Exactly. Back in the day when national cable channels started forming, the allure to cable was that you pay a monthly subscription fee to get channels that had limited to no commercial interruptions, at least far fewer than the broadcast channels. Now, there is no difference in advertising time per hour or the number of paid programs between "cable" and broadcast channels. But the cable channels continue to charge way more for subscription fees year after year while double-dipping on advertising revenue, which paves the way for the broadcast stations to say "well, we should too". The only way for consumers to put an end to this practice is to stop paying for it, or go back to media ownership regulation rules and let the channels stand or die on their own in a competitive market.
Hoak Media stations off Dish amid dispute
- Thread starter redelephants
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 103
- Views 12K
I think the letter is probably BS because Dish doesn't negotiate with the individual station but the ownership group.
Here's where I think your argument falls downs.
1. OTA has been around a lot longer as analog. Far fewer than you are thinking can get a reliable digital signal. In Eastern Ct. it's near impossible to get all four networks OTA reliably. When it was analog, I got them all, one barely. Proof? I qualified for one channel when it was analog for being in a white zone. I now qualify (and get with AAD) all four.
Even in Florida, it is hard to get one of the four networks since they moved their antenna. (CBS - WTSP) I had to get a rotor and pre-amp for my inlaws just to get it. Even at that, when a plane goes between them and the transmitter they lose the signal for a few seconds. During higher winds when the antenna moves a little, they lose the signal. This isn't the days of analog, when I could get most any channel. There is no way people in apartments with any distance from the transmitter is going to get a reliable digital signal. If you are willing to spend much more than in the past, have a huge antenna with a pre-amp and probably a rotor, yes many can get locals. Just throwing up an antenna, no. In many less populated is where signals did not reach, but those areas are not as sparse as years ago, almost anywhere. Things have changed, where once signals not reaching an area meant a relative few not getting it, now those areas have far more people. Add to that the digital signal not reaching where analog did, and there are far more than I think you are giving credit to that can not get the affiliate signals.
2.Lets ask the networks, if they are willing to take all four networks off cable and Satellite and go back to pre-cable/satellite days. Millions would not or could not put up an antenna, or even get the signals. I'm betting they do not feel as you do that networks don't need cable/satellite.
3. That does not mean I do not watch network programming, I do, but nowhere near as much as years ago. It's been replaced with programming I like better, on USA, or TNT, or History, EuroNews,etc..... If given an ultimatum, I could only have one or the other, I would keep satellite, drop networks. With the advent of internet news, don't need the affiliates as much as in the past for that either. I do prefer local network news, but could learn to live without it.
Money, Money, Money!!! Both sides can't get enough and we are the little pawns that feed these pigs. What is funny to me is, the FCC made everybody go digital and expected stations to just eat that expense. The station is going to pass the bill on down until WE pay for it. The difference between locals and stations like ESPN is I can't go buy a piece of equipment and watch ESPN for free. I can go buy an OTA and watch my locals for FREE. NBC and ABC really need to work on their programming. I am trying to think of the last time I watched something on NBC. I pay a lot of money for a bunch of different channels. I will find something to watch or I will shut it off and read a book.
Millions can not, and that's the point. It's supposed to be free, the affiliates are protected from anyone else giving me their programming because the signal is supposed to be free, it's not if you can't get the signal. That's where Cable/Satellite comes in. They should be providing their signal for free to them, since the carrier is getting their commercials to people who otherwise would not see them. Of course it's about money, but Direct TV and Dish make virtually nothing off of giving the locals. The cost of the satellite space, fielding calls probably more about locals than anything else, and having to negotiate with each and every affiliate or small group is expensive. And for most you are getting more than just the four networks, many areas have many more local channels carried.
1. You've given me TWO examples... out of how many viewers? I will readily agree when you get "far enough" away from the towers, picking up good reception is hit or miss. However, you're missing my point... the MAJORITY of viewers live within (or maybe a county or so) the city of license. I never said digital OTA was easy or perfect. And, as mentioned before, broadcasters were FORCED to transition. They HAD to put up millions of dollars for new equipment.
