Hearst Television Inc. blacks out DISH customers in 26 markets

[Tampa8]

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.

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?

I see those channels very differently. I need some type of subscription to watch them and am generally not supposed to get them for free or at least have to pick and hunt to do so, sometimes at a distance from the original airing.
OTA is the opposite it is free, assuming a signal easy to watch with many options to record all on it's own. Why be made to pay for it simply because I want to pay for other non free programming?

 

[The Fat Man]

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.

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?

Keep in mind though, Sam, retransmission agreements don't go renegotiated every year. Therefore, and you this doesn't kill your point (in fact, it can only help to strengthen it) you need to look at only the years where retransmission was negotiated. I'm sure that there was at least one or two where negotiations didn't go up. In all, they are to blame for some of the rise in rates.

Again, my soap box this entire time has been about the fundamental principle that questions whether someone has the right to complain when they give something away for free, then see someone find a way to make money off the same item. In my opinion, they don't.

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

 

[The Fat Man]

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.

I can't deny that Tampa. I don't dispute the existence of a high demand for local programming.

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

 

[sam_gordon]

Keep in mind though, Sam, retransmission agreements don't go renegotiated every year. Therefore, and you this doesn't kill your point (in fact, it can only help to strengthen it) you need to look at only the years where retransmission was negotiated. I'm sure that there was at least one or two where negotiations didn't go up. In all, they are to blame for some of the rise in rates.

But not all retransmission agreements are redone at the same time. So even though Hurst's agreement (for example) is 2017-2020 (I think they're 3 year contracts), maybe Raycom's is 2018-2021, and NBC O&Os are 2020-2023.

Again, my soap box this entire time has been about the fundamental principle that questions whether someone has the right to complain when they give something away for free, then see someone find a way to make money off the same item. In my opinion, they don't.

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

Let me bring this back...

Quite frankly, it's ridiculous that people can't resell an item, if they aren't trying to jack up the rate. I have season hockey tickets and sell them regularly. I don't jack up the price, but I do charge the face value of the seats.

So if someone is giving something away ($0.00), at what point are they jacking up the rate? If a band/singer/whatever gives away concert tickets, do you think someone should be able to sell them for ANY profit? Can I sell my free tickets for $0.10? $0.50? $1.00? $5.00? How much money am I allowed to make off something given to me for free?

 

[The Fat Man]

Different situations, Sam. I originally paid for my tickets. If i got them for free, they have a market value. Before retransmission agreements, the locals did not have market value for retransmission. They arbitrarily set one and kept increasing it. You are assuming that before retransmission agreements, the providers where charging a specific rate for the local channels.

So, I ask, can you disprove my point that before retransmission agreements the providers weren't charging specifically for locals? Was it that they were charging for the use of their equipment and the Cable channels with retransmission agreements? In the end, you are dancing around my point trying to find flaw with a technicality. At the end of the day, there isn't anything you can say that will have me change my mind. Not even if you offer me a job making millions at my local station (unless it's a Hearst station, because we all know that without the retransmission agreement, they are now dirt poor)...unless my logic is flawed. But, even then the fundamental complaint that I give away something for free, then demand compensation from someone who resells my item, or bundles it with another item they are selling, is flawed logic in my opinion.


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

 

[sam_gordon]

Were locals even carried before retransmission agreements? I've been with Dish long enough to remember their $5/month fee for locals. This was a separate line item. I still say if they (Dish) would have given locals "free" with every package, they wouldn't be looked at by the local owners as making money from their product.

Do you care to explain why you feel the free concert tickets being sold (for any amount of money) is different than selling the free OTA signal?

You also won't change my mind. I feel stations should be entitled to compensation. I also feel the relationship between locals and MVPDs is symbiotic. BOTH sides benefit.

What will be really interesting is (assuming it continues that long) whether Hearst stations see a significant drop in ratings numbers in May.

 

[The Fat Man]

I'm going way back before Dish. I'm talking back when mom and pop cable company came to my town with 30 channels, about 40 years ago.

You changed my statement about the concert tickets. If it's a free concert, like when Aerosmith played the rooftop of their old apartment building in Boston, then that's obscene to then sell entrance when the band is giving entrance for free. But, I'm referring to tickets I got for free, then chose to sell at the ticket's face value of x amount of dollars. They were different, to my point, before the retransmission agreements...because there is no evidence to yet be presented that proves that the fore mentioned mom and pop cable operation was selling access to local programming, over selling access to cable channels and bundling the free locals with the subscription. It's the same as buying a pack of baseball cards and getting a free stick of gum. I wasn't charged for the gum.

Good, then we agree to disagree. Its actually ok to disagree. Moving on.

Interesting, in deed. I actually agree with you on that.

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

 

[johnch]

Channels are still not back in Boston area Have over the air so still watch through the Hopper.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[sam_gordon]

because there is no evidence to yet be presented that proves that the fore mentioned mom and pop cable operation was selling access to local programming, over selling access to cable channels and bundling the free locals with the subscription.

There's no evidence that mom and pop cable DIDN'T pay locals either.

This goes back to my theory that if Dish would have said "Free locals" from the start instead of charging $5/month, things might be different.

FWIW, according to Wiki, retransmission consent came along in 1992.

 

[fredp]

So Friday it will be 7 weeks.... No one's budging? Since lots of folks here are saying its up to Hearst to make the first move to resolve this I wondered this: In the 26 markets that are effected just how many DISH sub's are we talking about compared to cable co's and DirecTV? If it isn't that significant then it seems Hearst is saying we can manage the loss.

 

[The Fat Man]

There's no evidence that mom and pop cable DIDN'T pay locals either.

