters, and the newspapers many of them own, are willing to tell us.

I have no problem having access to Charlie's spin. At least then, I would have both sides' point of view to draw my own conclusion. It's called critical thinking.

 

[Stargazer]

Its all about the money - for both sides. They are obviously asking for more than the other networks or Dish would not be disputing the fees that they are wanting. I think a portion of these increases that we pay are towards the network stations as the price has only went up $1 on the network station package (went up none if you purchase a basic package) yet the basic packages have went up quite a bit.

 

[stejamand]

Scott's link to the KOMOnews was a fun read. I really liked at the bottom where they gave alternate means of viewing their locals besides dish. Notice D* in in all caps..DIRECTV. Hmmmm is that a small underlying hint of a threat by them to push E* customers to D*? Just found that interesting.

That seems like it's meant to push customers to DirecTV, but I've often seen the name spelled in all Caps because that's the way the name is trademarked.

 

[stejamand]

I'm in the Eugene, OR local market (where hd broadcasts are not availabe or in the forese able future). We lost CBS today because of the Fisher Dispute. Is there any chance of dish giving us another CBS feed, hopefully in HD?

I asked, they won't.

 

[TNGTony]

Dish Network is not allowed (by court injunction) to sell anyone distant network feeds to any one for any reason, EVER! That is unless the laws change which would make the court injunction moot. Until that time, which won't be any time soon, people can stop asking if Dish will give subscribers any distant networks because they lost the local channels.

see ya
Tony

 

[Juan]

Dish Network is not allowed (by court injunction) to sell anyone distant network feeds to any one for any reason, EVER! That is unless the laws change which would make the court injunction moot. Until that time, which won't be any time soon, people can stop asking if Dish will give subscribers any distant networks because they lost the local channels.

see ya
Tony

not 100% true congress needs to pass another law or change SHVRA when it comes up for renewal

 

[jpmarto]

According to my wife, apparently KOMO 1000 am is now running ads (or is it Direct TV?) stating something about Dish Network denying us KOMO TV and how it's not American etc... then it goes into a Direct TV ad talking about the the choices they provide... *sigh*

I heard the commercial Saturday morning. It was definitely by DirectTV, the gist of it was: "since Dish refuses to carry KOMO (the local ABC affiliate) and deny you your favorites such as Grey's Anatomy ... (listed 3 or 4 others) you should switch to DirectTV." I was a little surprised at how aggressive and opportunistic it was, if not rather deceptive.

Welcome to the recession, companies going after the deep pockets (Fisher vs Dish) and the rest stomping the competition at any sign of weakness. Free market capitalism at its finest.

 

[goldengoose]

Cable company in Oregon doesn't pay for Fox retransmission and doesn't want to either. They lose Fox there. Probably most of those served by that cable are close enough to get it with OTA antenna- so they may hold out.

Dish doesn't carry any locals for Bend's 90000 folks- so no opportunity to poach some subscribers during the hold out.

 

[navychop]

not 100% true congress needs to pass another law or change SHVRA when it comes up for renewal

Since the courts have decided to bar Dish from delivering distants, that can only be over-ridden by legislative action.

 

[navychop]

.... I was a little surprised at how aggressive and opportunistic it was, if not rather deceptive......

Interesting indeed, since it seemed for years the satcos would never go after each other, only after cable.

 

[TNGTony]

not 100% true congress needs to pass another law or change SHVRA when it comes up for renewal

I did say "unless the laws change". Changing the SHVERA would be "changing the law".

 

[Yes616]

I did say "unless the laws change". Changing the SHVERA would be "changing the law".

I thought I read somewhere that these laws only pertained to analog origin signals? How about digital distants? Shouldn't this make a difference? Until a final determination is made in a court of law but this does not seem to be addressed yet.

 

[navychop]

Ah, it gets more interesting.

 

[TNGTony]

I thought I read somewhere that these laws only pertained to analog origin signals? How about digital distants? Shouldn't this make a difference? Until a final determination is made in a court of law but this does not seem to be addressed yet.

If this were the case Dish would be doing distants right now since all full power broadcast channels have digital counterparts now. They don't because they cant.

See ya
Tony

 

[long_time_DNC]

I heard the commercial Saturday morning. It was definitely by DirectTV, the gist of it was: "since Dish refuses to carry KOMO (the local ABC affiliate) and deny you your favorites such as Grey's Anatomy ... (listed 3 or 4 others) you should switch to DirectTV." I was a little surprised at how aggressive and opportunistic it was, if not rather deceptive.

Welcome to the recession, companies going after the deep pockets (Fisher vs Dish) and the rest stomping the competition at any sign of weakness. Free market capitalism at its finest.

That's almost predatory. Sheesh.

Anyway, I wrote KOMO. Told them I don't support their position and why, and that I've got 3 other locals I can watch for news and network programs...

 

[cebbigh]

Actually I am going to cancel DTV. I have an install set up for both Fios and Dish. Dish for the DVR and Fios for the channels that Dish doesn't get. Pretty much the same thing you are doing now with Dish and DTV.

After review of the order as I thought it was placed and the actual order itself I cancelled it. I requested Turbo HD only and they had me set to receive Top 200. I get a better deal with DTV already if they are determined to force SD on me and would have to pay a cancellation fee. So I'll just go sparse with DTV for the remainder of the contract (11 months) and hope verizon comes out with the long promised external storage for their fios dvr.

 

[Kento565]

I am finished with Dish Network for Good!!!!!!

I am going back to Comcast here in the Seattle area.They just added 29 channels in HD and more to come next month and I am sick and tired of Dish Network playing hardball with programmers and they take forever to get agreements for new HD channels.Let's face it.Charlie is cheap,he has to outsource CSR's to India,pretty pathetic.I have to eat 18 months left on my contract.This is the 3rd time I have left them.and I am done for good this time. The KOMO channel 4 mess-up is the last straw for me. Comcast is hooking me up on Jan 3rd. Bye-Bye Dish Network for good!!!!!

 

[Slamminc11]

...Charlie is cheap,he has to outsource CSR's to India,pretty pathetic.

Except for those 12 or so Dish Call Centers here in the US...

...I have to eat 18 months left on my contract.This is the 3rd time I have left them.and I am done for good this time. The KOMO channel 4 mess-up is the last straw for me. Comcast is hooking me up on Jan 3rd. Bye-Bye Dish Network for good!!!!!

Well, since this is your third time to leave, I'm guessing Dish is saying the same thing to you, and will be happy to take back some of their money they invested in having you as a sub three times...

 

[TalkingRat]

Interesting points on both sides. I can see one argument in favor of the locals. In watching xx.1 OTA, you might also watch xx.2 and thus the local stations has a chance to capture larger revenue in advertising, beyond xx.1. They effectively lose that opportunity when pay tv broadcasts only xx.1, so maybe a modest compensation is in order.

Dish says it's an 82% increase they are demanding, Fisher says that's a gross exaggeration. No way we can judge where the truth is. It sounds like some of the math may be connected to unpaid fees over the last couple years.

Locally Dish charges $7/month for 7 locals, and I do see why the locals could be reluctant to let Dish take all the profit in reselling their signal, while in effect taking away their potential audience on subchannels.