Hearst Television Inc. blacks out DISH customers in 26 markets

[The Fat Man]

1.) Truth or not, in my opinion, you can't blame someone from profiting off something that is given away for free. I create a service and make it free for everyone, and someone else bundles it with other pay services and charges, then they were more of an entrepreneur than I was.

2.) I think you missed my point. The main idea is that if someone gives something away for free, they lose my compassion for their complaint when someone else then decides to add an additional service and bundle this free item.

3.) I don't know whose at the right, but take a moment, go to a Hearst station's website, my two are WCVB and WMUR, and read their information! They are crying "whoa me" and neglecting to admit that they have a hand in this. I would appreciate if you get off the pedestal and understand where people get their frustration. Quite frankly, this undisclosed junk is ridiculous. Hearst showed their cards.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Nebugeater]

OTA is double dipping as much as ESPN, Disney, History, etc. The only difference is ESPN, Disney, History, etc MUST rely on MVPDs to get ANY viewers. But they still show ads.

It would only be the same if the local could be distributed anywhere in the US. In the case of the locals we are held hostage to a footprint that they own.

 

[comfortably_numb]

It would only be the same if the local could be distributed anywhere in the US. In the case of the locals we are held hostage to a footprint that they own.

No doubt. I would pay a lot more for out of market locals. Wish it was still like the good ol days. Had Denver, LA, NY, Raleigh NC all on C Band.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[dare2be]

You (and most on here) believe it's the broadcaster

My reason for believing it's the broadcaster is the factual evidence that retrans rates have been on the climb at 20x the rate of inflation over the last 10 years, and that corporate broadcaster owners have projected that revenue to continue to skyrocket. They are basically counting on it in their future revenue projections. So it's a pretty sound belief.

 

[AlaJoe]

1.) Truth or not, in my opinion, you can't blame someone from profiting off something that is given away for free. I create a service and make it free for everyone, and someone else bundles it with other pay services and charges, then they were more of an entrepreneur than I was.

Lets take this one step further. They "the locals" make money based on how many people the can get to look at the product they are giving away for free. More viewers equals more dollars from advertisers. Dish gets the locals more viewers. The locals should be letting dish rebroadcast their signal for free and thanking them for doing so.

I would love to see the cable companies, Dish and Direct get together and all refuse to pay any rebroadcast fees in just one market. Because of the Advertising revenue that would be lost it would not be long before the locals would allow the rebroadcasting for free. The locals need the cable companies Dish and Direct more than the cable companies Dish and Direct need them.

 

[ibglowin]

Hearst should be paying Dish IMHO.

Did Hearst pay to build a Satellite? NO
Did Hearst pay to build a rocket and put the Satellite into earth orbit? NO
Does Hearst pay Dish to maintain the satellite and keep it operational 24/7/365? NO

Does Hearst get more viewers because Dish is rebroadcasting their signal thus making it easier for Hearst viewers to actually receive and watch that signal? YES

 

[The Fat Man]

Lets take this one step further. They "the locals" make money based on how many people the can get to look at the product they are giving away for free. More viewers equals more dollars from advertisers. Dish gets the locals more viewers. The locals should be letting dish rebroadcast their signal for free and thanking them for doing so.

I would love to see the cable companies, Dish and Direct get together and all refuse to pay any rebroadcast fees in just one market. Because of the Advertising revenue that would be lost it would not be long before the locals would allow the rebroadcasting for free. The locals need the cable companies Dish and Direct more than the cable companies Dish and Direct need them.

Said better than I did. Quite frankly, if Hearst was saying "We're still at an impass, and have not come to an agreement." Then I would turn a blind eye. But this "Dish is on the clock", and their crying about how Dish isn't being fair. Define fair...from your perspective.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[ChadT41]

The providers are also responsible for the way they receive the signal as well.

 

[ChadT41]

The providers are also responsible for the way they receive the signal as well.

