Hearst Television Inc. blacks out DISH customers in 26 markets

[JSheridan]

... FWIW, free OTA is still out there. Many people on this forum admit to being able to use it.

Yes it is for people who can get it. And for those who can't then why must they be extorted just to have something we've all grown up with that was free?

Like I said, probably no one would complain about a reasonable stipend to cover costs and make a small profit but the local channel owners have obviously gotten carried away with greed. Just look at CBS's Moonves bragging about how they made 1 Billion Dollars last year and are on track to make 2 Billion Dollars by 2020 in re-transmission fees alone. And if you don't like it then you just can't have CBS?!? If they have that attitude then they should lose the free airwaves they use as well. That would at least make it a level playing field.

 

[docdaddy]

That's why I've said "relative". Most media companies are solidly in the double digits in profit margin (12-15%), some as high as 20%. I was just pointing out that because I couldn't get an accurate number for Hearst, I could only go on the anecdotal information of "record numbers".

Don't know why everyone is talking about other industries, except maybe to introduce a strawman.

OK, this is about a year old I believe, but:

Comcast - net profit 11%
Time Warner - 12%
Time Warner Cable - 9%
CBS - 11%

Just a few, to give the general feel for media companies net profits.

Hearst is a private company, so they don't produce annual reports nor release detailed financial information. Which makes it just about impossible to know how much profit they make.

 

[Troch77]

Percent means nothing when 9% equals Hundreds of Millions and even Billions of dollars.

So Only 9%???, I wish I had that 9% over my 25% profit.
I'll even take 4%.



Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

 

[docdaddy]

Yeah, owners of locals should be held to a higher standard and different set of rules than, say, Lifetime Channel or History Channel. They've been allocated free air rights, plus they serve a local community service (public safety information during crises of different types, etc.)

I wish I knew how we could get the FTC/Congress to step into what seems to be a monthly hostage situation and set standards and rules for these negotiations, that includes a "no blackouts" clause. I suspect there are too many very rich people who own these locals and put money in campaign funds in Washington.

 

[docdaddy]

Percent means nothing when 9% equals Hundreds of Millions and even Billions of dollars.

So Only 9%???, I wish I had that 9% over my 25% profit.
I'll even take 4%.



Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

I understand what you're saying, but understand to make those millions you have to spend 91% more in millions. But yeah, I'm not taking up a collection for them.

 

[Tampa8]

We all seem to go over pretty much the same ground when disputes happen. I can't beat up on Sam he does make some good points.
Beyond almost anything else my problem is the system is very tilted towards the locals/Networks. While locals are just following the rules I don't think it was envisioned they would increase their income on the backs of cable/satellite subscribers by raising rates to the extent they are, and then be able to hold those same operators hostage. When a contract ends DISH can not simply say see ya, don't want to carry your station anymore you are charging too much. There has to be good faith bargaining and that's a problem because the stations know that the FCC is going to want those stations carried. So doing what I said at the begining of the post, the same thing I have said in the past still applies, it's the FCC/Government that has to do a complete overhaul of how local into local work. People here have come up with some ideas worth looking at over the years.
While I agree with the carry one carry all rule (to avoid cable/satellite operators from picking only viewpoints they agree with and other reasons) it may be time to allow (or mandate) the locals when carried must be offered A La Carte - giving people a choice. Similar to what DISH offered to the RSN's let the locals charge what ever they want - but only those who want them will get them. Lets see what the market it is for them rather than the somewhat artificial market now. Along with that, don't let the locals charge for those who can't get their signal for free, allowing only a nominal fee. And don't let them pull their signal during a dispute to that group either. Then come up with a formula of what the operator can charge it's customers. Rural customers or some small towns and areas are the ones left out the most on this. Many do not have good internet speed, and/or little competition so prices are high along with no OTA signal. So even streaming the locals may not be a good option.

A different idea - when a dispute is about to become into the signal being pulled - or taken off by the provider - Arbitration is activated and the station does not get pulled. If the two sides don't want arbitration they won't let the station get pulled.
There's ways to change the system that isn't working.

 

[Troch77]

I understand what you're saying, but understand to make those millions you have to spend 91% more in millions. But yeah, I'm not taking up a collection for them.

Rule number 1 in any business.
It cost money to make money.
And your profit margins in Percent , naturally gets smaller the more customers you support.
But that percentage number is more profitable.

Whether or not Dish only makes 9% or not, makes no difference because it still results in More money year after year.

So Until Dish's Net profit is the same year after year, Then I'm definitely not going to only point the finger at the networks.
Dish doesn't take losses, those potential losses are passed on to the customers bill.
Not Charlie's pay check.

