Tribune Broadcasting Company Blacks Out DISH Customers in 33 Markets;

[jegrant]

I liked an idea that was floated by the old PAX network - that TV stations should be licensed to the DMA they are in, and be allowed to create a single frequency network to cover the entire DMA. They had some rules in their proposal that would have required stations to cover rural areas not just urban areas, so that no one who has signal now would lose it. But it would have greatly benefited networks like PAX/ION, CW, MY, who tend to have affiliates that have less than optimal signal or are licensed to a secondary city in a DMA not the main city.

 

[JM42]

I think we need to go back and remove the regulation that allows for retransmission fees to begin with.

In a perfect world, but broadcast will be dead before it happens.

 

[Tampa8]

In a perfect world, but broadcast will be dead before it happens.

Or us.

 

[STDog]

In a perfect world, but broadcast will be dead before it happens.

Don't disagree.

Just would rather they go back than tack on more rules/regulations. There are far too many already.
We have regs to correct problems created by other regs that were to correct problems from even earlier regs.

I'm reminded of that bit about doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

 

[sam_gordon]

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!

And retransmission benefits the MVPD because without that programming, they would lose subscribers.
Cable channels rely 100% on retransmission to get any viewers. By the above argument, they shouldn't get any money from MVPDs either.

You aren't allowed to charge people to distribute broadcast media, whether radio or television unless you reach an agreement with them. Don't believe me? Try to hold a Super Bowl party and charge every one $50 to get in the door.

Many MVPDs (Dish and Direct included) rely on OTA in order to receive the signal. Yes, they have SOME direct fiber feeds from the stations, but I'm guessing that number is not as high as you think. In my market, Direct gets one station via fiber. The rest (and all of Dish) rely on OTA.

Last but not least, I still feel MOST people CAN receive OTA with <$100 investment. They CHOOSE not to because of the convenience MVPD provides (one box).

 

[Bronxiniowa]

When I log on to a news organization, my ISP isn't charged a fee, payable to that organization, which, after all, owns the content it produces. Why should a television station, which distributes its signal over the public airwaves, benefit financially from that signal being redistributed, similar to a news organization available over the internet?

 

[bobvick]

When I log on to a news organization, my ISP isn't charged a fee, payable to that organization, which, after all, owns the content it produces. Why should a television station, which distributes its signal over the public airwaves, benefit financially from that signal being redistributed, similar to a news organization available over the internet?

Write your congressman. They're the ones that let them get by with it.

 

[JM42]

Last but not least, I still feel MOST people CAN receive OTA with <$100 investment. They CHOOSE not to because of the convenience MVPD provides (one box).

No doubt (with acknowledgement to the rural/fringe DMA folks).

I sort of wonder if the recent OTA adapter shortage is because Dish is reserving them for a major antenna installation campaign for these markets.

 

[bobvick]

No doubt (with acknowledgement to the rural/fringe DMA folks).

I sort of wonder if the recent OTA adapter shortage is because Dish is reserving them for a major antenna installation campaign for these markets.

Probably just a case of recent demand. I don't figure that Echostar had enough manufactured since demand didn't warrant it.

 

[long_time_DNC]

Can't get OTA here...tall hills to the entire N and NE where an antenna would need to be pointed in order to get anything from Seattle, nearly 60 miles to the N/NE...

 

[The Fat Man]

Don't disagree.

Just would rather they go back than tack on more rules/regulations. There are far too many already.
We have regs to correct problems created by other regs that were to correct problems from even earlier regs.

I'm reminded of that bit about doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

What I want to say should be reserved for the Pit, but I will say that the FCC is the big culprit in this matter. This is all for them to justify their existence outside electronic device regulation.

 

[vtsat]

I see the Tribune Media Company is taking a pretty good beating about the dispute with Dish on their Facebook page. …Not sure they care. They just want your $$$’s.

 

[Tampa8]

Wow, ya I'm somewhat surprised and not just one or two messages. I also see another aspect I did not think of. Someone posted no reason to watch Big Brother even if their CBS comes back since they have missed so much of the season.

 

[STDog]

I will say that the FCC is the big culprit in this matter. This is all for them to justify their existence outside electronic device regulation.

While all government agencies keep expanding their influence, most of the blame goes to congress.
Congress is responsible for limiting the agencies. Congress said broadcasters could charge for carriage, or demand carriage.
The FCC just implements and enforces what congress passed. Sure, the FCC could do better, but congress still has the ultimate control.

 

[sam_gordon]

When I log on to a news organization, my ISP isn't charged a fee, payable to that organization, which, after all, owns the content it produces. Why should a television station, which distributes its signal over the public airwaves, benefit financially from that signal being redistributed, similar to a news organization available over the internet?

But companies are free to make their websites "paysites". You're talking about different business models IMO. Again, cable channels (ESPN, History, MTV, etc) charge for their programming.

Do you think MVPDs don't benefit by having the locals? What do you think would happen if Dish said "we're not going to deal with disputes anymore and dropping all the locals"?

 

[Tampa8]

What do you think would happen if Dish said "we're not going to deal with disputes anymore and dropping all the locals"?

Hand out more indoor antennas?

 

[STDog]

Do you think MVPDs don't benefit by having the locals? What do you think would happen if Dish said "we're not going to deal with disputes anymore and dropping all the locals"?

Some of remember when there were no locals on satellite.

Some would change to an alternate that does have them, some would do OTA, and others would do without.

Today there are additional options that weren't available 20 yrs ago.

It would hurt Dish some, but not be certain death.

 

[osu1991]

Its double dipping on the networks and affiliates part. MPVD are being forced to pay for the same programming hundreds of times. At least with ESPN, History, MTV they are only paying once to broadcast nationwide to all customers.

 

[Tampa8]

Some of remember when there were no locals on satellite.

Some would change to an alternate that does have them, some would do OTA, and others would do without.

Today there are additional options that weren't available 20 yrs ago.

It would hurt Dish some, but not be certain death.

DISH would end up with only three types of customers. Those who don't care about the locals or get them OTA(a relative minority) those with no choice but to get Satellite and can't get Directv. (a minority) or those who do have access to the Networks programs online, don't mind watching them that way and generally don't care if it isn't live (Generally a minority especially if they are willing to pay for Satellite service). Even those who have OTA would be restricted in how many tuners they can record OTA unless they then also bought another OTA DVR.
It was actually DISH who spearheaded the legislation to allow local into local (locals carriage) because they recognized the importance. It's the system to carry them that is unbalanced imo the importance is still there. Too many events happen on Network programming having a missing network during a dispute is one thing, having no locals a very different thing. I would be forced to get Directv if that happened.

 

[lparsons21]

It would be interesting to see after a year of the Flex Pack offerings, where locals are in a paid seperate package, just what percentage of those subscribers opted not to get the locals pack.

Lloyd from the Pixel