naa. That's QSKY and it's because the movie "FM" just ended. I miss those DJs too
FM (film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Special Charlie Chat Tonight
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 90
- Views 15K
naa. That's QSKY and it's because the movie "FM" just ended. I miss those DJs too
FM (film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Love the people who put their heads in the sand. A simple quick Google showed several locals being dropped and threatened to be dropped by any number of providers, some already pointed out in this and other threads.
Then those that give a fact, but no thought behind it. Ya, Charlie charges $5 for locals - ALL THE LOCALS - not for each one. So break down by the number of locals you get into $5 and how much is that? What, maybe $.70 each based on 7 locals? How much of that excessive amount Charlie charges (lol) is profit, and how much is the cost to actually provide it? If you don't want these providers to stand their ground you are either rich or dumb. And yes, make fun of it, but I can see where prices would go up even more than they do if Charlie and everyone else did not do this.
Then those that give a fact, but no thought behind it. Ya, Charlie charges $5 for locals - ALL THE LOCALS - not for each one. So break down by the number of locals you get into $5 and how much is that? What, maybe $.70 each based on 7 locals? How much of that excessive amount Charlie charges (lol) is profit, and how much is the cost to actually provide it? If you don't want these providers to stand their ground you are either rich or dumb. And yes, make fun of it, but I can see where prices would go up even more than they do if Charlie and everyone else did not do this.
You hit it right on the head. The providers need to take a stand. With over 300 channels available just think what your bill could look like if every channel demanded a 80% or more increase every year.
This is not a fight for jusy one or two channels right now.
Amen !!! I could never figure out how the FCC let this happen. I thought the major networks were required to broadcast for free.
Mein Ranting...
If the MSOs wish to carry the broadcaster's digital channels...they should pay fair market value. Offhand, there are two (2) much larger issues that need to be addressed in the PAY TV industry:
1. I am tired of paying for the 85% of channels I don't watch. I would rather pay more for the programming I wish to view than pay to subsidize programming that is of no interest to me or my family. While I am certainly not against the "mega-packs" (affordably priced for certain individuals), the public needs more "a la carte" options and programming package choices. The Canadian Starchoice model is a good example. It's not perfect, but it certainly offers consumers more options than what we currently have.
2. Why the heck was Dish Network (or any TV provider for that matter) charging me $5.99 for local guide data when, in fact, I receive my broadcast locals via two rooftop antennas? The answer is because they could. What I sham! I certainly didn't need to pay $5.99 to watch watered-down (aka DishHD-Lite) version of my locals that I already received in pristine form OTA. I just needed the guide date in order to program my three VIP622 HD DVR which, by the way, I was already paying three separate DVR fees...and E* certainly wasn't allowing me to program my HD DVRs using free PSIP. Ugh! All Cable/Satellite MSOs should be required to include an ATSC port on their receivers, fully support/integrate OTA broadcast signals into their programming guide, and do not charge "additional fees" for the guide date for those customers who receive their locals OTA.
However, the reason I don't completely disagree with your statement is that I would support the "no compensation" model if the FCC and lawmakers could gets their hands on following issues, and draft meaningful rules or legislation that protects consumers, and makes it fair for all the parties involved:
- Must Carry
- Customers not charged for locals (based on Must Carry provision)
- Integrated support of ATSC on all receivers
- Price reduction ($5-$6) of uplink fees for customer who receive locals OTA
- No charge for local programming guide data
- End of predatory practices have made it nearly impossible to CE manufacturers to complete in the set-top-box industry (EchoStar is having a difficult time cracking the Cable/SA/Motorola cartel) - the playing field must be leveled.
- Cable programmers can no longer "bundle programming in their license agreements.
- Mandatory package grouping (e.g., Sports, More Sports, LifeStyles, Movies, etc.) - people shouldn't have to pay for ESPN when they don't watch sports, and a frat house of males shouldn't have to pay a penny for Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network.