I just want to know how much money does Charlie pocket when he's not paying to carry these networks, when yet the customer still pays and now doesn't receive them.

That would be like Scott, selling 200 Pub memberships, 12 months for $20, But then the very next day he closes the pub for a month.
Then what?
Scott made out okay, But how did the pub members make out?






Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

 

[budda]

In my area I lost ABC. Best thing I ever did was get a OTA adapter when my system was installed. It's all good! It will get settled soon. Always does. Must admit soon is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[docdaddy]

Rule number 1 in any business.
It cost money to make money.
And your profit margins in Percent , naturally gets smaller the more customers you support.
But that percentage number is more profitable.

Whether or not Dish only makes 9% or not, makes no difference because it still results in More money year after year.

So Until Dish's Net profit is the same year after year, Then I'm definitely not going to only point the finger at the networks.
Dish doesn't take losses, those potential losses are passed on to the customers bill.
Not Charlie's pay check.

I'm not sure I get your point. How does Dish making a 9% net profit have any relevance to who's at fault in this fight. CBS made 11% - who knows, Hearst may be making 20%. While Hearst doesn't release their financials for public scrutiny, they did have about $10 billion in revenue.

Who is at fault has everything to do with who is asking for what, e.g. Hearst is wanting what kind of increase, how do they justify that, Dish is offering what, how do they justify that, and, for me, if one party says we'll keep it on the air until we reach an agreement and make the agreement retroactive back to when the contract ended, and the other side says no, the side who forces the blackout is at fault (in my opinion.)

And everything I've read so far indicates Hearst is the one who pulled the right to broadcast even though Dish offered to make the new agreement retroactive. An article in Bloomberg business about a year ago said this is a common tactic by the locals owners because studies have shown about 70-80% of satellite (or cable) viewers blame their provider when they lose channels. Which is understandable, because 99% of subscribers aren't geeks like us who read online forums about providers. All they know is suddenly they can't watch CBS and Fox, they're paying Dish to watch TV, and their neighbors who have Directv or Comcast cable are still watching CBS and Fox. The same study showed a pretty significant number of subscribers in black outs switching providers. When it happened in my area, I knew of quite a few people who switched providers. The average person doesn't care why they can't watch and record their favorite shows, they just know they can't and they're paying a lot of money to their provider.

The owners of the locals know this. There's no significant pain to them, they're still getting their advertising dollars, if they go black. And they know Dish (or Directv or Comcast cable or whoever) have people calling and complaining and saying they don't care about what fees are going between Dish and Hearst, they just want to get the TV they are paying for. I've talked to a customer service rep during one of these, and we were just chatting about how painful it is to be a support rep during one of these. He said the LAST thing you want to tell an irate customer during one of these is "Ma'am, your contract says your programming can change at any time...' because that usually ends up in an immediate cancel my service.

At we, the viewers, are being held hostage.

 

[Troch77]

I'm not sure I get your point. How does Dish making a 9% net profit have any relevance to who's at fault in this fight. CBS made 11% - who knows, Hearst may be making 20%. While Hearst doesn't release their financials for public scrutiny, they did have about $10 billion in revenue.

Who is at fault has everything to do with who is asking for what, e.g. Hearst is wanting what kind of increase, how do they justify that, Dish is offering what, how do they justify that, and, for me, if one party says we'll keep it on the air until we reach an agreement and make the agreement retroactive back to when the contract ended, and the other side says no, the side who forces the blackout is at fault (in my opinion.)

And everything I've read so far indicates Hearst is the one who pulled the right to broadcast even though Dish offered to make the new agreement retroactive. An article in Bloomberg business about a year ago said this is a common tactic by the locals owners because studies have shown about 70-80% of satellite (or cable) viewers blame their provider when they lose channels. Which is understandable, because 99% of subscribers aren't geeks like us who read online forums about providers. All they know is suddenly they can't watch CBS and Fox, they're paying Dish to watch TV, and their neighbors who have Directv or Comcast cable are still watching CBS and Fox. The same study showed a pretty significant number of subscribers in black outs switching providers. When it happened in my area, I knew of quite a few people who switched providers. The average person doesn't care why they can't watch and record their favorite shows, they just know they can't and they're paying a lot of money to their provider.

The owners of the locals know this. There's no significant pain to them, they're still getting their advertising dollars, if they go black. And they know Dish (or Directv or Comcast cable or whoever) have people calling and complaining and saying they don't care about what fees are going between Dish and Hearst, they just want to get the TV they are paying for. I've talked to a customer service rep during one of these, and we were just chatting about how painful it is to be a support rep during one of these. He said the LAST thing you want to tell an irate customer during one of these is "Ma'am, your contract says your programming can change at any time...' because that usually ends up in an immediate cancel my service.

