1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Raycom stations may drop from Dish at midnight (and now back on Dish again)

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by FTA Michael, Jul 31, 2013.

  1. Aug 1, 2013 #41 of 115
    bnewt

    bnewt Godfather

    397
    5
    Oct 2, 2003
    Louisville, Ky lost the NBC station...............& I do care.........because again I am paying for something that I am not receiving.........bet Dish doesn't reduce my monthly bill
     
  2. Aug 1, 2013 #42 of 115
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    I've always preferred network feeds. Locals screw up the schedules too much. The local Raycom station here runs MyTV on their .2 channel but they share it with CW in the evenings and a bunch of other stuff during other hours. It ends up being about 50% MyTV and 20% CW.

    I was never really into C-Band for various reasons, but I've heard lots of stories about the raw network feeds of the big 3 national networks back then.
     
  3. Aug 1, 2013 #43 of 115
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    What do you want? 3 cents a month? That's about all it costs them.
     
  4. Aug 1, 2013 #44 of 115
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,730
    981
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    NBC doesn't "own" most of the bandwidth they would forfeit ... their affiliates own most of it. And they are being paid by their affiliates to provide programming to them for OTA broadcast.
     
  5. Aug 1, 2013 #45 of 115
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,730
    981
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    They might. In the past they have given a $1 credit per network channel lost in a dispute.
     
  6. Aug 2, 2013 #46 of 115
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    Part of the argument for retransmission consent is that cable and satellite dilute an OTA station's drawing power. They simply must compete with more channels on those services than they would if people only had OTA. There is no question that retransmission fees have become a significant part of the broadcast stations' revenues, and if they were to lose those revenues they would need to be replaced elsewhere. The replacement would be in the loss of quality programming, since they couldn't raise their prices elsewhere. Advertisers won't pay more just because the networks aren't getting money from cable and satellite. In many smaller markets, you might even see stations go belly-up.

    The digital transition really put the squeeze on a lot of stations' budgets. A 50kw lo-VHF analog station didn't use nearly the power a 1000kw UHF one does to cover a slightly smaller area. And thanks to the fact that analog was variable in power usage (white used 0 power, black 100%) the actual electrical usage was lower. Now, the power usage is pretty constant thanks to digital, and lo-VHF was found to be inadequate for digital coverage for many people.

    I don't like these disagreements. I wish they didn't happen. But getting two people to agree can be hard enough when they have common interests. Getting two companies to agree when their interests are in opposition is even harder. My bet is this will resolve in a week or two, and all the terms will be confidential.
     
  7. Aug 2, 2013 #47 of 115
    david_jr

    david_jr Godfather

    555
    8
    Dec 10, 2006
    But the Satellite companies have to? I understand times are tough. Why do we have to pay more because they have to compete with cable? Why do we always hear things like "Broadcast Co. A is seeking a 500 per cent increase" from the cable & sat companies and "we're only asking for what amounts to pennies more per subscriber for our valuable programming that Satellite Co. A is charging their customers extra for" from the broadcasters? I hate government intervention, but these things are already regulated by the government and a "fair set rate" by FCC for all stations for retransmission might, while costing us a bit more overall, end the constant interuptions.
     
  8. Aug 2, 2013 #48 of 115
    Michael P

    Michael P Hall Of Fame

    3,106
    21
    Oct 27, 2004
    The Raycom sites list an 800# to call to ask for a rebate from Dish. It's not the main Dish 800#, I wonder who set it up? I would not want to give my account information to someone who turns out not to be genuine Dish staff.

     
  9. Aug 2, 2013 #49 of 115
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    You don't have to pay more. Cut the cord.

    The FCC set up a system whereby stations could require compensation for the carriage of their signal. It's called "retransmission consent" and it is a negotiated contract between the station and the multi-channel provider (cable/satellite/whatever) that sets the terms and conditions at whatever the two parties agree to. There is a second system called "must-carry" where a station can insist that the cable companies carry their channel, but then they get nothing for it except their channel is distributed to more homes. Each station gets to choose which of these they want. If broadcasters wanted to increase their market share, they would choose must-carry because that would increase their exposure. However, these channels are now too popular for anybody not to carry, so the broadcasters can demand compensation for retransmission.

    Essentially, it is all tied back to copyright. The copyright holder gets to choose how to distribute their product, under what terms and conditions they will sell it, etc. Putting the signal out on the public airwaves does not negate the copyright holder's rights. Simply put, you do not have the right to take someone else's property and distribute it without their permission.

    However, I believe the fundamental shift is only now beginning. See paragraph 1 above for what will ultimately end the blackmail.
     
  10. Aug 3, 2013 #50 of 115
    fpembleton

    fpembleton Member

    48
    0
    Jun 19, 2005
    The NBC affiliate in Columbia, SC is affected - as far as I am concerned, they can leave it off. I rarely watch the networks.
     
  11. Aug 3, 2013 #51 of 115
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,339
    576
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    What examples can you think of for the latter?
     
  12. Aug 3, 2013 #52 of 115
    Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    I'll give you the big three......

    Food prices, energy prices, health care.......

    Government policies have contributed to increases in all three areas. There are always exceptions, of course, but in general when government tinkers, prices rise.