- "A la carte" options (customers can subscriber to individual channels in additional to the mega-packs or genre-packs)
Additionally, I would just like to quote myself from a recent post about the Dish Network/Young Broadcasting dispute.
Just to summarize...I fully support the local broadcasters charging MSOs a fair market price for their signals given the current environment....unless laws/rulers were adopted that would "level the playing field" and bring consumers more choices. To be honest, with as many commercials and informercials that I see being played on the cable channels, I am surprised channels like TNT, USA, and TBS are asking to be compensated by the MSOs.
Happy Holidays!!!
I almost completely disagree. If people wish to receive free over-the-air broadcast channels, they should erect an antenna...there is nothing preventing them from doing so. However, if MSOs wish to provider these channels to their PAYING customers, they should pay carriage fees that are "appropriate" considering the major networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC) have the highest rated shows. The ESPN channels alone probably cost each and every subscriber $2-$3 each month (I'm not sure of the exact total), any many of these people don't even watch sports. If this is the going rate for the commercial-laden ESPN channels to be carried on a PAY TV service, then the local broadcasters are justified in asking for a "penny a day" in compensation.
If the MSOs wish to carry the broadcaster's digital channels...they should pay fair market value. Offhand, there are two (2) much larger issues that need to be addressed in the PAY TV industry:
1. I am tired of paying for the 85% of channels I don't watch. I would rather pay more for the programming I wish to view than pay to subsidize programming that is of no interest to me or my family. While I am certainly not against the "mega-packs" (affordably priced for certain individuals), the public needs more "a la carte" options and programming package choices. The Canadian Starchoice model is a good example. It's not perfect, but it certainly offers consumers more options than what we currently have.
2. Why the heck was Dish Network (or any TV provider for that matter) charging me $5.99 for local guide data when, in fact, I receive my broadcast locals via two rooftop antennas? The answer is because they could. What I sham! I certainly didn't need to pay $5.99 to watch watered-down (aka DishHD-Lite) version of my locals that I already received in pristine form OTA. I just needed the guide date in order to program my three VIP622 HD DVR which, by the way, I was already paying three separate DVR fees...and E* certainly wasn't allowing me to program my HD DVRs using free PSIP. Ugh! All Cable/Satellite MSOs should be required to include an ATSC port on their receivers, fully support/integrate OTA broadcast signals into their programming guide, and do not charge "additional fees" for the guide date for those customers who receive their locals OTA.
However, the reason I don't completely disagree with your statement is that I would support the "no compensation" model if the FCC and lawmakers could gets their hands on following issues, and draft meaningful rules or legislation that protects consumers, and makes it fair for all the parties involved:
- Must Carry
- Customers not charged for locals (based on Must Carry provision)
- Integrated support of ATSC on all receivers
- Price reduction ($5-$6) of uplink fees for customer who receive locals OTA
- No charge for local programming guide data
- End of predatory practices have made it nearly impossible to CE manufacturers to complete in the set-top-box industry (EchoStar is having a difficult time cracking the Cable/SA/Motorola cartel) - the playing field must be leveled.
- Cable programmers can no longer "bundle programming in their license agreements.
- Mandatory package grouping (e.g., Sports, More Sports, LifeStyles, Movies, etc.) - people shouldn't have to pay for ESPN when they don't watch sports, and a frat house of males shouldn't have to pay a penny for Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network.
- "A la carte" options (customers can subscriber to individual channels in additional to the mega-packs or genre-packs)
Additionally, I would just like to quote myself from a recent post about the Dish Network/Young Broadcasting dispute.
Except the costs associated with producing some of the most populars shows on television, along with local news, sports, etc.For the record, the ratings of the most popular cable shows cannot compare to those of the broadcasters (ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC)...yet, subscribers are paying far more and receiving far less (ratings wise) for channels like ESPN, USA, TNT, TBS, etc. Personally, I would be more concerned about ALL SUBSCRIBERS having to shell-out $2-$3 for the the ESPN channels, even those who do not watch sports. Does this make any sense?
