But that is exactly what they do with their signal 24/7, isn't it? If the satellite companies start inserting their own ads or something, then that's something else. Maybe the law should be written such that the satellite companies would need to split any revenue from local channels with the local stations, IF the satellite company plucks the signals from the air like anyone can do, and they retransmit it back to the same geographic area. If they want to work out a deal to get a direct fiber hookup, then they can negotiate for that however they want to.sam_gordon said:
WVUE Dish dispute
- Thread starter Mojo Jojo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 9K
This is a great resource the cable and sat industry has on the battle with the FCC and congress to change the retransmission fees debacle... http://www.americancable.org/issues/page/Retransmission_Consent
Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
So you think satellite/cable providers don't already make a profit on locals? Again, what do you think would happen if you charged folks to come watch the Super Bowl at your house? What would you do if a friend told you "Hey, I found a website where I can buy Acrobat Reader for only $5!"?
I have OTA going through my Dish receivers. I *STILL* have to pay the fee. Why? Because Dish won't use the PSIP information (that's included in the OTA signal for free) in their guides. So, I have to pay a fee to get information that's ALREADY IN THE RECEIVER for free.
And let's also be honest... while I agree satellite/cable is a requirement for SOME people in order to receive locals, those numbers are the minority by far.
Minority by far? In the day of digital OTA, where it is all or nothing for a signal? Remember, the OTA for locals also means DVR for the locals. And Dish is required to offer these channels which means that they have to put aside bandwidth for them, meaning fewer channels to draw income from.
Yes, minority by far. I feel the majority of people, if they took the time/effort to put up a proper antenna would be able to receive their locals. I do agree some viewers DO need satellite/cable providers to get the locals, but by no means ALL of them, or even half.
And I disagree that ANY satellite/cable company is REQUIRED to offer locals. If they were required, there would be no negotiation. Locals would say "pay us $x for each subscriber" and Dish et al would have to go along. Here's some information on "must carry"... MUST CARRY RULES - The Museum of Broadcast Communications. It's up to the stations whether they want to utilize "must carry" or "retransmission agreements".
If you know the how we got to this point you may not agree the locals should get ONE PENNY!
Briefly; The only reason there even is a DMA is so that the local channels are protected from other affiliates competing with them. For that privilege, the local networks have to provide a free signal. If they could not get you a signal, you were (notice were) allowed to get an outside affiliate.
Now the law has changed, if the satellite company provides a network in a DMA you may no longer can get a distant channel from that provider even if you can not get a signal from the affiliate over the air. So now that affiliate is reaching people it did not have before and your ability to choose another network is gone. This is amplified because getting a digital signal is harder than the analog one was in most cases. Just who is benefiting from this? Satellite an cable should be able to carry it for free, as long as the cost is kept minimal. If a provider wants to make a true profit, then they can deal with a cost to carry them.
Add to that, I don't know what some think it costs to use transponder space and broadcast a signal, including just launching a satellite, overhead costs, etc.. but just how much do think Dish or Direct is raking in at a cost of somewhere around $1 a local channel you are paying. If you can't see it and think the networks should be able to charge apparently you have an open wallet. ANY amount now will increase exponentially I can guarantee it yet you still will have to get only that affiliate with no choice. BS to me...... No payment would mean no more being held hostage by the affiliates also. Dish and Direct pretty much already do, but make it mandatory to carry the locals, charging only the minimal it now is, and don't let the networks charge. Their deal in this is no competition for ad dollars, and reaching everyone in the DMA.
Briefly; The only reason there even is a DMA is so that the local channels are protected from other affiliates competing with them. For that privilege, the local networks have to provide a free signal. If they could not get you a signal, you were (notice were) allowed to get an outside affiliate.
Now the law has changed, if the satellite company provides a network in a DMA you may no longer can get a distant channel from that provider even if you can not get a signal from the affiliate over the air. So now that affiliate is reaching people it did not have before and your ability to choose another network is gone. This is amplified because getting a digital signal is harder than the analog one was in most cases. Just who is benefiting from this? Satellite an cable should be able to carry it for free, as long as the cost is kept minimal. If a provider wants to make a true profit, then they can deal with a cost to carry them.
Add to that, I don't know what some think it costs to use transponder space and broadcast a signal, including just launching a satellite, overhead costs, etc.. but just how much do think Dish or Direct is raking in at a cost of somewhere around $1 a local channel you are paying. If you can't see it and think the networks should be able to charge apparently you have an open wallet. ANY amount now will increase exponentially I can guarantee it yet you still will have to get only that affiliate with no choice. BS to me...... No payment would mean no more being held hostage by the affiliates also. Dish and Direct pretty much already do, but make it mandatory to carry the locals, charging only the minimal it now is, and don't let the networks charge. Their deal in this is no competition for ad dollars, and reaching everyone in the DMA.
Last edited:
Really, these channels do nothing but act as re-broadcasters of their national Affiliate, ABC, NBC, CBS. These channels have virtually no original programming. They have absolutely no right to ask for a dime.
24 hours in a day, right? Network (generally) covers from 7a-9a, 8p-11p. 11:30p-??? (I'm not up that late). Many stations do almost that much of local news. Then add in the syndicated programs that you may/may not get from a neighboring market.
As far as the "overhead" the satellite/cable companies have, do you think local broadcasters shoot the signal out of their a--? What about all of THEIR overhead costs? I guess that doesn't matter.
