Possible Loss OF Local CBS and FOX due to Dispute.

[Ronnie-]

Yep, and Direct overall costs more. And that's the point. For a short time of losing a local channel for some, the long term is lower monthly cost.

Really depends on your setup.
Package costs themselves are lower in most (maybe all) cases, but total cost is a different story for many subs.

 

[Mr Tony]

Yep, and Direct overall costs more. And that's the point. For a short time of losing a local channel for some, the long term is lower monthly cost.

not necessarily. It all depends on the setup and what channels you need

 

[NotMe546]

i'll take losing g4 vs foxsports, fx, disneyhd, ect ect anyday
you dont notice it when they are channels that dont get watched

I wonder why looking at Dtv website and I couldn't find G4 I thought by now they would have it back.

 

[mdram]

I wonder why looking at Dtv website and I couldn't find G4 I thought by now they would have it back.

nope, bu remember its owned by comcast, or was. so they wont give it to dtv cheaply

 

[Yespage]

6 years with dish - 5-10 channels lost
2 years with direct - 0 losses

That stat seems shallow if you don't include channel and HD gains. Dish got Fox Soccer Channel in HD first, by several months I believe. Dish has three Epix channels. Dish has a non-negligible number of HD channels still not available on Directv. Both companies have their positives.

my bill went up $9 a month
and i added a receiver and mrv, thats $9 a month
so no it really does not cost more
if you factor in receiver fees for more then 2 tvs or dvrs then its actually less

Price per household varies based on what a household needs. For a single dual receiver DVR, Dish is typically going to be cheaper than Directv, especially with many more slim-down packages via Dish. Once you start getting more receivers, Directv becomes more competitive.

Really, this isn't a Dish v Directv fanboy comp. It is a which provider matches your needs best thing. The whole getting angry at a provider because that particular provider doesn't suit your personal needs as well as another provider thing gets really old.

 

[sam_gordon]

Ultimately, these issues are the fault of the local TV station - I am defending all cable/sat providers here. Yeah, I get it that advertising revenue is down from what it was in the "old days" for TV stations and I get it that cable/sat pay to air other non-OTA channels. I would like to think that if cable/sat dropped the greedy locals for a significant period, then the local station would miss that large number of lost eyeballs. My question to local TV stations is simply do you want cable/TV providers to carry your station or not? If all you (the local TV station) had to rely on was your OTA viewers, how would you like that? So, let the local TV station try to survive with only OTA viewers for 6 months and I believe they'd be satisfied with "must carry" for FREE.

Did you forget TV stations HAVE only relied on OTA viewers... that time frame before cable/satellite was available. In my opinion, this is a true symbiotic relationship. Sat/Cable providers help locals be getting the signal into homes. Locals help Sat/Cable providers by giving them the content people want to watch.

Cable/Satellite providers DO financially benefit by providing locals (remember that $5/month charge for each subscriber?). I feel SOME of that charge should be shared with the locals. The amount of the charge, IMO, is the big sticking point. Claiming a % increase, while accurate, doesn't always tell the true story. I don't know how much locals charge providers, it could $0.10/subscriber/month. It could be $0.25. It could be $0.50, it could be $1. To me, the first is too low, the second and third are more reasonable, the last is too high.

Just my opinion.

 

[dwarren2]

Ultimately, these issues are the fault of the local TV station - I am defending all cable/sat providers here. .

Actually not the local station, but the media company that owns that station. Most probably other stations that the company owns are also in dispute.