If you take a closer look, just about all the "cable favorite" channels are running commercials, and several are broadcasting countless hours of informercials late-night and during the weekend morning hours. I can see these channels are giving me a lot of value for my 30 cents...like never being watched, and wasting bandwidth and space in my guide.
Also, the last time I looked, E* was a PAY TV service, and they are charging you a fee for your local programming. No? Nobody is forcing you to pay for your locals...spend a few dollars on a quality OTA setup and be done with the issue. It's funny that D* doesn't keep having these programming disputes, and I certainly don't have any of my locals yanked off of FiOS TV.
Until consumers are provided with substantive a la carte options, I am all for the broadcast networks getting whatever then can for the most popular programming from these PAY TV providers. To be honest, why are we paying anything for Cable or DBS service? Just about all the "Cable Favorites" are accepting advertising dollars and running commercials? Why don't they pay for carriage on the MSOs and, in turn, free programming can be provided to the customers? Personally, I like this programming/delivery model much better.
People spend $100+ monthly on their Cable/Satellite service, and complaint about spending $5 to watch their locals on a PAY TV service when, in fact, most of their TV viewing is spent watching the broadcast networks. Again, spend a few dollars on a quality OTA setup if you unhappy with this situation. Personally, I feel it is reasonable for the broadcasters to demand up to a $1 per subscriber to be carried on a PAY TV service.
Anyway, compare the television and cable ratings and judge for yourself. Personally, I would be a little more upset with paying big bucks to ESPN, USA and TBS for their far less popular programming and (sigh!) commercials.
Zap2it - Weekly TV ratings
Zap2it - Weekly Cable ratings
Just to summarize...I fully support the local broadcasters charging MSOs a fair market price for their signals given the current environment....unless laws/rulers were adopted that would "level the playing field" and bring consumers more choices. To be honest, with as many commercials and informercials that I see being played on the cable channels, I am surprised channels like TNT, USA, and TBS are asking to be compensated by the MSOs.
Happy Holidays!!!
It is not the FCC, it is congress. Congress gave the stations 2 options:
1. Must carry, the provider has no choice but to carry the station if they carry any stations in the DMA. All the small channels that no one wants select this option since they know they could not get a nickle out of a provider.
2. Negotiate carriage with a provider. The big 4 pick this one and demand things like cash, carrying of subchannels, carrying small sister channels that do not qualify for must carry, etc. It was a boost for stations when it came out, but now they realise that it could be a lucrative revenue stream, after all up to 90% of their customers could be forced to pay for their "free" service.
But they do broadcast for free...via an over-the-air antenna! Local broadcasters lease spectrum from the government in order to serve the public interest. In exchange, they provide news and programming to the public free-of-charge, and they hope to earn a buck or two in the process. Nobody is preventing you from receiving free TV in your community. If so, please contact the FCC for assistance. The broadcast television systems was developed to serve the public interest, and not the interests of Dish Network, DirecTV, Comcast, FiOS or the "convenience" of individual citizens.
For me...errecting an antenna outside is not an option as I live in an apartment. Does that mean I should not be eligable for TV? Or the big 4 netwroks? No...I have every right as every other American to enjoy my tv. My nearest NBC station in my DMA is 100 miles away, the size needed for an antenna would be huge even if I could put one outside. I think that the networks should charge anything, or hardly anything for the rebroadcasting. In fact if you think of the thought behind it it is absurd. Dish isn't making much of a profit off of it. They have to put bird in the air and have all the equipment to broadcast that signal. While the local broadcasters get paid by advertisement. So if you let say lose all of Dish's and all of Direct's customer base, then why should advertisers even want to advertise on then channels? IF all the rebroadcasters stood there ground (including cable) then the networks would all fall due to hardly no advertising $'s coming in since there would be hardly anyone watching as I am sure the majority of people get there local channels through a rebroadcaster. I understand the $5 charge for the rebroadcasting to the customers for the equipment costs. But then on the otherside...you have the customer, some who depend on them locals for storm warnings etc. They should not be left out in the cold. I think that they need to ironed as soon as possible. It is not effecting my channels yet, but maybe someday it will. I know if I were a customer that lived way out in the sticks and could not recieve my locals with a big antenna, I would be mad if I lost my locals.
ummm, yeah there are quite a few things that prevent a person from doing this.