    For example, subsidizing farmers to grow biofuels (which have debatable positive effects and/or public demand), while sounding positive and therefore a 'good/nice thing to do' politically have had the unintended consequence of lowering some other types of food supplies and therefore price increases for those foods. You've seen it in the grocery store over the last few years even though there is no inflation right now. Most stores are charging the same but the portions are smaller.

    Government has also messed with gas prices. Four years ago gas was below $2 a gallon. I don't have to tell you how much it is for us now. Because of government programs it's more profitable to sell oil overseas and therefore lowers domestic supplies causing us to pay more. This is incredibly true even during our current recession while demand is near a 25 year low!

    Health care costs have gone up dramatically in the last 18 months, despite the new health care law, and is predicted to go even higher soon when the law kicks in fully. The current administration has even delayed pieces of the law to tamp some of that down.

    I don't want to debate the merits of each of these issues, these are just some of the facts as they relate to what you and I pay for these goods and services.

    The market almost always creates fair prices based on supply and demand. When prices become unfair, demand falls and the market will self correct.

    The free market is not always perfect, but government usually makes 'political' decisions and not 'business' decisions. That's why nearly every government program wastes money and causes unintended consequences in the free markets.
     
  13. Aug 3, 2013 #53 of 115
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,730
    981
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    So it is not compensation for copyright it is punishment for apparently reducing viewership? Even though in the next breath the stations claim that cable and satellite are making money by selling OTA reception and they want a piece of the action?

    They can't have it both ways. Pick a theory. Either retransmission on cable and satellite reduces viewership or it increases viewership. One cannot claim both!

    There is nothing in the law that allows an OTA station to penalize a cable or satellite company for competing with them. The law allows the OTA to charge for retransmission ... not for competition.

    That is a failure of the STATIONS. They should never have relied on retransmission for income - and the trend to demand dollars instead of pennies for retransmission is reasonably new. A couple of years ago the networks and their O&Os started pushing for $1+ per subscriber and suggested the affiliates did the same. Before that, the rates were more reasonable.

    If retransmission fees were never allowed to be charged perhaps stations would have already gone belly-up ... or perhaps they would not have tried to extort money from the companies that are helping them reach their audience. A long time ago DISH network did not carry my market's locals. Before I subscribed to DISH I had cable with locals and saw their programming ... when I switched to DISH I had satellite without locals and lived without OTA stations. It was a major benefit to those OTA stations and their advertisers when DISH added the channels in my market. Why does the thank you card come in the form of a bill?

    That sounds like one of those arguments that when DISH loses customers their satellites use less power (more signal for the rest of us when lost customers stop receiving the signal).

    In my area UHF power levels dropped to cover "the same area". We have one station with 800kw and the rest are below 400kw. We even have three of UHFs that are 85kw or less. The conversion from tube transmitters to solid state (no tube or just one large tube) has reduced the power usage for the station ... not increased it.

    That I can agree with. It happens all the time. In the best times it happens without a loss of channels for the customer. But there are few disputes where a channel loss is permanent.
     
  14. Aug 3, 2013 #54 of 115
    Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    6,226
    23
    Dec 16, 2003
    Time Warner Cable just drop CBS CORP. for retrains trouble.
     
  15. Aug 3, 2013 #55 of 115
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,339
    576
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    @ Athlon

    Thanks for the reply. While this is not the place for this debate, may I offer that the third example is primo, whereas the first two are very interrelated and very complex, and not necessarily the Gov't's fault. And, yes, Gov't regulation costs each and every one of us bucks- some programs are worth it, others not so much. I feel safe eating in any restaurant that doesn't look horrible, and have a high degree of confidence that what I buy in the market isn't poisoned. There are glaring exceptions to both, but without the FDA, I wouldn't be as happy. Possibly the EPA; not Homeland security- or rather the TSA. I could go on and on, but won't! :)
     
  16. Aug 3, 2013 #56 of 115
    jsk

    jsk Icon

    779
    12
    Dec 27, 2006
    Fallston, MD
    This problem was caused by government DEregulation. They have been relaxing TV ownership laws and it has allowed companies to become so powerful that a retrans dispute will hurt a cable/satellite company in multiple markets. This is just one problem caused by relaxing the ownership laws.
     
  17. Aug 3, 2013 #57 of 115
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Yeah, I figured part of the transition to digital was to reduce power consumption.

    On the retrans fees and revenue .... if they're getting so much more, why are local commercial minutes increasing during the news?
     
  18. Aug 3, 2013 #58 of 115
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    You're asking the wrong question.

    Do you have a job? Do you want a raise? When did you last get a raise? Why wasn't that raise enough for you now?

    Costs go up... people want to buy things... people want more money to work... companies have to pay more... companies have to charge more... it just keeps cycling around and around.
     
  19. Aug 3, 2013 #59 of 115
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    In how many cities is CBS off both systems in these disputes?
     
  20. Aug 3, 2013 #60 of 115
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,730
    981
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Charge the advertisers more ... and continue to provide programming worth watching so the station has viewers to sell to those advertisers. :)

    Trying to charge their viewers more indirectly through cable or satellite providers just seems wrong. Especially when the local commercial load is increasing and stations are cutting back on the quality of local production. Why are we watching? Sometimes I wonder.
     

Share This Page