Hearst Television Inc. blacks out DISH customers in 26 markets

[The Fat Man]

Ok, stop holding back, how do you really feel about it?

I don't like it, Tampa. Not one bit.

The funny part is that I actually wrote that without any emotion in my head. Remember, I'm writing that long boring dissertation. So, when I get chance to write something that isn't bland, I take the chance.

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

 

[dare2be]

Bottom line, the rules allow locals to get retransmission money.

Somewhere in the rules there should have been caps on yearly increases (not 20x the rate of inflation) and rules about extortion and holding signals hostage, especially over unrelated content/channels.

 

[mdram]

Somewhere in the rules there should have been caps on yearly increases (not 20x the rate of inflation) and rules about extortion and holding signals hostage, especially over unrelated content/channels.

i totally disagree. as a station should get whatever it deems market value to be
but at the same time, a provider should only pay market value.

something is worth whatever someone is willing to pay.

what should happen is each station should be a line item on a bill with its cost
just to let people know

 

[Tampa8]

i totally disagree. as a station should get whatever it deems market value to be
but at the same time, a provider should only pay market value.

something is worth whatever someone is willing to pay.

what should happen is each station should be a line item on a bill with its cost
just to let people know

In a free market situation absolutely. This isn't it is a Government contrived way of doing business.

 

[comfortably_numb]

what should happen is each station should be a line item on a bill with its cost
just to let people know

I still believe this is the ONLY way to fix this problem in the current political climate. Lobbying congress, letters to the FCC, that won't do anything. Let people opt in or opt out. Hurting these stations in their pocketbook is the only way they will listen!


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[dare2be]

I'm able to opt out with the Flex Pack. This should be the norm.

 

[comfortably_numb]

I'm able to opt out with the Flex Pack. This should be the norm.

Agreed. If Hearst thinks their stations are worth premium dollars to customers, then let us see the true cost and we will decide if that's the case. I doubt many people will pay $10 a month for one local channel. That's the same as buying HBO!


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Blackloz]

What's funny about all these blackouts with locals is last summer on DirecTV I lost my ABC for two months and we also have Bell Satellite and I record all our shows as backups on Bell and in all these years Bell has never had any locals pulled, they have always been consistent even with their US locals from Boston & Seattle always on and reliable. Even programming interruptions don't happen hardly ever on Bell. I can't count how many times right in the middle of a show all of a sudden it gets interrupted for so called "breaking news", switch over to Bell and there it is no interruptions. I think our providers & distributors could learn a few things from Canada.

 

[Tampa8]

What's funny about all these blackouts with locals is last summer on DirecTV I lost my ABC for two months and we also have Bell Satellite and I record all our shows as backups on Bell and in all these years Bell has never had any locals pulled, they have always been consistent even with their US locals from Boston & Seattle always on and reliable. Even programming interruptions don't happen hardly ever on Bell. I can't count how many times right in the middle of a show all of a sudden it gets interrupted for so called "breaking news", switch over to Bell and there it is no interruptions. I think our providers & distributors could learn a few things from Canada.

Apples and Frogs. Two huge differences. First Bell has to come to an agreement with two Markets, not 210 like DISH and DIrectv does. Second and the crux of the problem with DISH and DIrectv, competition. It doesn't have to be Seattle and Boston they carry though two likely ones, it could be other Markets if the price isn't right. No choice here.

In fact that is close to what many of us have said for many years long before now that could be the model - just give us a National Network that is paid for once X 4 not over and over 210 times X 4.

 

[comfortably_numb]

I received my new OTA adapter for my Wally today, and I can report that Dish is providing guide data for our local Hearst station, KMBC. Apologize if this is redundant info. I was surprised to see the guide data there.

 

[sam_gordon]

I doubt many people will pay $10 a month for one local channel. That's the same as buying HBO!

I doubt any locals are asking for $10/ month. Probably around $1. And again, I'll point out "The Big 4" get more viewers (over time) than ESPN, which costs you $5+/month.

Another way to think about this (although I know no one will) is your monthly fee is giving you the convienance of having a single box for all your stations and (possibly) DVR service.

The counter argument to that is Dish passes the money on to the local. So I ask you this... lets say the locals gave MVPDs the signal for free, BUT the MVPD charged you the same amount (you don't see ANY discount). Would you be happy then?

 

[dare2be]

The locals and ESPN don't cost me anything.