 

[plumerman2003]

There is a problem and the FCC needs to fix it. The fees are out of control. In the last 10 years fees paid for "local" tv programming have gone from 215 Million in 2006 to 7.6 BILLION last year. Hearst is greedy just like every other broadcast network!

 

[comfortably_numb]

There is a problem and the FCC needs to fix it. The fees are out of control. In the last 10 years fees paid for "local" tv programming have gone from 215 Million in 2006 to 7.6 BILLION last year. Hearst is greedy just like every other broadcast network!

Not gonna happen under the current administration


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[h2ouup2]

I wish Dish would let us view other locals when this happens. If we loose an ABC local, then find another so PTAT still works. I have OTA and still get my locals and the guide, so I can still watch ABC in my area. However out of principle I won't be watching the News, Weather, or Sports when/if they ever come back for a while anyway. Why? Because I've gotten use to other channels.

 

[mdram]

I wish Dish would let us view other locals when this happens. If we loose an ABC local, then find another so PTAT still works. I have OTA and still get my locals and the guide, so I can still watch ABC in my area. However out of principle I won't be watching the News, Weather, or Sports when/if they ever come back for a while anyway. Why? Because I've gotten use to other channels.

they cant provide another local, per fcc rules

 

[h2ouup2]

I, know I just wish the would/could. We need to get that law changed.

 

[comfortably_numb]

We? Nothing we the people can do about it unfortunately


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[Nascarken 91xg]

Yes so true the Fcc need to step back a few wavelengths.
The ham radio operators did it so why can't we do the same.
To STOP ?this big mess.they are handing out and no caps
On what they can charge on internet service and all the rest.
Thats why I dropped satdish back in the late 80s,and put up
An outdoor tv antenna,for the free broadcasting&internet and phone
access.

Service provider $50Dallas a month ,but I see that it will go up
but not my income,and just think no caps!!!!

 

[Voyager6]

I believe that this is a Congressional issue not FCC. Congress allowed for retrans consent not the FCC.
http://www.americancable.org/issues/page/Retransmission_Consent

 

[mdram]

I believe that this is a Congressional issue not FCC. Congress allowed for retrans consent not the FCC.
http://www.americancable.org/issues/page/Retransmission_Consent

fcc set the regs allowing neighboring stations

from your link
"Making matters worse, federal rules and regulations hinder small cable operators serving small and rural markets to offer broadcast signals from neighboring television markets, even when the neighboring broadcast is willing to offer the same network programming at a more reasonable rate."

 

[dare2be]

I believe that this is a Congressional issue not FCC. Congress allowed for retrans consent not the FCC.
http://www.americancable.org/issues/page/Retransmission_Consent

So you're saying there IS a chance.

I tried typing that with a straight face.

 

[Voyager6]

fcc set the regs allowing neighboring stations

from your link
"Making matters worse, federal rules and regulations hinder small cable operators serving small and rural markets to offer broadcast signals from neighboring television markets, even when the neighboring broadcast is willing to offer the same network programming at a more reasonable rate."

I think that you are thinking about the DMA regs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_market

A Television Market Area (TMA) is a group of counties in the United States covered by a specific group of television stations. The term is used by the U.S. Government's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate broadcast, cable, and satellite transmissions, according to the Code of Federal Regulations, at 47 CFR § 76.51 and FCC.gov. The TMAs not only have full control over local broadcasts, but also delineate which channels will be received by Satellite or Cable subscribers ("must-carry" rules). These market areas can also be used to define restrictions on rebroadcasting of broadcast television signals. Generally speaking, only stations within the same market area can be rebroadcast. The only exception to this rule is the "significantly viewed" list.[2] Virtually all of the United States is located within the boundaries of exactly one TMA.

A similar term used by Nielsen Media Research is the Designated Market Area (DMA), and they control the trademark on it. DMAs are used by Nielsen Media Research to identify TV stations that best reach an area and attract the most viewers. There are 210 Nielsen DMAs in the United States, 56 of which are metered (in other words, viewership in these markets are estimated automatically instead of through the archaic diary system still in use in the smaller markets)