1. Distance to the transmitter
2. Obstructions between transmitter and receive location(i.e. mountains, buildings, houses, trees...)
3. Money(some people can't avoid to shell out for the antenna, mast, mounting brackets, rg-6 cable, etc...)
so there are some things that are preventing them from receiving free OTA. it would be nice if everyone in all the cities around the nation could just put up a set of rabbit ears and receive a signal but it just doesn't happen. that is why it is so great that sat companies can provide this service for those who can't get thier locals OTA.
I can't understand why people get so up in the air over paying to have locals broadcast via satellite. Usually these are the ones who live in locations within eye shot of the towers, or areas soooooo flat that there is nothing to block signals from 360 different directions. I am not offended by having to pay to have my locals sent to me by a means that works... OTA is not practical for everyone who subscribes to Dish or Direct, some times it just doesn't work... I installed OTA systems for 10 years before taking my current job 10 years ago. In my area, the best Channel Master yagi w/ a 25dB preamp was still not enough to get a watchable analog signal for one set, much less 3-4 sets like many people have... Now w/ digital, say good by to a somewhat marginal signal that you could see, but say hello to black screens w/ "no signal" bouncing around most of the time. The $$ we pay should be spent like mentioned before, to maintain the uplinks, etc, not to pay the local stations for the opportunity to reach customers that cannot receive their signal in the first place. They broadcast OTA for free to the privaleged few that can see the signal, then want $$ to reach the unreachable??? Give me a break!!! Locals loose nothing by allowing carriage over DBS systems!! They are only sold "in market." Yes, I suppose they have to pay the networks to be a "franchise" (for lack of a better word), but do they charge stations in adjacent markets that carry the same network??? I don't think so.
I compare them charging $$ for the DBS carriers to help make them $$ to me having to pay my employer for my job... He's making $$ off of my work, but, sorry, I'll have to pay him to keep my job...
I suspect that if the DBS carriers continue to give in on this, the next thing you will see in Best Buy or Circuit City sales ads are the "New Generation Digital TV... Don't be left out in the dark when your local channels go PAY next year. You'll need one of our new ADDRESSABLE Digital TV's to be able to subscribe to OTA"... Don't laugh at this, it's a completely feasable idea... if it's digital, it can be made addressable, and then, what will you do...
/end Rant
I compare them charging $$ for the DBS carriers to help make them $$ to me having to pay my employer for my job... He's making $$ off of my work, but, sorry, I'll have to pay him to keep my job...
I suspect that if the DBS carriers continue to give in on this, the next thing you will see in Best Buy or Circuit City sales ads are the "New Generation Digital TV... Don't be left out in the dark when your local channels go PAY next year. You'll need one of our new ADDRESSABLE Digital TV's to be able to subscribe to OTA"... Don't laugh at this, it's a completely feasable idea... if it's digital, it can be made addressable, and then, what will you do...
/end Rant
The thing that changed ten years ago was the NAB expanding the DMA maps so they covered every square inch of the US. This was done precidsely because of the white area coverage problem, and in many cases the coverage maps are ridiculous. There is no chance that a household on the northern border of Wyoming could possibly receive Denver stations, yet they are part of that DMA.
I feel fairly strongly that if a station is claiming ownership to an area, they are responsible for providing service for that area at the same costs and conditions available to other viewers in the DMA (i.e. free). Since the NAB wanted this ownership map, they and their member stations need to step up and provide the services along with claiming the priveleges. This "we are worth as much as HGTV" garbage doesn't hold water exactly because of the exclusivity they are claiming.
