I have absolutely no clue what your talking about?....So does baseball and hockey.....How much is tea in china?
Tulsa and OKC Dish customers could once again lose the Griffin stations.
- Thread starter osu1991
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 108
- Views 9K
Re-read my post #28 and you'll see what my point was. Too difficult to comprehend?
Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
I actually think the analogy is pretty good. The stations see MVPDs making money (maybe not millions, but quite a bit) off the fruits of their labor, and they want a cut.
Actually, everyone pays the same. So it's not like you will be paying for OKC locals and I'm paying for Lexington locals. I think most of the retrans contracts are over three years. How much has Dish increased programming cost in the last three years (legitimate question). Then figure EVERY channel has had some kind of increase within that three years. So how much extra are we paying for each channel?
I'm going off memory, but each yearly increase has been $5/month, right? So over three years, we're now spending an extra $15/month. Heck, if only 50 channels (out of the 120, 200, or 250 in each package) got an increase, that's .30 cents per month more per channel. Seems kind of silly to me.
What i was saying is i would only take the Big 4 locals. But CBS will be held hostage until griffin also gets a big raise for his OKC Channel 52.
I preferred when local network programming was OTA only. At that time this could not happen. Hate to sound like a baby, but all the problems in the world, and we have to go through this. These channels shouldn't be so greedy. I totally see this DISH's way.
Now if Congress hadn't passed a mandatory coverage......Do you think they would be charging so much?...I think stations would be in less embolden!
Now they have all the leverage....
You have one multi billion company fighting another......Locally owned stations are like dinosaurs!.....There is a small group of company's that own dozens if not hundreds of local affiliates..Its not even close to sports, unless the Yankees are trying to squeeze money out of Red Sox!
Now they have all the leverage....
You have one multi billion company fighting another......Locally owned stations are like dinosaurs!.....There is a small group of company's that own dozens if not hundreds of local affiliates..Its not even close to sports, unless the Yankees are trying to squeeze money out of Red Sox!
I have never heard a player say this?.....They have a contract.....Play and get paid, or sit out and not get paid?
If they dont have a contract, they will play the market....If the market believes and agrees that there worth more they will be awarded handsomely....
These company's play on your heart strings...In turn try and make any cable or satellite provider the bad guy.....There double dipping, if they were so great there tv advertising dollars should and would pay there costs...Its in both there interests to be carried.....at what point is it all about greed and profit?
So again....One individual(ball player) cant stop the game from being played or stop the broadcast......A TV station can.
CBS is part of the problem though. The networks, instead of being free to the locals, are now demanding more and more money themselves.
And that's what's happening on at least some of the deals. Let's say station 'x' negotiates with Direct, Comcast, Fios, Mom & Pop cable to be carried for $1/month. Dish says "nope, not going to pay that much." I would say if all the other MVPDs were willing to pay that much, the market DOES believe their worth that. If Dish doesn't, fine.
And you can say that about ESPN, History, TNT, Comedy Central, etc. They all have commercials also.
Yup. Both sides benefit from the carriage. So which one (or both) is being "greedy".
Last time I looked ESPN, History, TNT, Comedy Central weren't being distributed freely on public airwaves.
In other potential disputes since Tribune (Raycom comes to mind) Dish was more pro-active about uplinking the separate guide data stream for OTA before the deadline for the stations to be dropped. It sounds like Dish is now back to their old ways of screwing up the guide data.
Wouldn't that be a reason MVPDs hold more power? Without the MVPDs, ESPN et al would have 0 viewers. Without MVPDs, locals would still have viewers (granted, not as many, but some is still more than none).
If MVPDs don't see the value in paying locals what they ask, don't. It's a business decision. If you (end user) don't see the value in what the MVPD is charging, don't get it.
We can thank the government for that with retransmission consent, instead of letting the market decide pricing.
Yes they should be supporting themselves with their commercial time or go ad free and charge ala carte like HBO, Starz, Netflix, Amazon etc.. The same with locals, if they want to be paid then do away with their ads and exclusivity and let the market and viewers set the prices.
But the market IS deciding pricing. Why wouldn't a local tell an MVPD "We want $10 per subscriber per month" or $20 or heck, $50. An item is valued at what someone (not everyone) is willing to pay for it. People moan and whine when Disney raises ticket prices, but people keep going. Why lower the cost if people are willing to pay it? Again, it's a business.
I have been a long time DISH customer but it might be time to CHANGE. Why is it DISH always has to push the fight and end up with the same thing as DTV.
An agreement has been reached for AT&T U-Verse and DirecTV customers to receive WFOX
An agreement has been reached for AT&T U-Verse and DirecTV customers to receive WFOX
I think stations and providers should start negotiating sooner, so it doesn't come down to these "make or break" tactics, putting cusomers in the middle.
Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
Check out this article. While it refers to Tulsa stations affected by a Directv disupte, read the comment an ABC affiliate made literally comparing themselves to ESPN and claiming they provide more value! Unbelievable!
http://hothardware.com/news/fox-abc-wsb-network-affiliates-outraged-attdirecttv-remove-them
"Based on publicly available information, AT&T U-Verse and DirecTV pay over $6 per subscriber per month for ESPN. In other words, $6 from your monthly bill goes straight to ESPN. Our ratings are much higher than ESPN’s! Yet, we are asking for significantly less than what AT&T/DirecTV pays to ESPN. More importantly, ESPN has NO local programming, NO local employees, NO local investments, and a very small local audience – unlike WFTV/WRDQ..."
The article then goes on to say that there's nothing people can do except wait it out. Uh....get an OTA antenna???
http://hothardware.com/news/fox-abc-wsb-network-affiliates-outraged-attdirecttv-remove-them
"Based on publicly available information, AT&T U-Verse and DirecTV pay over $6 per subscriber per month for ESPN. In other words, $6 from your monthly bill goes straight to ESPN. Our ratings are much higher than ESPN’s! Yet, we are asking for significantly less than what AT&T/DirecTV pays to ESPN. More importantly, ESPN has NO local programming, NO local employees, NO local investments, and a very small local audience – unlike WFTV/WRDQ..."
The article then goes on to say that there's nothing people can do except wait it out. Uh....get an OTA antenna???
Apparently consumers aren't part of that market decision making on price. For us, it's either pay the piper or cut the cord altogether. It's not market forces, it's collusion between conglomerates.
No different than Toyota deciding what manufacturers to use for their subassemblies. Consumers don't get to decide what radio is put in the car. Yes, oversimplifying, but the point still stands.
As far as "collusion", wouldn't you have to prove the locals are working with each other to set prices?
That's pretty much boilerplate. True, but boilerplate. Granted, certain events on ESPN may be higher, but overall, I easily believe locals (the Big 4) get better ratings than ESPN.
