Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

DIRECTV has lost and got back Tribune stations due to retrans dispute


  • Please log in to reply
861 replies to this topic

#61 OFFLINE   ThaPhenom

ThaPhenom

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 52 posts
Joined: Aug 21, 2006

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:49 AM

These network disputes became more prevalent when the national networks like Fox decided they wanted a piece of the retransmission pie. They raised their prices on local affiliates, and if the affiliates balked, they were dropped. Now the affiliates are trying to pass the increased cost on to the service provider when it comes time to renew, in this case, DirecTV. Don't think by switching providers you can avoid these disputes.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#62 OFFLINE   sorrycharlie

sorrycharlie

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 80 posts
Joined: Jul 16, 2010

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:53 AM

I hope they can work out a deal with for CLTVHD as apart of the WGN issue.

#63 OFFLINE   RAD

RAD

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,065 posts
  • LocationDripping Springs, TX
Joined: Aug 05, 2002

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:16 AM

I hope they can work out a deal with for CLTVHD as apart of the WGN issue.


Since your sig's location says Colorado are you hoping tha CLTVHD gets added as a national channel which doesn't make sense since it's a local Chicago area channel?

See post My Setup for configuration info.


#64 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,155 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:32 AM

what about the sports books? sports bars? hotels with WGN America they can't just all move to other systems.


Don't worry, you'll survive.

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#65 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,155 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:37 AM

Great site, I love how they show this:

Posted Image


Umm, I think most people would pay more to NOT receive those shows*.









*12 year old girls, excluded.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#66 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,156 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:50 AM

It took, what, only three messages for the "good for DirecTV" crowd to chime in, as if DirecTV cares about anything other than its bottom line, or if this will prevent, ameliorate or even minutely effect the annual rate increase DirecTV will be "forced" to pass on to consumers in 2013, 2014, 2015 and beyond, in order to keep its profit margins on the ever-increasing upswing. (Since up is the only way ANY public corporation can ever have its profits go; logic and finite demand be damned.)

Obviously, DirecTV will keep trying to pay as little as they can (as any business would), while charging the absolute maximum possible the market will bear (again, naturally), all while doing the math on how much any particular channel loss/price increase will effect their bottom line (i.e. churn). Not how it will effect their customers mind you, but simply DirecTV's own bottom line.
. . .

I don't even see how these channel disputes always get broken down into 'good guy' and 'bad guy' debates. Why does anyone buy into the P.R. spin? It's laughable on its face. As far as our own self-interest, and those of other non-stock-holding paying customer, they are always BOTH bad guys.


You are right that DirecTV only cares about its bottom line and that DirecTV will pass any cost increase on to the customers; however, taking a stand to keep the cost down is in the best intererst of both DirecTV and the customer. No matter how you cut it, paying more for content will drive up the cost, and increasing rates will cause some customers to drop the service. Both of these have a negative impact on DirecTV's bottom line, so keeping the costs down is in the best interest of both DirecTV and the customer.

I think it is easy to see why these get broken down to "good guy" and "bad guy" debates, although it might be more corectly characterized as "bad guy" / "worse guy". The content providers in LIL disputes are the ones picking the fights. I remember the days when FOX, the WB, and UPN affiliates were fighting for, and eventually were granted, "must carry", which forced cable and satellite companies to retransmit their signals if NBC, CBS, and ABC were offered. The "must carry" regulations also forced DirecTV to treat all locals from the same DMA the same (i.e., back in the SD only days when multiple catellite LNBs were rare, DirecTV could not put ABC, NBC, and CBS on the 101 satellite and the other locals from the same DMA on 110 or 119).

As a result of the "must carry", FOX achieved pariety with the other three major networks, and CW, the remnants of WB and UPN, achieved significant market penetration. Now, some of the locals have turned around and demanded that they be paid for what they could not give away before. I think that is far worse than DirecTV trying to hold the line on costs.

