Hoak Media stations off Dish amid dispute

[KAB]

Hoak needs to get their GMs on the same page regarding the Auto Hop. One insisted it's not an issue, while another (others) says it is. I would guess they are probably not that concerned about it, but feel they need to tow the network line (at least some do).

 

[yelraek]

Legally, Dish is required by law to carry it, unless the broadcaster denies the right to carry. In the absence of a retransmission denial, "Must Carry" automatically kicks in. Can't be any clearer than that.

Yes. These are the FCC rules.

 

[navychop]

Legally, Dish is required by law to carry it, unless the broadcaster denies the right to carry. In the absence of a retransmission denial, "Must Carry" automatically kicks in. Can't be any clearer than that.

Yes. These are the FCC rules.

That seems difficult to believe. If that were literally true, Satcos would have no incentive to bargain or pay anything- they could just carry it for free. Stations refusing to allow carriage could simply be outwaited.

 

[videonex]

That seems difficult to believe. If that were literally true, Satcos would have no incentive to bargain or pay anything- they could just carry it for free. Stations refusing to allow carriage could simply be outwaited.

That is what this process is all about. Dish is currently waiting for the station owners to blink first. As long as the station says no, the sat or cable co cannot carry. You know all those local channels that nobody cares about that have nothing but infomercials 24/7. Guess why they're taking up channel space on every cable and satellite system in their local area?

 

[larryf]

I wouldn't care if Dish dropped all locals since my remote never stops there anyway. Drop mine and cut my bill, make me happy.

 

[hahler2]

So any chance that I can get Dish to activate a national feed of ABC HD for me in the mean time?

 

[Andyjunction]

Wow, so I've lost CBS and Fox and will probably soon lose AMC as well. I really could not care less who is responsible or their reasons. This is just ridiculous.

 

[JPhil]

Legally, Dish is required by law to carry it, unless the broadcaster denies the right to carry. In the absence of a retransmission denial, "Must Carry" automatically kicks in. Can't be any clearer than that.

Yes. These are the FCC rules.

"Must Carry" does not automatically kick in. If the broadcaster meets certain requirements, provides a feed (free of charge), and makes a request for carriage, then DISH "must carry" (if they carry any locals in that market). If the broadcaster requests a carriage fee, DISH can decline and "must carry" does not apply.

I should also mention that since the broadcaster in this case has already chosen retransmission consent (i.e. carriage fees), they can't switch to "must carry" until the next election cycle, which I think starts in 2015.

.

 

[whitewolf8214]

Wow, so I've lost CBS and Fox and will probably soon lose AMC as well. I really could not care less who is responsible or their reasons. This is just ridiculous.

this is charlies world lose stations and have lawsuits

 

[JPhil]

That is what this process is all about. Dish is currently waiting for the station owners to blink first. As long as the station says no, the sat or cable co cannot carry. You know all those local channels that nobody cares about that have nothing but infomercials 24/7. Guess why they're taking up channel space on every cable and satellite system in their local area?

Except that you have your logical condition backwards. "Dish is required by law to carry it, unless the broadcaster denies the right to carry." Is False. Dish may not carry without an affirmative agreement from the broadcaster (i.e. permission from the broadcaster). As the carrier and the broadcaster were unable to reach an agreement, DISH has no choice but to remove the channel from it's lineup.

 

[sam_gordon]

Legally, Dish is required by law to carry it, unless the broadcaster denies the right to carry. In the absence of a retransmission denial, "Must Carry" automatically kicks in. Can't be any clearer than that.

Not exactly. BROADCASTERS decide if they want to require a retrans agreement OR "must carry". If the broadcaster wants a retrans agreement and can't come to terms with the sat/cable provider = no signal. If the broadcaster wants on the service, they choose "must carry" and the cable/sat provider puts them on (and doesn't pay the broadcaster any money).

So, "must carry" only kicks in if the broadcaster allows it to. Cable Carriage of Broadcast Stations | FCC.gov

 

[JPhil]

Not exactly. BROADCASTERS decide if they want to require a retrans agreement OR "must carry". If the broadcaster wants a retrans agreement and can't come to terms with the sat/cable provider = no signal. If the broadcaster wants on the service, they choose "must carry" and the cable/sat provider puts them on (and doesn't pay the broadcaster any money).

So, "must carry" only kicks in if the broadcaster allows it to. Cable Carriage of Broadcast Stations | FCC.gov

Eggsactly. So if the broadcaster feels they need the carrier to reach a broader audience, they choose "must carry". If the broadcaster feels the carrier needs them to appease their subscribers, they choose retrans agreement.

