I no longer see the channel available for the Flex Package channels. Perhaps the writing is on the wall. Not good for Dish to introduce then make a package disappear so quickly after they were really promoting it. Even worse that those people are more likely to drop Dish now after the grandfathering goes away.
Never make a change in Dish (or anywhere) based on "promised" features.
Should computers include parallel and serial ports still too ?start including OTA tuners in the boxes again
The attitudes between the OTA stations and the pay-tv providers have worsened in the last few years. Since it is rare for a station to make themselves "must carry" anymore, I think it does make business sense to include OTA tuners so that pay-tv providers can still provide OTA channels (where feasible) with less of the headaches associated with the price-gouging and blackmail from those stations.Should computers include parallel and serial ports still too ?
OTA is used by, depending on the source, 10-15% of TV viewers. I think it's safe to presume that if a viewer subscribes to a pay-TV service, they are even less likely to use OTA so for what, 90% of Dish customers, that OTA hardware is wasted. From a 'business' and (hardware) production standpoint, I actually agree completely with Dish's reasoning.
Should all the discussions about the DPH42 be moved to a separate thread?
One already exists
http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads/dph-42.363894/
To take this one step further, if Dish would also offer Significantly Viewed out-of-market locals (where feasible) then it would reduce those headaches even further. Viewers at the outer fringe of the market, where it may be harder to get OTA reception from the in-market affiliate, would likely be covered by at least one other affiliate of the same network. Viewers in the "core" of the market, where only the in-market affiliate is Significantly Viewed, would be more likely to actually be able to get good OTA reception. Either way, every viewer (or almost every viewer) would be covered in the event of a re-transmission consent dispute.The attitudes between the OTA stations and the pay-tv providers have worsened in the last few years. Since it is rare for a station to make themselves "must carry" anymore, I think it does make business sense to include OTA tuners so that pay-tv providers can still provide OTA channels (where feasible) with less of the headaches associated with the price-gouging and blackmail from those stations.
I was thinking that a provider could drop the OTA channels altogether and offer them via the OTA tuner. The hell with those re-trans disputes.Either way, every viewer (or almost every viewer) would be covered in the event of a re-transmission consent dispute.
Right, but they still need to cover the areas that do not get good OTA reception, so an additional satellite-delivered affiliate for the fringes of the market (where legally allowed) would also be a good idea.I was thinking that a provider could drop the OTA channels altogether and offer them via the OTA tuner. The hell with those re-trans disputes.
I was thinking that a provider could drop the OTA channels altogether and offer them via the OTA tuner. The hell with those re-trans disputes.
Ideally, it would be the broadcaster's responsibility to launch OTA translator stations to serve these areas. In practice, not so much.I am willing to bet that you live in an urban or suburban area that is probably close enough to the market's transmitters that you are able to just use rabbit ears to receive OTA stations?
Dish has millions of customers in rural areas that are 50, 60, 70, 80 or even 100+ miles from their market's transmitters.
What are these millions of rural customers supposed to do to receive their local news and weather information?
What are these millions of rural customers supposed to do to receive their local news and weather information?
You call 100+ miles away "local"?
Ideally, it would be the broadcaster's responsibility to launch OTA translator stations to serve these areas. In practice, not so much.
You call 100+ miles away "local"?
Evidently, you've never been west of the Mississippi. There's only one set of stations available for the State of New Mexico, and it's a pretty big geographical area. One in Utah, two in Nevada, Oklahoma, and Kansas, three in Colorado, etc.
Nope, they'd rather be carried by cable and satellite providers and get paid for that carriage. They also reach a much larger audience this way too.Ideally, it would be the broadcaster's responsibility to launch OTA translator stations to serve these areas. In practice, not so much.
Evidently, you've never been west of the Mississippi... two in...Kansas