At we, the viewers, are being held hostage.

Exactly, we agree running around spouting off percentages is useless.
And I agree we are the ones that suffer.

And both Dish and The Networks both don't take losses.

Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

 

[dare2be]

A different idea - when a dispute is about to become into the signal being pulled - or taken off by the provider - Arbitration is activated and the station does not get pulled. If the two sides don't want arbitration they won't let the station get pulled.
There's ways to change the system that isn't working.

Perfect. Works for me.

 

[docdaddy]

Exactly, we agree running around spouting off percentages is useless.
And I agree we are the ones that suffer.

And both Dish and The Networks both don't take losses.

Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

Common ground. For people like you and me to argue with each other about this is kinda silly, since we're talking about millionaires with huge egos trying to prove who's you know what is bigger. While we end up unable to watch what we paid for - and I don't want to hear the "But Dish can pull every single channel from your 250 package and only give you QVC and The Kardashian Channel and you can't complain because that's what you signed - the fact is that very few of their subscribers would choose Dish over Directv or cable if they only carried, say, ABC and Fox and didn't carry NBC and CBS. Heck, I had Directv since 1995, kept it when I moved from MI to Chicago and then KC. When I moved to the city I'm in now, even though I had no complaints about Directv, I switched to Dish - not because Directv didn't carry the locals. but because they didn't carry them in HD! So locals can make a huge difference.

Bottom line is what many have stated - we've seen this get completely insane. You never saw all of this years ago (re: the locals getting blacked out.) The rich guys who own these companies clearly aren't going to succeed in making it better. Only Congress and the FTC can fix this. We need a champion in the Senate with some horsepower. Who isn't getting millions a year in campaign funding from media companies. And unicorns who crap money on our porch every morning.

 

[HDdude24]

I'm not even authorized to watch on the nbc app

 

[ChadT41]

What I read earlier is you don't have access to the app but you do to the website.

 

[KAB]

I'm not even authorized to watch on the nbc app

What I read earlier is you don't have access to the app but you do to the website.

Yep, as per our most recent local dispute. "Computer?" (with a Scottish accent).

 

[ChadT41]

Haha. That reminds me of my daughter. We were cleaning my closet out and I had set a couple desktops in the hallway while we dropped a bunch of crap off at Goodwill. When we got home, my daughter goes "we forget some really old CD players". I was confused as I have not owned a CD player in years. It was the desktops....

 

[chipmaster]

I remember years ago when when we lost Blue Bloods for six weeks due to negotiation talks. We have been through this with many networks and talk about upset we were very upset. Enough was enough!!! We live in a valley on a mountain with no chance of an outside antenna working! We tried. Finally we also purchased Direct TV. On Dish Network we had everything so we pulled half our programming from Dish and put that half on Direct. Locals on both. Problem solved. We now have the best of both worlds with no fear unless one day both satellite companies negotiate the same channels at the same time. Dish lost money and Direct gained money and we are very happy with the result. I only wish everyone would do this.

 

[dare2be]

We now have the best of both worlds with no fear unless one day both satellite companies negotiate the same channels at the same time. Dish lost money and Direct gained money and we are very happy with the result. I only wish everyone would do this.

How much does that run you? Which channels are you missing from both having lower packages with each?

 

[The Fat Man]

So PSIP guide data, which has been in existence since DTV began over a decade ago, and is able to be displayed by every TV manufacturer, is beyond Dish's technical ability to handle? Is that what you believe? If that's the case, Dish has some serious problems.

ETA: I know Dish's software has never read the PSIP stream. I've never claimed it does. I think Dish saying they're "looking out for the customers" and then refusing to read the PSIP stream is hypocritical. Think about the OTA stations people get with no guide data (with no dispute in the equation). Why does Dish refuse to read the PSIP guide data?

Even if they could add the data to the Dish receivers, PSIP Data gives about few hours of info at best. It doesn't go a week out like Dish pays to have done. So, I'm assuming that the next complaint (should your proposal be possible) would be "I can't set my DVR to record Thursday Night's episode of Chicago Street Sweeping (that's next in the series) until Thursday Afternoon." The whole system is broken. This has been the case for a long time. Two cooperate headaches having a peeing contest and using the viewer as bait. Do you think that fixing the (explative) guide info will solve this ongoing issue in the industry?

 

[The Fat Man]

My personal favorite thing about all this is on the channels where my lost locals (WCVB and WMUR) it states in the six minute loop to press info for the number to contact my local Hearst Station. I pressed info yesterday and got the info for Jerry Maguire. I pressed info today and got the info for An American Tale. Come on Dish, SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!