Dish is playing Who Needs Whom?

 

[Tampa8]

I believe the station can not just decide that at any given time. I seem to remember there is a time frame for the station to decide. I don't know that they can change, or at least change quickly their status.
EDIT - I found it- they can only change every three years, next time is 2014 I believe.

 

[JPhil]

I believe the station can not just decide that at any given time. I seem to remember there is a time frame for the station to decide. I don't know that they can change, or at least change quickly their status.

They can elect once every three years. I think the current election period started 1/1/2012 (Ouch).

 

[sam_gordon]

I believe the station can not just decide that at any given time. I seem to remember there is a time frame for the station to decide. I don't know that they can change, or at least change quickly their status.
EDIT - I found it- they can only change every three years, next time is 2014 I believe.

But if a broadcaster had chosen 'retrans', and decide they MUST be on (change their mind to 'must carry'), they could always ask for some extremely low amount (1 penny/month/subscriber).
If a broadcaster had chosen 'must carry', they're stuck with it until 2015.

BTW, I personally don't buy into the "they want to charge us 200% more" claim. Sure sounds like a lot, but what if the old agreement was only .05/month/subscriber? 200% more would be a total of .15/month/subscriber for the new charge. Are you willing to pay a dime more a month for your local? Granted, it could be MUCH more. But since Dish is making that claim, they're trying to spin it so they sound good. How do you think it would sound if Dish said "they want to charge us a quarter more for each subscriber"? Doesn't really sound like that big a deal, does it?

 

[navychop]

It adds up. I don't want to pay anything for my locals. I rarely watch. Well, now that DH is over, I NEVER watch. I have OTA. I'd gladly pay for MD PBS. But I'm in VA. Nada.

Does anyone think locals as we know them today will be here in 5-10 years?

 

[The Fat Man]

Dish did not drop Hoak Media, Hoak Media dropped Dish. HOAK is asking for 200% more $ and mandating that Dish customers watch commercials. We lost our NBC and FOX affiliate because of this. It's stupid and immature! Not everyone has a Hopper, not everyone can auto-hop. We can't even get PTAT because our locals are not in HD yet, however, we have to suffer the immature actions of money hungry affiliates that are and have been double dipping Dish/cable/satellite and the advertiser for years!

And my sediment exactly Mrs. Esterhouse. We want you to pay more then mandate what your customers view.

 

[osu1991]

BTW, I personally don't buy into the "they want to charge us 200% more" claim. Sure sounds like a lot, but what if the old agreement was only .05/month/subscriber? 200% more would be a total of .15/month/subscriber for the new charge. Are you willing to pay a dime more a month for your local? Granted, it could be MUCH more. But since Dish is making that claim, they're trying to spin it so they sound good. How do you think it would sound if Dish said "they want to charge us a quarter more for each subscriber"? Doesn't really sound like that big a deal, does it?

That's a tired old argument. So Dish starts paying that one station .15 or .25 a subscriber, then every other station wants that deal. Suddenly they are paying that for 10-15-20 stations in one market. Factor in the costs of the pop, the fiber to get the signal from the pops to the uplink facilities, and the uplink facilities that are solely for spotbeam locals and Dish/Directv is going deep in the hole. Suddenly locals are $10 or $15 a month for consumers, so Dish/Directv can cover the costs. They should be FREE to providers since they are basically insuring a usable signal to everyone in the dma, which the broadcasters sure can't do. I know there is a substantial cost involved for Dish/Directv to get usuable signals from the dma to the uplink facilities to the sats and back down to us, so I don't mind a token fee to cover that cost of business, but that is it. This era of double dipping with ads, paid programming and retransmission fees really needs to end. Broadcasters should get back to serving the public interests.

 

[videonex]

Since there was a recent situation concerning WPCH Atlanta, (formerly WTBS) just remember who started the whole argument for retransmission consent and the repeal of the old must carry rules. That's right, Ted Turner! This was to make room on cable for the then brand new CNN.

 

[sam_gordon]

It adds up. I don't want to pay anything for my locals. I rarely watch. Well, now that DH is over, I NEVER watch. I have OTA. I'd gladly pay for MD PBS. But I'm in VA. Nada.

And I don't want to pay anything for channels *I* never watch... MTV, VH1, the various religion channels, CNN, CSPANs, the too many shopping channels, ION, Weather Channel, Animal Planet, BBC, etc, etc, etc. What do you think would happen if I started a rant about all these stations not having programs needing to be taken off?

Does anyone think locals as we know them today will be here in 5-10 years?

Yes. 25-50 years, maybe not.