Oh, and remember the line "satellite reaches people OTA doesn't"? That's true. But then why aren't you complaining about Disney, Turner, Discovery, etc? THEY charge satellite/cable providers to carry THEIR programming. Without satellite/cable providers, they would have ZERO viewers. OTA would still have some.
All that being said, I will reiterate... I don't think affiliates should hold providers hostage and ask for an exorbitant amount of money. IMO, it should be ~33 cents/subscriber for each affiliate.
Last edited:
It would matter if they weren't given exclusive coverage in exchange for a FREE signal. Take away cable and Sat their costs go UP because fewer could watch, lower ad rates. Or, let them charge and let me pick my affiliate. It's even worse because you lost the ability to get other affiliates if I do not get ANY signal from the networks OTA, but the law changed to further protect the local affiliates, and Dish and Direct can not offer me a distant channel. So for that they should now be able to charge me to watch on satellite? Really? Because they can't provide a signal, the major thing they are responsible to do, they should be able to charge me to watch.
Because they are not OTA providers, or have the same exclusive right to no competition. On top of that Dish (or others) are not forced to carry TNT if they carry USA or carry Starz if they carry HBO. (By law, only by negotiation) They ARE forced by law to carry NBC, ABC and FOX if they carry CBS in a DMA, not to mention forced to carry PBS. Even other entities recognize they are different, ratings are broken into two categories because they are different.
Ok, but my honest opinion is nothing.
Last edited:
Absolutly. Its Free if you put up an antenna, then why not give cable and satellite the right to re-transmit for free?
Because they can get away with it.
My understanding was Dish/Direct WERE able to offer distant channels if they didn't carry the locals. Once the satellite companies carried the locals, the distant networks weren't needed. As far as "not providing a signal"... there were people within 30 miles of a broadcast signal (some within 10 miles) requesting waivers because they "couldn't get the signal". Not because there was a mountain range or some other physical impediment, but simply because they didn't want to be bothered to hook up an antenna.
Since the providers are forced to carry ALL affiliates if they carry one, why is there any negotiation? For example, Dish carries CBS in a market. NBC wants to charge Dish $5/month/subscriber. Dish would carry -0- negotiating power because they MUST carry the NBC, right? Yet, there is still negotiation. Why?
OK.Ok, but my honest opinion is nothing.
Because satellite/cable providers are making money on offering the channels. Don't give me this BS about "covering costs"... I GUARANTEE that $5/6 charge (even if it's wrapped into the package) for locals MORE than makes up for Dish's cost. Let's say I start a webpage. On my webpage, I'm going to offer Acrobat Reader for $5, Open Office for $10, Shockwave player for $5, and Flash Player for $5. After all, those companies are offering their product for free, so I can do what I want with them, right?
I agree with Tampa8 above for the most part, but locals do lay out lots of bucks for syndies to fill-in their programming between daytime and nighttime mothership broadcasts and also for their local news operations. This should be supported by their ad revenue though and not from carriage fees assessed cablecos and dbs companies. As Tampa said they get protection and a free frequency, so they shouldn't be able toi charge for it.
See, here's the problem... there's a bunch of misinformation out there.
CommLawCenter: FCC Administration Archives
There is a lot more at the link.
Yes, what you wrote is correct, but that is change to what it was - they could give me a distant if I could not get OTA even if they carried the networks. But even that got changed to more protection. Why? It's easy, once they made that change, they decided to start charging more and more to the only source I can get - Satellite (or cable). Nothing I can do, OTA not an option, I have no alternative through my provider for an alternate channel that I would have had. So they get that ad revenue, AND now start charging more.
Yes some were asking for waivers, but that process was allowed, and it was not always the claim they couldn't get the signal. Some affiliates early on were clueless and did not care and gave out waivers. It still does not address the many, and now that is digital even more - who can't get OTA.
YES! Think about what you said there, they are forced to carry all the networks if they carry any and yet are forced to negotiate with each one. Take away all the protection the affiliates get, make them like the rest of cable, open my options to getting other distant channels, and I have less problems over this.
Apples and oranges if I ever saw an example of one. Those are each a bussiness that have competition for the same item - program - if you will. They have no protection to sell me only their product in my DMA. They have the right to not allow copying etc....
You can call it BS, but I get 8 local channels for $5.99 (I do agree it's not free in the package even though the companies make it seem that way - on that I agree)
That is around 75 cents each, $8.40 a year. Just how much do you think Dish or Direct is making? You can't believe they are making tons of or even hardly any money when I pay them $8.40 a year.\
As a contrast, think about this, to get all four networks from AAD, in SD they charge for a year payment in advance $149.99 Dish for ALL my locals, in my case 8 channels in hd, charges $72.00 a year, paid monthly.
You don't think if the networks had their way you wouldn't be paying $150 just for their four channels, in SD?
Last edited:
Let's see... my understanding is not every TV is "measured" (especially in Diary markets). So unless you know you have a Neilson meter or you fill out a Neilson diary, no broadcaster (affiliate or network) is getting ANY ad revenue from you watching the station.
While not everyone requested a waiver because they couldn't get a signal, I'm willing to wager 90%+ claimed exactly that when asking for the waiver... even if a set of rabbit ears would suffice. BTW, a guy I knew used to be Chief Engineer for one of the local affiliates and he'd share some of the "requests".
So if Dish is FORCED to carry all the networks, why is WVUE not being carried (according to this thread)?
Similar threads
