Why do we have to pay for locals with Dish?

[mitchflorida]

" And some posts make it sound like DISH has a choice. They can't offer it to some and not others (for a reduction in cost)."

PLEASE read my first post where I mention that you did have a choice. You could get locals from Dish and pay for it, or you could avoid the fee and get the local stations for free using an antenna instead. Why are people here so slow on the uptick?

We aren't talking about $5 a month, but $10-$20 a month and the networks are all promising to double their fees for broadcasts that are for free.

 

[bobvick]

The fee for the additional Hoppers were $7 at one time too, now they are $12 per month. America's Everything Package (for example) was $77.99 10 years ago. Why can't you "drop" locals now? Because Dish wants the $$$$. If you don't want to pay, you don't have to play. The simple answer is that is the way it is because they (Dish) have made it that way.

 

[bobvick]

"

We aren't talking about $5 a month, but $10-$20 a month and the networks are all promising to double their fees for broadcasts that are for free.

Your source for this information? I.E. The fact that if you could "drop" them you would save $10-20 rather than $5-6?

 

[mitchflorida]

Dish doesn't keep the money , it collects it and gives it to CBS, Fox, ABC, NBC and others.

 

[bobvick]

Dish doesn't keep the money , it collects it and gives it to CBS, Fox, ABC, NBC and others.

Again, your source, that the networks get ALL the money? What about Dish's local POP uplinks, do they run those gratis? What about the spot beam satellites they had to have designed, built, launched, and have to pay Echostar to operate?


Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[MikeD-C05]

I think a lot of our DISH FEEs are really hidden cost for locals . I mean DISH has charged like $5.00 for locals for years and I know that the price for each network has gone up and DISH doesn't want to include that in our programming packs ,since they are already holding the increasing costs from cable channels. So the increasing cost of our fees are mostly likely being raised to cover the costs of the ever increasing cost of CBS,NBC,ABC and FOX.

 

[Claude Greiner]

Move to an area that doesn't have locals.

 

[Tampa8]

" And some posts make it sound like DISH has a choice. They can't offer it to some and not others (for a reduction in cost)."

PLEASE read my first post where I mention that you did have a choice. You could get locals from Dish and pay for it, or you could avoid the fee and get the local stations for free using an antenna instead. Why are people here so slow on the uptick?

We aren't talking about $5 a month, but $10-$20 a month and the networks are all promising to double their fees for broadcasts that are for free.

It seems to be you that are crawling on the uptick. Dish can not offer locals to only those that want it. I read, I digested, I understood, then responded to that post. I am well aware that at the time DISH offered them by choice they could do so. I have been a subscriber nearly since their inception. That was then, this is now. They no longer can. They must offer them in the packages, not just carry them in all 210 markets. (Unless of course the local does not ask for must carry, they don't carry any of the locals from a market, or they do not come to a financial agreement) Grandfathered accounts that did not include the locals seem to be excluded till certain changes to the account is made. DISH offered Distants at one time too, that doesn't mean they could now. They couldn't even if they wanted under the new rules. (unless you have the national PBS )

I also am very interested in where your information comes from about your assertion the money is actually $10 to $20..... closer to $10 and under based on what each network now charges.
And as others have mentioned DISH does not "keep" the money.....

 

[Tampa8]

I think a lot of our DISH FEEs are really hidden cost for locals . I mean DISH has charged like $5.00 for locals for years and I know that the price for each network has gone up and DISH doesn't want to include that in our programming packs ,since they are already holding the increasing costs from cable channels. So the increasing cost of our fees are mostly likely being raised to cover the costs of the ever increasing cost of CBS,NBC,ABC and FOX.

Could some of the fee increased be attributed to that, I suppose so. I do agree the cost DISH (and others) are paying seems to have exceeded the $5 to $6 always charged for locals edging closer to $10. However I believe some of the cost of package increases has been because of that rather than fees.

 

[ChadT41]

I'm gonna use time warner and cbs as my references on this one. The debacle that ensued a little while back, was because CBS wanted $1.50 per month per subscriber. That's the highest any local has ever wanted. That being said, let's assume the 4 locals are each $1.50. That's $6. Dish reduces it's cost by $5 in places that cannot recieve locals. So, to settle that argument, locals have gone up in price, and dish has kept the price consistent for them. I say kudos. Also, I don't really see dish "pocketing" the money. If that were the case, Charlie Ergen would not have gone on public record saying satellite tv is a dying business. They are a business expecting to make a profit on it's product, so yes, some of the money gets "pocketed", but that's like you getting mad at mcdonalds for charging you for a burger that's not at the cost for them to produce it. Welcome to business. Also, that money goes right back into the company, to do things such as run a multi billion $ business, maintain billion dollar satellites, prepare growth by purchasing spectrum, and keeping INVESTORS happy. The reason dish cannot offer locals to just some, is because the locals in a DMA, if offered to one person, must be charged by the whole DMA. Whether they sub or not. So dish will recoup heir cost as necessary. I'm sorry Mitch, your point is moot. I understand your concern, but there is zero relevance, nor have you made an argument that was not for your own selfish desires, compared to the dish family as a whole.

I feel a quote from Billy Madison is required here, but I do not think the mods would appreciate it. Let's just say "may god have mercy on your soul"

 

[bobvick]

I'm gonna use time warner and cbs as my references on this one. The debacle that ensued a little while back, was because CBS wanted $1.50 per month per subscriber. That's the highest any local has ever wanted. That being said, let's assume the 4 locals are each $1.50.

