Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by FTA Michael, Jul 31, 2013.
I'm not necessarily advocating such a ban; I'm just throwing this out there for discussion.
Ban retransmission fees. If you have an FCC license, once the signal leaves your tower, you have no say over what happens to it.
In this case I completely agree. They got the bandwidth for free off taxpayers and now they want to charge us if we use a cable or sat service to watch tv instead of using a roof antenna? Pure hogwash IMHO.
I will laugh if/when dish and dtv and all the cable companies make a deal with aero for delivering all locals and then dump the locals so they don't have to pay any fees.
Yay! Another dispute where the paying customer loses. Meanwhile non paying customers are not affected. Don't you love pay tv!
Yes it is different, the station gets more customers who can see their signal clearer over a wider area and what does this cost the station? Oh yeah nothing, the satellite and cable companies make all the infrastructure investments pay for the manpower to do it and maintain it. So the station gets the benefit of being able to claim more potential eyeballs to advertisers without having to make any investment of their own. Who should be paying who here? Honestly they should just call it wash, the cable & satellite companies get more customers because they carry the locals and the locals get more eyeballs everyone wins. If only it should be so simple.
ok how about this?
Satellite or cable can rebroadcast the signal for free if they do not allow recording or commercial skipping. Got to pay the bills somehow.
^^ If you can record and skip with OTA, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to with cable or satellite.
I don't believe Dish or anyone else really makes any profit on locals. There is a great deal of expense involved and I'm not sure the $5 or so covers it.
It's more of a convenience for viewers in outlying areas that can't get a good signal or those who choose not to have an outside antenna. As noted above, those are viewers the locals wouldn't otherwise have. And that's why I still say the locals should be paying to be carried instead of getting paid.
Then why should any station with commercials get paid to be on cable or satellite?
OTA stations should not. Closed distribution networks don't have FCC licenses or any revenue stream outside cable and satellite (and now some web streaming outlets).
They don't have advertisers? Just like OTA networks? And what if the big 4 networks discontinue OTA broadcasts?
Why should cable get NBC for free but have to pay for MSNBC?
Because nbc is free to anyone with an antenna and they where given the right to broadcast and the bandwidth to do it with the expectations and agreement that in exchange for the billions of dollars they'd have to had to paid for the bandwidth and such they'd simply supply the programing for free. Now they are charging companies who want to make it easy for the customer to not have to change inputs on their tvs. That's not acceptable. Period.
No such agreement was ever made for msnbc and they where never given billions of dollars with of bandwidth for free by you and me, taxpayers, represented by the government.
We paid for the channels already when we gave them the bandwidth for over the air channels. That didn't happen when they started a cable channel. They paid for everything to build that.
Add in the fact that over the air networks get billions more money in ad fees than cable channels do in general.
Ok, NBC will forfeit the bandwidth and be a cable channel.
And how many millions of viewers will they lose that don't have cable or satellite?
OTA broadcasts are free to the consumer... put up an antenna and enjoy them for free.
IF you want them any other way (like via satellite) then you might have to pay... and if Dish charges you to get them via satellite, then the OTA station has a right to get some of that money too.
I keep repeating this... years ago, in my DMA... the local channels banded together and said that if cable companies would give their signals for free then they would grant them retransmission rights for free... BUT if they wanted to charge, then they needed to pay.
We can agree or not over whether any particular case is greed vs business or whatever... but conceptually, the notion of OTA being free is not even arguable. OTA is free as long as you get it via OTA. Nobody has a right to OTA... you just are allowed to get it free via OTA... but if you can't get it because you are too far out or obstructions are in the way or whatever... then nobody owes you those OTA signals via some other way.
I sympathize with people losing their locals... I have lost locals before too... but my stance/opinion is the same now as it was then.
In the case of one of the two Cleveland Raycom stations satellite helps get their signal out to areas that otherwise could not receive their OTA signal. None of the other Cleveland OTA's suffer from the poor coverage, only "CBS 19 WOIO" whose RF channel is 10. There is a ch 10 across Lake Erie in London, Ontario (110 miles north with 60 miles of lake, i.e. no terrain obstruction + water reflection) that virtually wipes out the northeast counties of the DMA, especially in the summer months. The local cable systems in those counties must also have a hard time getting the signal (unless they make a deal with one of the satellite providers or use terrestrial microwave). They are operating at lower power until the Canadian issue is rectified (fat chance Canada will budge, they were on ch 10 first).
Bottom line they need Dish & Direct to provide coverage to that part of the DMA (or risk losing those counties to Erie PA or Youngstown OH DMA's).
He must have been reading from a script provided by the home office. If you watch the video on the link I provided, the WOIO message was almost identical.
Is Dish even really selling them anymore? They used to charge a $5/mo fee if you wanted locals. As I understand it now, local are included in all packages in most markets. So, are they charging for them, or just passing on the retrans fees? If there were no retrans fees, would they be charging anything?
Kind of one of those chicken and egg things.
Ok, NBC will forfeit the bandwidth and be a cable channel.
Ha! You are funny! If they did then fine, I wouldn't have an issue with them asking for money for carriage. But that's not the case!
Here in the Toledo market we lost two channels, channel 11 and 36.
No big deal right now. Come September? A big deal. With college football, the NFL, and new shows starting up, I hope they come to an agreement.
It seems to me that a better solution than banning retransmission fees might be to separate the network from the local channel. Let the Sat and Cable companies make national deals with the network and the local stations can cut their own deal for local shows. We'd see how valuable the local news was then.