Tribune Broadcasting Company Blacks Out DISH Customers in 33 Markets;
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 147K
At the rate things are going, it's a rerun of "Fish vs. dish" and it's getting very old. And Tribune wants us to switch to that other satcaster instead of installing an off-air antenna.
To that I say..."Take A Hike."
To that I say..."Take A Hike."
At the rate things are going, it's a rerun of "Fish vs. dish" and it's getting very old. And Tribune wants us to switch to that other satcaster instead of installing an off-air antenna.
To that I say..."Take A Hike."
To that I say..."Take A Hike."
Or cable. Someone else that is paying them retransmission fees.
I'm sure they'd stop OTA broadcasts if they could. They make more money with retransmission.
With football season rapidly approaching, someone is going to have to blink and soon. Might be Dish with all the FOX stations Tribune controls. That was probably Tribune's intention to begin with as I read they offered extensions until August 30 (Dish rejected) which would have been the week before kickoff.
That would be a significant thing, do you have a link to DISH refusing to extend the carriage during negotiations all the way through August? Could it be DISH who asked to keep them on during negotiations and would pay the new rate for that time but Tribune refused?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-dish-sues-tribune-0622-biz-20160621-story.html
"On Tuesday, Tribune Broadcasting, a unit of Tribune Media, said it has tried repeatedly to negotiate with Dish and has offered an extension through Aug. 31, but Dish has rejected it."
Tribune asserted it, DISH denied and said it was Tribune who refused. Common comment in these disputes, I was thinking there may be a link with DISH acknowledging they are refusing.
I would be very skeptical if DISH, Directv etc would refuse to keep the programming on in the case of locals.
"The two sides each say the other rejected proposals to keep programming on Dish while they negotiated. There was disagreement over whether arbitration would be a legitimate, effective or appropriate way to settle the dispute."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...sh-wgn-hardball-0710-biz-20160708-column.html
It says someting when it goes so long and DISH is saying they would abide by an arbitrator and Tribune refuses. That seems like they feel they have the upper hand with the channels being off.
I would be very skeptical if DISH, Directv etc would refuse to keep the programming on in the case of locals.
"The two sides each say the other rejected proposals to keep programming on Dish while they negotiated. There was disagreement over whether arbitration would be a legitimate, effective or appropriate way to settle the dispute."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...sh-wgn-hardball-0710-biz-20160708-column.html
It says someting when it goes so long and DISH is saying they would abide by an arbitrator and Tribune refuses. That seems like they feel they have the upper hand with the channels being off.
My guess is that both had additional stipulations.
There appears to be zero reason to decline Dish's offer to continue carriage w/ the make whole clause unless there was more to it.
Tribune didn't give any info as to what their offer for continued carriage involved, but it must have been onerous for Dish to decline.
Last edited:
Tribune wouldn't accept that because then they couldn't use the customers as pawns as they tell their "poor me" story. By pudding customers off and telling them Dish is the bad guy, it's a way to force Dish hand into higher rates. "Look how many people you'll lose because of us".
I don't think DISH declined I don't think it was ever offered, in fact I think it was rejected by Tribune. If I was Tribune I don't know that I would agree either it weakens my position. That's why I believe it when DISH says they asked and were denied.
Based on the TV season, I could see it go either way. If the big 4 networks were showing new programming vs summer reruns, I think, if offered, Dish would agree to an extension and keep the stations up. Since very little new network programming is on, Dish sees they have nothing to lose and most viewers really won't miss anything. Once new shows are back and football games start, both companies will start working a little bit harder.
I would think both companies should be actively working to resolve the dispute, regardless whether it's summer and most of the programing are repeats or summer replacements...this situation is just absurd...
I'm sure something was offered, but the devil is in the details.
Purely conjecture:
Tribune: We will extend if you add WGN America to every package and agree to pay $$$$$$ if no deal is reached by 8/31.
Dish: We will continue at the current rates and make up any difference based on the final terms, if we reach an agreement.
At this point I would not trust either side to be an honest broker when it comes to reporting the other side's actions or intentions. Not so sure I trust them when it comes to reporting their own.
Reports are that Tribune made an offer that Dish declined
AND
Dish made an offer that Tribune declined.
Lying about it servers neither and could easily be disproved.
Instead they both declined, with little/no info about the offers disclosed.
The details not presented by either side don't bolster their respective position so they weren't released.
Dish released the detail about the make whole clause because it looks good (and Tribune look bad).
I doubt there's much to talk about. At this point, I'm sure both have made what they consider final offers. It's now a waiting game to see who blinks first.
As much as I hate regulations, with the current structure, I think we actually need one more rule to keep local and pay channel negotiations separate.
FWIW Tribune has 14 Fox affiliates and 6 CBS. Based on a quick look most of the CBS Stations do not have resident AFC teams so likely more pressure to settle in the Fox markets.
I think we need to go back and remove the regulation that allows for retransmission fees to begin with.
Remember, cable was retransmitting for decades w/o paying retransmission fees, and the NAB convinced congresss to allow the stations to charge them with the 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act (Overriding Bush's veto)
While the must carry povisions are beneficial to the public, trhe retransmission concent provoision is not.
This was pointed out form the beginning. Here's a 1993 article about it with the cable operators complaining about the fees, basically the same complaint as today from cable and satellite.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/23/b...war-words-heats-up-between-cable-systems.html
Also of note, the tactics in use then are the same as now, stations blaming the cable company and cable blaming the stations.
Also the tying of cable channels to retransmission. Mentioned is ABC tying the network owned stations to ESPN2, FOX and NBC doing similar.
This even mentions some of the retransmission fees agreeded to in '93, also legal disputes over the FCC rules regarding retransmission and must carry.
http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC/BC-1993/BC-1993-05-31.pdf
I have to agree. "Retransmission" benefits the broadcaster by providing additional viewers and therefore additional add revenue. The cost to the broadcaster to provide a feed to the cable and satellite companies is minimal: just a copy of the video and audio that feeds the transmitter. I can see charging a small fee if equipment to make this happen is located in the broadcaster's facility and owned/maintained by them but nothing close to what they are currently getting in retransmission fees.
In fact, maybe the cable and satellite companies should charge the broadcaster for the bandwidth used to retransmit local stations!
Similar threads