You have to keep in mind, that $1.50 for CBS was for the CBS O&O stations, so that is just in markets where the CBS station is owned by CBS. In the market I am I , Birmingham, the CBS affiliate station is owned by LIN, so LIN is not getting $1.50 per month for it, they are getting whatever price Dish and them have negotiated.

 

[ChadT41]

It was just a reference point but I know it is less than that for most markets.

 

[dwarren2]

On the practical side, how many times do you want to want to watch/record more than 1 network show at the same time? With Dish supplied locals you have that option.

 

[R0ss]

I expect most tv viewers don't realize that you can still receive OTA! We dropped Dish over a year ago. Frankly it was a combination of economics, and our dissatisfaction with overall content of pay tv. Sure we miss some shows, and we definitely miss the cable news and NESN, but we have three ROKU's and a RPi, so we still have plenty of options.
I can say that even under ideal circumstances OTA can still have issues, not like back in the 60's and 70's when rabbit ears barley did the job, but overall for us the cost savings has been worth it.
My daughter is getting ready to drop FIOS for the same reason, single with two kids, she has a great job, but the $100.00/ month can be better used elsewhere.
It's all about what the individual wants and can afford...prices on everything are going up, food, fuel, utilities etc, but salaries are not....at least not mine and my wife's and we both have what are considered good jobs (she's a nurse and I work for a town).
I do get where the OP is coming from, OTA should be free, however it's not if you pay for TV.

Ross


Sent via Tapatalk

 

[bobvick]

This is quite funny in a way. Back in the late 70s through the early 90s up until the 1992 Cable Act, the networks (o&o and affiliates) were begging and in some cases going to court to force the cable companies to carry them. Now, roughly 20 years later they depend on retransmission consent for a large portion of their revenue. I for one wish congress would step in again and cap what they can force a multichannel video provider to pay.


Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[stardust3]

I expect most tv viewers don't realize that you can still receive OTA! We dropped Dish over a year ago. Frankly it was a combination of economics, and our dissatisfaction with overall content of pay tv. Sure we miss some shows, and we definitely miss the cable news and NESN, but we have three ROKU's and a RPi, so we still have plenty of options.
I can say that even under ideal circumstances OTA can still have issues, not like back in the 60's and 70's when rabbit ears barley did the job, but overall for us the cost savings has been worth it.
My daughter is getting ready to drop FIOS for the same reason, single with two kids, she has a great job, but the $100.00/ month can be better used elsewhere.
It's all about what the individual wants and can afford...prices on everything are going up, food, fuel, utilities etc, but salaries are not....at least not mine and my wife's and we both have what are considered good jobs (she's a nurse and I work for a town).
I do get where the OP is coming from, OTA should be free, however it's not if you pay for TV.

Ross


Sent via Tapatalk

I'm down to the welcome pack for the very reason highlighted in your post.

Was definitely way more satisfied when we had a dish 300 with legacy receiver. Back then the content & price were equally balanced imo.

 

[mitchflorida]

This is quite funny in a way. Back in the late 70s through the early 90s up until the 1992 Cable Act, the networks (o&o and affiliates) were begging and in some cases going to court to force the cable companies to carry them. Now, roughly 20 years later they depend on retransmission consent for a large portion of their revenue. I for one wish congress would step in again and cap what they can force a multichannel video provider to pay.

Congress has created this problem by not allowing Dish bring in a distant network channel if the local network channel won't agree to a low fee to carry it. If WABC in NYC won't bargain in good faith, let Dish bring in the Syracuse ABC channel. Congress is 10 years behind the times and they created a monopoly situation for the Network Owned and Operated channels, after receiving some nice campaign donations I should add. If there were no local monopoly on the network channels, they wouldn't have as much leverage.

 

[R0ss]

This is quite funny in a way. Back in the late 70s through the early 90s up until the 1992 Cable Act, the networks (o&o and affiliates) were begging and in some cases going to court to force the cable companies to carry them. Now, roughly 20 years later they depend on retransmission consent for a large portion of their revenue. I for one wish congress would step in again and cap what they can force a multichannel video provider to pay.


Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

I for one had no idea that multichannel video providers had to pay the locals to retransmit until I found this site (several years ago). We switched to Dish when they began carrying the locals in our DMA, and yes it was $5.00 more per month. I honestly thought it was an up charge by dish for an additional service, didn't realize it was because they had to pay a retransmission fee. Again I'm sure most folks have no clue that their provider is paying the locals for retransmission rights...just like I'm sure most folks don't even realize that their local community has negotiated a deal with the "cable" Comapny to provide service in their community!

Ross


Sent via Tapatalk

 

[Scherrman]

The answer I was giving when Dish decided to include locals automatically was that the majority of customers were subscribing to the local channels anyway. I believe this to be true. Back when this change was made having local channels available through Dish was huge. There were a lot of people who were unable to receive all of their local channels OTA so getting them from Dish was perfect. I remember tons of customers getting rid of their antennas once the satellite companies starting carrying locals.

Now that the digital conversion is all finished there are more and more customers putting antennas back up to take advantage of all the extra local channels available. I can see why some people would be upset having to pay for local channels when they have an antenna but you are in the minority. I myself have an antenna and I have no issues with having my local channels included.

 

[Hall]

Broadcast TV is supposed to be free, no charge to the customer...

Tell that to the broadcast networks.