2. I never said stations didn't benefit from cable/sat. Of course they do. But who benefits more? The station or the cable/sat provider? I think the cable/sat providers do, but not by much. They should all work together IMO.
3. That's fine for you. Not everyone agrees with you. That's why many people waited until LiL happened before going to sat from cable.
Also, for those who keep pointing out "more eyes" and "more ratings" thanks to sat... maybe, maybe not. Let's say for example, 100,000 Dish subscribers in market 'Springfield' (not to be confused with any real Springfield market) watch station 'WWWW' thanks to Dish. Unless some of those subscribers have Neilson books, odds are that will do NOTHING for WWWW ratings. Only 56 out of the 210 markets are metered. (That's from Wiki, so if my numbers are wrong, please correct me). Without the meters in EVERY house, there's no true way to know how much a station benefits by being on cable/sat.
Sam,
Just to clarify my take on this. Both locals and cable channels are double dipping. Neither should be doing so. However, I find the locals more egregious because they are granted both monopolies and the use of public airwaves to make their money. Their transmission is supposed to be free to receive, but supported by ads. To charge for this "free" signal is an abuse of the government granted position they have been given. It's not like there's any competition, Dish can't provide someone with a neighboring signal if negotiations end badly. The public in those instances are just hosed.
So, I say this... If you want to be compared to the cable stations and double dip like them, then give up the monopoly position and the airwave spectrum. I'm sure we can put it to much better use by providing some other public good. In reality, this would kill the affiliate model for the big four broadcast networks. But this is why I see the "but cable channels double dip too" argument as not an apples to apples comparison.
For the record, I think that cable channels should have to reduce the numbers of commercials they show based on what they charge for retransmission.
Just to clarify my take on this. Both locals and cable channels are double dipping. Neither should be doing so. However, I find the locals more egregious because they are granted both monopolies and the use of public airwaves to make their money. Their transmission is supposed to be free to receive, but supported by ads. To charge for this "free" signal is an abuse of the government granted position they have been given. It's not like there's any competition, Dish can't provide someone with a neighboring signal if negotiations end badly. The public in those instances are just hosed.
So, I say this... If you want to be compared to the cable stations and double dip like them, then give up the monopoly position and the airwave spectrum. I'm sure we can put it to much better use by providing some other public good. In reality, this would kill the affiliate model for the big four broadcast networks. But this is why I see the "but cable channels double dip too" argument as not an apples to apples comparison.
For the record, I think that cable channels should have to reduce the numbers of commercials they show based on what they charge for retransmission.
dangue-
I can respect that argument. However, broadcaster (with possible rare exceptions) aren't "given" or "granted" use of the airwaves. Someone linked this in another forum and I think it's appropriate...
Source: CommLawCenter: FCC Administration Archives
Also, broadcasters pay filing fees, so it's not like the spectrum is "free".
As far as the "monopoly" argument, I do know there are some cable companies that carry networks from neighboring markets. Why those cable companies are allowed to do that and satellite companies aren't, I don't know.
I can respect that argument. However, broadcaster (with possible rare exceptions) aren't "given" or "granted" use of the airwaves. Someone linked this in another forum and I think it's appropriate...
Source: CommLawCenter: FCC Administration Archives
Also, broadcasters pay filing fees, so it's not like the spectrum is "free".
As far as the "monopoly" argument, I do know there are some cable companies that carry networks from neighboring markets. Why those cable companies are allowed to do that and satellite companies aren't, I don't know.