It is not just DirecTV that has carriage disputes. Our local Time Warner Cable had a dispute with Disney, and our local ABC station is an O&O, so it was included in the dispute.

#67 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,156 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:59 AM

G4


If there was enough demand for G4, it would have been resolved, but the balance between the demand and what G4 expected to be paid was too far in the direction of too little demand, so G4 was dropped. I am sure that DirecTV lost some subscribers over that decision, but it was too few to make it worth paying what it would have cost to keep G4.

The Versus (now NBC Sports Network) dispute was long, but it did not start until after the Tour de France ended and was resolved before the start of the next Tour de France. At the time, the Tour was by far the most widely viewed event on Versus. DirecTV carried Universal Sports for the Vuelta de Espana while Versus was dark, so Comcast lost more from that outage than DirecTV did. Had there not been the dispute, the Vuelta would not have been on DirecTV that year.

#68 OFFLINE   litzdog911

litzdog911

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 11,685 posts
  • LocationMill Creek, WA
Joined: Jun 23, 2004

Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:00 PM

We will be moving to another provider if WGN is dropped for more than a few days beyond the deadline date. As a sub since '98 we will miss the logical layout of channels and decent customer service but if they don't offer a channel we like to watch, why have the service?

One thing we won't miss is the unfixable HR-22, the Yugo of DVRs.


Good luck finding a provider that's immune to this madness.
HD DVRs: HR34-700; HR24-500; (2) HR20-700 + WD eSATA 1TB drive/Antec MX1 case; HR21-700; HR21-200 w/AM21
Receivers: H25-500 HD Receiver; H21-100 HD Receiver
Mobile Devices: Nomad

Additional equipment configuration details

Sun & moon help site your satellite dish


#69 OFFLINE   Jtaylor1

Jtaylor1

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 193 posts
Joined: Jan 27, 2008

Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:38 PM

I would happily pay for a direct feed from the networks (PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CW) and cut the local yahoos out of the mix entirely. Here in Little Rock, you are much more likely to see the entire screen jumbled up with weather garbage (usually tracking a minimal storm that is outside their viewing area) than the show anyway.


Except that the east coast CW feed will be dropped. Only feed is going to be is from XETV Tijuana.

#70 OFFLINE   alnielsen

alnielsen

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 471 posts
  • LocationDuPage Co. IL
Joined: Dec 31, 2006

Posted 27 March 2012 - 03:19 PM

It took, what, only three messages for the "good for DirecTV" crowd to chime in, as if DirecTV cares about anything other than its bottom line, or if this will prevent, ameliorate or even minutely effect the annual rate increase DirecTV will be "forced" to pass on to consumers in 2013, 2014, 2015 and beyond, in order to keep its profit margins on the ever-increasing upswing. (Since up is the only way ANY public corporation can ever have its profits go; logic and finite demand be damned.)

Obviously, DirecTV will keep trying to pay as little as they can (as any business would), while charging the absolute maximum possible the market will bear (again, naturally), all while doing the math on how much any particular channel loss/price increase will effect their bottom line (i.e. churn). Not how it will effect their customers mind you, but simply DirecTV's own bottom line.

I don't especially fault DirecTV for thinking this way, but I do have to roll my eyes at the continual back and forth and credulity regularly expressed here. Do the people who always chime in "thanking" DirecTV for "taking a stand" and "drawing a line" actually believe the rhetoric that DirecTV, or any corporation, is "fighting for" the consumer's best interest? Or "protecting" us from higher costs?

Beyond the $$$ you represent DirecTV doesn't give a rat's patoot about your "best interests." If it was legal for them to send a guy to your house and physically hang you by the heels and shake you solely to collect the loose change that falls out of your pockets don't think they, and just about other business, wouldn't do it in a heartbeat. The only interests DirecTV--and the channels for that matter--care about, are their own.

