Question about a dispute in my non-"moved" true market...
- Thread starter edisonprime
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 2K
In this case, isn't "the marketplace" the broadcaster and the MVPD? *IF* other MVPDs have agreed to pay $x for a channel, isn't Dish trying to buck the marketplace by saying it's too much?
I can see all kinds of ways retransmission can be set by the government...
1) Require arbitration.
2) Require negotiations to start 6 months before expiration of the contract.
3) Set a value per rating point that works throughout the country.
4) Set a maximum possible raise percentage each time a contract expires
5) Don't allow the networks a share of the retrans $$ (and I guarantee you that's affecting things).
And anyone who thinks a local broadcaster is going to tell a network to pound sand, I have a bridge to sell you.
Could it be because of something DISH did in Colorado? Don't they control the AutoHop? Maybe they did a wrong setting someplace.
You’re right, none of us should ever expect an affiliate to tell a network to pound sand, however that is not the MVPDs issue. What it costs one business to operate is of no concern to another business. What is important is securing a deal that makes sense to them for their customers. No more, no less.
Perhaps the National Networks set a standard and the locals have free reign to do what they like over and above that standard?
NO. If DISH does not want to pay, I don't want some artificial settlement. The locals have two choices, insist on being carried or get a contract to be paid to be carried. Why the H--L should DISH be forced into any agreement? That's what the marketplace is for. If I lose my local I can stay with DISH or not. I can decide if going to Cable or Directv at a higher cost (and it would be for me) is worth it.
But it’s only Tv. If one of our locals where removed I wouldn’t loose any sleep over it.
The biggest issue is the customers themselves. If they would stop complaining and threatening to leave every time a channel gets removed, these negotiations would work out much better and result in lower rates for all.
But people will cry about missing their dam show, call and get money off their bill, or even a free antenna.
All this does is force the providers into paying more money and raising your rates.
The biggest issue is the customers themselves. If they would stop complaining and threatening to leave every time a channel gets removed, these negotiations would work out much better and result in lower rates for all.
But people will cry about missing their dam show, call and get money off their bill, or even a free antenna.
All this does is force the providers into paying more money and raising your rates.
Since the FCC has issued these stations a broadcast license, they should set the retransmission fees.
The fees should be based on the wattage of the transmitter, number of repeaters, the estimated number of viewers and the number of unique hours of programming each week such as a news broadcast or a kids show on Saturday morning.
Very simple formula and that ends all the negotiations.
If the stations done like it, then shut the transmitter down and become a cable network.
The fees should be based on the wattage of the transmitter, number of repeaters, the estimated number of viewers and the number of unique hours of programming each week such as a news broadcast or a kids show on Saturday morning.
Very simple formula and that ends all the negotiations.
If the stations done like it, then shut the transmitter down and become a cable network.
And the bolded is exactly what's happening. So you're happy with the status quo. Got it.
Last edited:
You're funny. You do understand that networks only fill about 1/2 of the programming on any given day, right? So they'll have to come up with more programming if they go 24/7. Also, if it wasn't for LiL, Dish and Direct would be hurting even more than they are now. Just because YOU don't care about local programming doesn't mean that's how everyone feels.
I don't know if I do or not. It's what we were told by Dish and I can see it being true as much as not true.
I'm sure it's "true" in that it's not an outright lie. However, I believe it is spin. Just a thought... what's the "200% increase" based on? The cost at the start of the previous contract (which probably had automatic increases built in)? The cost at the end of the current contract? The cost from the original contract oh so many years ago? BOTH sides will spin the facts.
I think I got my days confused. It actually WAS seven days. Oops.
Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
Nope. It actually IS eight days. I thought today was Sunday, but it's Monday.
Similar threads