While I agree with your logic, wouldn't the same thing have to apply to all of the "paid" channels? For example, if the logic is that affiliates are being paid twice, ad revenues and re-trans fees, then what about all of the other national channels like USA, TVLand, etc? I can understand having to watch commercials on the four major networks because you receive it for free OTA, but why do we have to watch commercials on channels like USA? Of course I understand that if commercials were cut then we would have to pay higher fees like we do for premiums but if you look at how much ESPN cost per sub, it's almost comparable to some of the premiums. I think households are getting fed up with all of the greed and will eventually find alternative ways to view programming.
sam_gordon said:
Sam,
Fair enough. I'll concede the free part of the spectrum argument. But the monopoly portion of the argument is, by far, the most problematic from a consumer point of view. It artificially limits the marketplace and enhances locals' bargaining positions in these negotiations. I realize there's no good solution to this (since doing away with monopolies will mean many locals will end up off the air and local news and other programming would be lost), but the current status quo of double dipping will just leave more and more consumers aggravated. Especially given that commercials make up nearly a 1/3 of any hour of programming. Demanding more for retrans and increasing the number of commercials is not the way to win consumer support. If anything, it just makes the networks look greedy and will drive consumers to find other forms of entertainment.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
I'm sure the satcos know exactly how much each channel is watched, so in a sense every home is "boxed." how much they share that knowledge is up in the air.
Nielsen is an attempt to approximate realty. Locals getting more eyes from satcos and cablecos results in increased sales for advertisers (reality).
Nielsen is an attempt to approximate realty. Locals getting more eyes from satcos and cablecos results in increased sales for advertisers (reality).
Consider too that the main reason for these retransmission fees is the network programming. How many times should Dish/Directv have to pay for this programming. There are over 200 NBC affiliates alone. So Dish/Directv are paying at least 200 times for the same programming from NBC.
I alluded to that somewhere along the way, that having to deal with each affiliate in each DMA is madness. Cable does not have that to the extent Satellite does because no cable company is in every DMA, nowhere near. Good point, prime time programming is the same, over and over for each contract. Certainly local news counts for something, but yes, it's the prime time programs.
I definitely agree with the bolded. I also think stations can ask too much for a retrans agreement. I *DON'T* believe stations should hold satcos hostage by asking for exorbitant rates. It's just what the definition of 'exorbitant' is. That level is different for everyone.
You know, if a satco was smart, assuming they DID have that data readily available, why not trade that data for a retrans agreement? OR, they can sell the data to Neilson or consultants, whoever.
Honestly, I don't know how much TV advertising REALLY generates sales. When's the last time you bought a car just because you saw it on television? Granted, you may say "that looks interesting" and do some research, so I guess it can help, but I wonder just how much.
Don't forget the affiliates are paying the network also (so I've heard). Also, networks don't fill 24/7. I'm estimating about 12 hours M-F, obviously more on weekends. The other hours come from local news, syndicated programming, and paid programming (I don't like it anymore than you do).
The problem is that the major networks now want a certain percentage/dollar amount of new local retransmission deals. So, the stations have to ask for more just to get the same amount that they ended up with before.
Essentially the networks know they are pretty much saturated with commercials, so now they have to tap this new vein of money. They know that the vast majority of people get their programming either through satellite or cable, so they can charge virtually everyone.
Broadcast networks will rake in retransmission fees, report says - latimes.com
Essentially the networks know they are pretty much saturated with commercials, so now they have to tap this new vein of money. They know that the vast majority of people get their programming either through satellite or cable, so they can charge virtually everyone.
Broadcast networks will rake in retransmission fees, report says - latimes.com
Television providers pay a fee per subscriber who has access to the channel, and only subscribers within a given DMA get their local NBC affiliate on Dish. So, if there were one national NBC Channel that cost the average of what the 200 affiliates charge, Dish would come out paying the extra same total in fees. There'd be no difference, really, other than that they'd have one entity to negotiate with instead of a bunch of different ones, and there'd be no local programming.
In fact, a national NBC channel rather than having affiliations might actually hurt Dish, because they'd probably do things in negotiations like demand that Dish also carry a bunch of other NBC channels in lower tiers- like NBC Sports Channel. Actually, come to think of it, let's have a national NBC channel.
Trying to get NBC Sports Channel moved to a lower tier is one of my big "things" with Dish.