And, as someone else astutely and absolutely accurately pointed out, there will be a cost here: the eventual increase, no matter how large or small it is PLUS the escalating marketing war waged by both sides ... And there is zero doubt, no matter how this plays out, that every penny will, one way or another, ALL be passed on to the consumer, i.e. you and I. This slap fight Tribune and DirecTV are currently waging? Funded by us. I guarantee.

I don't even see how these channel disputes always get broken down into 'good guy' and 'bad guy' debates. Why does anyone buy into the P.R. spin? It's laughable on its face. As far as our own self-interest, and those of other non-stock-holding paying customer, they are always BOTH bad guys. Be it the now resolved year-long Versus fight, FOX channel stand-off, Viacom, Disney Jr., Tribune (which personally would mean we would lose our local CW and antenna isn't an option where we live), or a dozen other fights of this type that are now too frequent to recall... If the company I'm paying more and more every year to provide with me TV can't, or won't, provide the channels it promised, I'm the loser. Simply put: They have my money. I don't have my channel. It's getting beyond tiresome.

The arguments about whose 'fault' the negotiation breakdown is are childish and pointless and the public airing of grievances as a way to do business ever-so-annoying. I am beyond sick of the corporate press release regurgitation machine that couches every single carefully calculated financial decision--and that's what all of these "breakdown in negotiation" info spams are--and tries to spin it into a moral argument. One could easily argue that trying to do so is the company's obligation, but for goodness sake, let's be smarter than that and not buy into their pitch, OK? They can try and drag us into their playground game--the discourse of which rarely raises above the "nuh-uh" "yeah-huh" and "I know you are but what am I?" level--but we don't actually have to let them.

Years ago, when I used to regularly read about such stand-off tactics with Dish (and here I will insert a preemptive plea to please, skip the moral relevance arguments about which company is "worse," or does it more often) I was oh-so-happy that I wasn't beholden to that company. Now it seems DirecTV is embroiled in one public channel carriage smack down or another just about constantly. Some directly effect me, some don't. But there's always some loyal, paying customer getting the shaft.

I just want to pay for my service and turn on my TV and tune to whatever channel I was told I am paying for when they took my funds and have it work. Is that too much to ask? (And before someone argues: I assure you, it's not.) I don't want, or need, to know how the sausage is made. To have to write to this entity or call that one or post on this or that Facebook or Twitter page, or sign a petition to express my desire to continue receiving what I'm already signed up and paying for.

I pay good, hard-earned money for television, and in the case of DirecTV I pay them a lot, to AVOID this sort of hassle. Cut the B.S. and make the deal. Or, for that matter, don't. But just say come out and say it--that you are dropping such-and-such channel on such-and-such date because you couldn't reach a deal--and allow those that want to, to go elsewhere. Stop threatening customers with channel contract end dates and "tense negotiations" whilst using us as both battering rams (the "write/call/tweet" command) and pawns in your back-and-forth.

Ugh. So frustrated.


TL;DR

I can get WGN/Antenna TV over the air and I don't even watch it. CLTV I would have some interest in.

Direct TV subscriber since 1999
Choice Ultimate Customer
Equipment:: HR21-700 HR20-700 H20-100 (owned) SlimLine 5 Antenna
Winegard HD 8800 8-Bay for OTA

 

KC9ZOU


#71 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,235 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:13 PM

TL;DR

I can get WGN/Antenna TV over the air and I don't even watch it. CLTV I would have some interest in.


WGN has a lot of sports on it. If they pull it will they also have to pull the WGN sports on WCIU games as well?
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#72 OFFLINE   Art7220

Art7220

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 337 posts
Joined: Feb 04, 2004

Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:35 PM

litzdog911:

>Good luck finding a provider that's immune to this madness.

How 'bout two, Expressvu and Shaw Direct?

#73 OFFLINE   moob

moob

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 176 posts
Joined: Nov 19, 2008

Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:41 PM

I hope DirecTV holds their ground. I don't understand why they should have to pay a local station to do them the favor of re-broadcasting it on DirecTV.

