Raycom & Dish still quareling? -Dispute Settled. channels back 8/9

[Frank Jr.]

Why is it that these agreements aren't public knowledge.Never understood that.

Negotiations and contracts need not be made public, but once there is a service disruption the FCC should require both parties to make the details of the dispute public. As a rule this would have to be implemented by the FCC. If so, service disruptions would be less likely, or at the very least we the consumer would know who the greedy offender is. Service disruption has become all to common.

 

[Teehar]

Negotiations and contracts need not be made public, but once there is a service disruption the FCC should require both parties to make the details of the dispute public. As a rule this would have to be implemented by the FCC. If so, service disruptions would be less likely, or at the very least we the consumer would know who the greedy offender is. Service disruption has become all to common.

Frank I politely disagree,I think what each channel charges should be public.The biggest reason they won't tell us,is because they know customers would be up in arms over some of them.Even telecoms have to show how much a toll call is,they were also forced to show the government fees,line subscriber fees etc.What is it that the broadcasters have to hide?

 

[Hall]

Why is it that these agreements aren't public knowledge.Never understood that.

It's a business agreement/contract between two private entities. Effectively, it's no one else's business.

 

[Teehar]

It's a business agreement/contract between two private entities. Effectively, it's no one else's business.

I get that but,with prices so out of hand,constant blackouts etc,I think it should be every subscribers business.I know it won't happen but,I would like to see it happen.

Selling Christmas trees as an example,anytime someone asked me how much it took to grow a tree,I was always happy to tell them.

 

[dare2be]

It's a business agreement/contract between two private entities. Effectively, it's no one else's business.

Private entities, or publicly traded companies? The stockholders have a right to know.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Because neither side wants the public to know they were the loser.

I however am hearing Raycom was the one who said Mercy after DISh cut off discussions with them earlier in the day.

 

[nsafreak]

Because neither side wants the public to know they were the loser.

I however am hearing Raycom was the one who said Mercy after DISh cut off discussions with them earlier in the day.

That would make sense to me. Since it is summertime and what's showing right now for the most part is re-runs I doubt Dish was in any big hurry to get Raycom back on the service. After being off the service for slightly over a week I'm thinking that Raycom is the one that bit the bullet as well.

 

[osu1991]

It's a business agreement/contract between two private entities. Effectively, it's no one else's business.

Private businesses using public airwaves, so I think just like with the wireless telecoms, there should be some oversight in the how's and why's of the pricing to the public.

 

[Tampa8]

Last thing I want to do is defend the networks, but to me it's not public airwaves when it goes over Satellite. But what you could do is write to the FCC that you can not receive the channel OTA, and if pulled from Satellite they are not serving the public they are supposed to be, so another affiliate should be allowed to. Make them put up more towers then so everyone gets it OTA.

 

[ashutto20]

We will find out tonight if ptat is working on wbtv

 

[thomasjk]

We will find out tonight if ptat is working on wbtv

According to my guide PTAT is enabled for WBTV.

 

[sam_gordon]

Last thing I want to do is defend the networks, but to me it's not public airwaves when it goes over Satellite. But what you could do is write to the FCC that you can not receive the channel OTA, and if pulled from Satellite they are not serving the public they are supposed to be, so another affiliate should be allowed to. Make them put up more towers then so everyone gets it OTA.

But since the beginning of television, there has not been 100% coverage in ANY market. Since that has been established for a half century or so, how do you now make the claim stations "aren't serving the public"?
I'm willing to hazard even WITH satellite, there are locations that can't get a television signal. So how can you expect stations to serve everyone?

 

[Hall]

Private entities, or publicly traded companies? The stockholders have a right to know.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Stockholders select a board of directors who have oversight of the company. They hire management who are expected to make sound business decisions. Why not allow stockholders to determine employee salaries and benefits, where to build facilities, etc?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Hall]

Private businesses using public airwaves, so I think just like with the wireless telecoms, there should be some oversight in the how's and why's of the pricing to the public.

If you're receiving these signals over public airwaves, you have no affiliation with Dish and in turn, no business or right to be privy to contracts.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

 

[dare2be]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Stockholders select a board of directors who have oversight of the company. They hire management who are expected to make sound business decisions. Why not allow stockholders to determine employee salaries and benefits, where to build facilities, etc?

You just took "right to know" and twisted it into "making business decisions". Nice strawman. If both Dish and Raycom were privately owned companies, you would have a point. But you don't.

 

[osu1991]

If you're receiving these signals over public airwaves, you have no affiliation with Dish and in turn, no business or right to be privy to contracts.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

The OTA tuner in my 722 would say otherwise as to my affiliation with Dish and the affiliates get those signals to Dish the same way we get them OTA to a single point of presence in each market.

Now if those affiliates would like to pay for the fiber and the expenses to get those signals to Dish/Directv, then perhaps it could be considered some private negotiating.

 

[MatthewKeys]

Why is it that these agreements aren't public knowledge.Never understood that.

Channel operators don't want consumers to know they asked (and received) a fee increase. Cable/satellite operators don't want to make it appear to their customers as if they gave in to higher retransmission fees, especially knowing that those fees will be passed on to the consumer.

In the very short term, it staves off negative consumer sentiment for both sides. In the long term, it's more of a loss for cable/satellite operators since customers often finger them for blame when their cable/satellite bills increase.

 

[Teehar]

Channel operators don't want consumers to know they asked (and received) a fee increase. Cable/satellite operators don't want to make it appear to their customers as if they gave in to higher retransmission fees, especially knowing that those fees will be passed on to the consumer.

In the very short term, it staves off negative consumer sentiment for both sides. In the long term, it's more of a loss for cable/satellite operators since customers often finger them for blame when their cable/satellite bills increase.

Well said,nice first post.

 

[tomcrown1]

The real question is how much will our rates go up next year? Disney is up next and. Who knows how much they will want.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hall]

The OTA tuner in my 722 would say otherwise as to my affiliation with Dish and the affiliates get those signals to Dish the same way we get them OTA to a single point of presence in each market.

For all intents and purposes, you don't pay Dish for the channels that are picked up by that OTA tuner. Remove the tuner - your bill won't be reduced.