 

[pattykay]

what should happen is each station should be a line item on a bill with its cost
just to let people know

I would like to see that, but other people would complain about the bill being too cluttered. So, I think this should be an opt-in. If you opt-in, you get the "enhanced" billing that shows the cost of each station. If you don't want to know the cost of each station, or don't like having too many line-items on the bill, you would get a normal bill, like the way it is now.

 

[The Fat Man]

I doubt any locals are asking for $10/ month. Probably around $1. And again, I'll point out "The Big 4" get more viewers (over time) than ESPN, which costs you $5+/month.

Another way to think about this (although I know no one will) is your monthly fee is giving you the convienance of having a single box for all your stations and (possibly) DVR service.

The counter argument to that is Dish passes the money on to the local. So I ask you this... lets say the locals gave MVPDs the signal for free, BUT the MVPD charged you the same amount (you don't see ANY discount). Would you be happy then?

True about ESPN. The difference though is that ESPN has always been a pay to view network. Many people are done with their crap as well, but this thread is about the locals. Your middle paragraph actually agrees with my last point to you from Sunday Night. Before the retransmission fees, the providers were charging for the convince of equipment use in fees, they were not charging foe carrying a channel for free. That's the same as them charging to view must carry channels. Then the locals chimed in that they weren't getting b their fair share of the cut, which partly was the cause of the raise in monthly subscription rates. Your third paragraph is hypothetical. I would love to test that theory, but it is not allowed do to the current broken status quo.

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

 

[Tampa8]

True about ESPN. The difference though is that ESPN has always been a pay to view network. Many people are done with their crap as well, but this thread is about the locals. .......
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using the SatelliteGuys app!

Another good point. Using ESPN isn't a great example their cost and insistence they be in most packages is now coming to haunt them.

Where I may diverge from some others and where I have always agreed with Sam is I do think people demand their locals far more than do not want them. The Networks still get far more viewership than Cable. DISH or Directv, any of them can lose a few locals during disputes but not decide not to carry any locals. I am even at the point where I can't blame the local Stations for negotiating as the rules allow. It's the rules that have us where we are.
The problem with all that is their service is free, is designed to be free OTA. Why then do you have to pay for it with no choice (Some exceptions now) just because you get a paid TV service? If the Locals want to price themselves too high we should not have to pay for them then.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Another good point. Using ESPN isn't a great example their cost and insistence they be in most packages is now coming to haunt them.

Where I may diverge from some others and where I have always agreed with Sam is I do think people demand their locals far more than do not want them. The Networks still get far more viewership than Cable. DISH or Directv, any of them can lose a few locals during disputes but not decide not to carry any locals. I am even at the point where I can't blame the local Stations for negotiating as the rules allow. It's the rules that have us where we are.
The problem with all that is their service is free, is designed to be free OTA. Why then do you have to pay for it with no choice (Some exceptions now) just because you get a paid TV service? If the Locals want to price themselves too high we should not have to pay for them then.

They might just price themselves out of existence.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[wemathis]

Whats the longest a dispute over a local channel has lasted?

 

[MikeD-C05]

They might just price themselves out of existence.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

They have in my house with the Flex pack.

 

[Tampa8]

Whats the longest a dispute over a local channel has lasted?

Over a year I believe but I think over one channel. It seems it will have to be Hearst to makes the next move I think DISH is done negotiating on current terms.

 

[sam_gordon]

True about ESPN. The difference though is that ESPN has always been a pay to view network. Many people are done with their crap as well, but this thread is about the locals. Your middle paragraph actually agrees with my last point to you from Sunday Night. Before the retransmission fees, the providers were charging for the convince of equipment use in fees, they were not charging foe carrying a channel for free. That's the same as them charging to view must carry channels. Then the locals chimed in that they weren't getting b their fair share of the cut, which partly was the cause of the raise in monthly subscription rates. Your third paragraph is hypothetical. I would love to test that theory, but it is not allowed do to the current broken status quo.

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

I'd like to point out your "partly was the cause of the raise in monthly subscription rates". First, I totally agree with you, they're partially responsible for that. But, let's look at how much the rates have gone up. When I google historic Dish pricing, I find this page: http://jameslong.name/pricing.html. From 2003 to 2016, the price for the package have roughly doubled. But that's over 13 years. If I did my math right, that's between 7-13% most years (along with a couple 0%). When did LiL become super wide spread? I also wonder how much ESPN increased their charges over the same time.

Why then do you have to pay for it with no choice (Some exceptions now) just because you get a paid TV service?

No different than many other channels. I don't watch MTV, VH1, Fox News, CNN, etc. Why do I have to pay for those with no choice?