Go ahead and pull the stations money hungry tribune company.

Lmao. As if DirecTV isn't just as money-hungry and profit-driven.

Hey guys long time reader.

They have been advertising it like crazy here including a full page ad in today's Hartford Courant. (The Hartford Courant is also owned by the same company)

Anyone else seeing a media blitz in their area due to this situation?

Full page ad in the LA Times today, which is also owned by Tribune.

The only show I watch on the CW is Nikita, but I also watch their local news from time to time. It would suck a bit if they were gone.

#74 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,089 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:41 PM

litzdog911:

>Good luck finding a provider that's immune to this madness.

How 'bout two, Expressvu and Shaw Direct?


We're in America discussing American satellite services. Good try.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#75 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,235 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:44 PM

litzdog911:

>Good luck finding a provider that's immune to this madness.

How 'bout two, Expressvu and Shaw Direct?


the CRTC has more power then the FCC
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#76 OFFLINE   ChicagoBlue

ChicagoBlue

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 303 posts
Joined: Apr 28, 2011

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:20 PM

Those of you threatening to leave, you won't be screaming next year when your rates go up. Right? LOL. This is exactly why they do go up, because of programmers demanding these types of rates yet you all know you will throw a fit over it.

From what I'm hearing in the biz, Tribune wants more than 130% increase on their rates and DTV is saying no. As they should. DTV has also said they expect Tribune to keep the programming up. If it comes down, this will be Tribune's decision, not DTV's.

http://directvpromis...ng-negotiation/

In the end, this stuff normally gets worked out but it is great to see media consolidation working so well, isn't? The Tribune can run editorials and free advertising on their newspapers and television channels to say how big, bad and terrible DTV is without one second spent on the outrageous amount of money they are asking to keep carrying their programming.

I would be surprised if the channel comes down at all, or if it does it won't last that long. Your rates will go up again, and I'm sure you are all pleased about that. Have to get your Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

#77 OFFLINE   Araxen

Araxen

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 785 posts
Joined: Dec 17, 2005

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:17 PM

My rates go up regardless so I really don't care how much Directv pays. How much did my rates go down when they lost G4? They still went up! lol
If it ain't in HD, it ain't worth watching!
PSN: Araxen - Xbox: Gamertag: Araxen II - Steam: Araxen - WiiU: Araxen

#78 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,331 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:34 PM

There are still escalators.

#79 OFFLINE   Draconis

Draconis

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,409 posts
  • LocationLas Vegas, NV
Joined: Mar 16, 2007

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:28 PM

The whole bru-ha-ha with these local stations has always perplexed me and I agree with Eddie501. It is very much a case of having your cake and eating it too.

The local stations broadcast their stations for free OTA and DIRECTV re-broadcasts their programming to their subscribers, in their markets. DIRECTV also expands their coverage area and provides locals to people who cannot get them OTA.

Then DIRECTV has to pay THEM for expanding their coverage area?

I have no issue with the $3 we pay DIRECTV for locals, considering that DIRECTV is broadcasting 2702 channels (at last count) to cover all the markets the $3 seems a little cheap.

I do have an issue with these local providers double-dipping and charging the cable and satellite companies for expanding their coverage area.

There is one thing I would REALLY like to see, I would like to see the FCC allowing all cable and satellite broadcasters to setup their own OTA array in the local markets with uplink. Then give the cable / satellite broadcaster’s permission to re-broadcast anything the OTA can get (as long as the broadcast remains within the market) and the local station owners get nada for it.

Just my 2 cents.

#80 OFFLINE   ericcooper1956@att.net

ericcooper1956@att.net

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 56 posts
Joined: Jul 18, 2011

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:06 PM

Yep same here;

Though others here in the house don't have AM21s.

Therefore wonder if DIRECTV will offer free or discounts on them if indeed the signal is turned off? :sure:


What about MLB EI games via any tribune outlets?




Protected By... spam firewall...And...