This goes back to my theory that if Dish would have said "Free locals" from the start instead of charging $5/month, things might be different.

FWIW, according to Wiki, retransmission consent came along in 1992.

See, you are going into a realm where I am not as familiar. How Dish originally handled locals is new to me. My experience is through my years as a cable subscriber, prior to switching to satellite nine years ago. I'm jumping on the locals for the overall practice.

Yes, prior to Dish, Directv, Primestar, and USSB; before AT&T was involved in television and Verizon was even a company, back when the main source of satellite television was C-Band, the cable industry launched with the few cable only networks, and bundled local channels in. The owners at the time got upset, claiming that the Cable industry was making money off their signals, hence what I have been referring to this entire time.

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

 

[sam_gordon]

The owners at the time got upset, claiming that the Cable industry was making money off their signals, hence what I have been referring to this entire time.

That part I agree with. It's the benefit to the MVPD. Locals get a benefit by MVPD expanding the range (although most people live closer to transmitters so I don't think the increase in viewers is as large as some people think they are). MVPDs benefit because by carrying channels people want (remember the Big 4 get more viewers than every cable channel), they get more subscribers.

Now, I am against blackouts, but they are the only leverage locals have. I wish Congress would pass legislation specifying how the negotiations would work (cost/rating, arbitration, etc).

 

[dare2be]

This goes back to my theory that if Dish would have said "Free locals" from the start instead of charging $5/month, things might be different.

Let me get this straight. You think Dish single-handedly changed the entire retransmission consent landscape for all of cable and DBS with their $5 charge? Wow.

 

[sam_gordon]

Let me get this straight. You think Dish single-handedly changed the entire retransmission consent landscape for all of cable and DBS with their $5 charge? Wow.

Well, I don't know how Direct listed locals on their bill when they started LiL. When did locals start charging MVPDs to carry their product? When retransmission consent became law in 1992? When DBS came long in the late 90s? So locals have gone from getting $0 to around $1/month (a guess) in 20 years. Wow. Greedy bastards.

 

[The Fat Man]

That part I agree with. It's the benefit to the MVPD. Locals get a benefit by MVPD expanding the range (although most people live closer to transmitters so I don't think the increase in viewers is as large as some people think they are). MVPDs benefit because by carrying channels people want (remember the Big 4 get more viewers than every cable channel), they get more subscribers.

Now, I am against blackouts, but they are the only leverage locals have. I wish Congress would pass legislation specifying how the negotiations would work (cost/rating, arbitration, etc).

True about viewership. I've heard before from others that without the locals, subscription would be not be as wide spread without carriage of local programming. Just as with all our other stances on the topic, that's up for debate. But, in the end, it doesn't prove that in those early days cable was charging specifically for carriage of local channels, instead of my baseball card and stick of gum analogy. Also, in my area, cable/satellite carriage gives greater viewership. WCVB, the Boston Hearst station is carried into parts of Vermont, where their signal would hardly ever reach, OTA. Yes, it's a benefit to both, and if the Locals didn't get greedy, no one would be in these kind of messes.

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

 

[sam_gordon]

True about viewership. I've heard before from others that without the locals, subscription would be not be as wide spread without carriage of local programming. Just as with all our other stances on the topic, that's up for debate. But, in the end, it doesn't prove that in those early days cable was charging specifically for carriage of local channels, instead of my baseball card and stick of gum analogy. Also, in my area, cable/satellite carriage gives greater viewership. WCVB, the Boston Hearst station is carried into parts of Vermont, where their signal would hardly ever reach, OTA. Yes, it's a benefit to both, and if the Locals didn't get greedy, no one would be in these kind of messes.

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

So lets say you have a product people are willing to purchase. You charge $1/product. You sell out to 10 people. You raise your rate to $1.50. All 10 people still purchase. You raise to $2, all 10 still purchase. You raise to $2.50, only 9 people purchase. Are you greedy if you keep the price at $2.50? Granted the end consumer (MVPD subscribers) don't get to decide how much they'll pay, but if you buy a car, you don't get to decide which steering wheel or transmission the company puts in.

Let's assume locals are right when they say "we've reached agreements with everyone else (MVPDs), Dish won't pay the going rate." If Direct and local cable companies are paying $x, should Dish pay less?

Going along with "it will be interesting to see Hearst's ratings numbers for May", it will be interesting to see Dish's subscriber numbers for Q1. They had an increase in Q4 2016, did that hold, or did people in markets with Hearst drop to get their programming elsewhere?

 

[pattykay]

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?

2010 is when Dish finally covered every market with locals, so let's start from then forward.

But not all retransmission agreements are redone at the same time. So even though Hurst's agreement (for example) is 2017-2020 (I think they're 3 year contracts), maybe Raycom's is 2018-2021, and NBC O&Os are 2020-2023.

Raycom/Dish was last summer.

Yes, prior to Dish, Directv, Primestar, and USSB; before AT&T was involved in television and Verizon was even a company, back when the main source of satellite television was C-Band, the cable industry launched with the few cable only networks, and bundled local channels in.

USSB never carried locals. They did not even offer distant networks.

 

[gjolsen]

Channels are still not back in Boston area Have over the air so still watch through the Hopper.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using the SatelliteGuys app!

You are lucky. I live in NH, and can't use the OTA adapter as my reception here using an HD antenna is non-existent.

 

[ChadT41]

You are lucky. I live in NH, and can't use the OTA adapter as my reception here using an HD antenna is non-existent.

What is an HD OTA antenna?

 

[JSheridan]

What is an HD OTA antenna?

Usually an over priced under performing set of rabbit ears in a pretty package.