I feel fairly strongly that if a station is claiming ownership to an area, they are responsible for providing service for that area at the same costs and conditions available to other viewers in the DMA (i.e. free). Since the NAB wanted this ownership map, they and their member stations need to step up and provide the services along with claiming the priveleges. This "we are worth as much as HGTV" garbage doesn't hold water exactly because of the exclusivity they are claiming.
very interesting idea. one I could almost get behind. if I didn't think all local broadcasters should be summarily executed, that is. If you are too far to receive it with a practicle antenna setup then IT ISN'T LOCAL!!!! ABC NBC CBS and the like are the NATIONAL providers of daily, weekly programming. The local slimball that rebroadscats it to your home should have to do whatever is necassary to get it to you if they are going to count you as a served household.
Don't forget CONVENIENCE and LOGISTICS (my 'locals' are on towers 50 miles away from me at approximately 0 degrees and 160 degrees so I would need a rotor). I don't want a rotor because that would effectively nullify any advantage I have in using two DVR's.
I think the locals should be able to charge whatever they want if they are willing to give up their local monopolies. This, to me, is the real issue. They scream about 'fair market' and 'you should pay us for how many people watch us' yet most of us are forced to watch our locals, which is not free market.
Look, there are people who live where they are not allowed to erect proper antennas, or cannot recieve OTA signals, how are they supposed to get their locals for free?
The Puget Sound region is horrible for getting over the air signals, I live just north of Tacoma and had a lot of trouble getting Q13 Fox OTA HD before it was added to Dish (along with the other locals I attempted to tune in, both HD and standard)... the hills here heavily interfere with signals... I pretty much can't get KOMO OTA so I need to rely on a provider to get it where I am located. Therefore if it's normally free but unaccessible, why should they charge me to get it through a 3rd party provider that I already pay a load of cash to? KOMO's stance is ridiculous...
The Puget Sound region is horrible for getting over the air signals, I live just north of Tacoma and had a lot of trouble getting Q13 Fox OTA HD before it was added to Dish (along with the other locals I attempted to tune in, both HD and standard)... the hills here heavily interfere with signals... I pretty much can't get KOMO OTA so I need to rely on a provider to get it where I am located. Therefore if it's normally free but unaccessible, why should they charge me to get it through a 3rd party provider that I already pay a load of cash to? KOMO's stance is ridiculous...
I don't have a problem with paying for locals, but the local broadcasters can't and shouldn't have it both ways...
They receive free access to the public airwaves, and then are able to mandate that a customer cannot receive stations outside their DMA without a waiver.
If they believe they have a service for which they should receive a fee then fine. As a customer, however, I should be able to access any set of locals of my choosing. The way the rules are set now, the local broadcaster has all the leverage and doesn't have to compete for the view by offering anything of substance other than the retransmission of network programming and content.
If they can compete by offering compelling local content as well, then fine, let them compete. If they can't, let me select another non DMA affiliate that does a better job.
They receive free access to the public airwaves, and then are able to mandate that a customer cannot receive stations outside their DMA without a waiver.
If they believe they have a service for which they should receive a fee then fine. As a customer, however, I should be able to access any set of locals of my choosing. The way the rules are set now, the local broadcaster has all the leverage and doesn't have to compete for the view by offering anything of substance other than the retransmission of network programming and content.
If they can compete by offering compelling local content as well, then fine, let them compete. If they can't, let me select another non DMA affiliate that does a better job.
I was thinking gthe same thing in that they should give the network stations an offer, pay them what they want but they get to pay for all the costs associated in getting the signal to the satellite. That might change their tune.
Maybe all the providers should form a union and demand that they get the stations for a certain price.
Really no need for that.
If you want to get technical, yes, EVERYONE can. They can move to a place that allows them to put up the antenna that will pull them in. Its not feasable for everyone, sure, but why is that the broadcasters problem, anymore than it is the sat companies when someone doesnt have line of sight?
Similar threads
