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

#81 OFFLINE   mshaw2715

mshaw2715

    Slow but steady.

  • Registered
  • 834 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in Washington
Joined: Apr 21, 2006

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:56 PM

It depends on how those games are related to these stations contracts going up. If they are related then the feeds thats were in MLB EI related to wpix and wphl would be removed, but in most cases the only way that would be a problem is if the game was on another ota station or was on comcast network philadelphia otherwise at least one feed for each game should still be in the package. Still the first game that could go missing to and MLB EI subscriber would be on April 28. Every other game that is on one of those stations is also on an RSN. Here is a list of games that won't be on MLB Extra Innings or isn't available on MLB NETWORK/ ESPN Networks nationally in April based on last years channel inclusions.

Diamondbacks
April 7 FOX
April 25 comcast network Philadelphia

Red sox
April 7 FOX
April 21 FOX

Cubs
April 14 FOX
April 28 If no WGN America; Comcast network Philadelphia
April 29 If no WGN America or if WPHL is not included.

White sox
April 21 FOX

Indians
April 28 FOX

Tigers
April 7 FOX

Royals
April 7 FOX
April 28 FOX

Angels
April 7 FOX
April 14 FOX
April 28 FOX

Brewers
April 7 FOX
April 28 FOX

Twins
April 14 FOX
April 28 FOX

Yankees
April 14 FOX
April 21 FOX

Phillies
April 25 comcast network Philadelphia
April 28 If no WGN America; Comcast network Philadelphia
April 29 If no WGN America or if WPHL is not included.

Giants
April 7 FOX

Mariners
April 21 FOX

Cardinals
April 7 FOX
April 14 FOX
April 28 FOX

Rangers
April 14 FOX

What about MLB EI games via any tribune outlets?


Edited by mshaw2715, 28 March 2012 - 01:02 AM.


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

#82 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,192 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:27 AM

What about MLB EI games via any tribune outlets?

what about wgn america games on MLB EI? they have used WGN A in the past.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#83 OFFLINE   FLWingNut

FLWingNut

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Nov 19, 2005

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:45 AM

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.


Except, if I'm the local station, I'm seeing D use my product to make money. Why shouldn't I get some of that. If someone else uses your work product to make money and doesn't give you a cut, you'd be pissed. No different from Readers Digest reprinting articles, even of they are free from other sources, and the charging for their magazine. RD has to pay the original rights holder.

#84 OFFLINE   NewForceFiveFan

NewForceFiveFan

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 213 posts
Joined: Apr 23, 2010

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:04 AM

We would not be having this discussion at all if the Government would quit protecting the local stations, and allow the sat carriers to offer a set of networks from New York, Denver, and LA like they used to be able to do. Those that wanted the local stations put up an antenna or subscribed to lifeline cable. Its the CON-gress being paid off by the N.A.B. lobbyists that is protecting the local stations by eliminating competition, and forcing us to pay whether we want them or not.

Ad rates are set during sweeps weeks I believe, so these short term greed-fests probably dont affect ad rates much... Now if it drags on for years, like some of Dish/Disney ones, then perhaps it does.


So are Tribute stations "retransmission" or "must carry"? They can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. If they're not "must carry" then NAB has no footing and D* should give them the boot.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Must-carry

#85 OFFLINE   lokar

lokar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 662 posts
Joined: Oct 07, 2006

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:33 AM

So are Tribute stations "retransmission" or "must carry"? They can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. If they're not "must carry" then NAB has no footing and D* should give them the boot.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Must-carry


Tribune is going the retransmission route like almost all stations do. Only low rated independent stations would pick must carry.

#86 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,951 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:59 AM

Except, if I'm the local station, I'm seeing D use my product to make money. Why shouldn't I get some of that. If someone else uses your work product to make money and doesn't give you a cut, you'd be pissed. No different from Readers Digest reprinting articles, even of they are free from other sources, and the charging for their magazine. RD has to pay the original rights holder.


And that is a very legitimate point by the local stations I agree, to bargain for a fair compensation of that revenue beyond the cost to DIRECTV to retransmit the signal on their system of course.

But what's really unfair though and the true cause of these disputes is the government's protection of the local channel markets where DIRECTV and other MVPD providers have no choice but to deal with the local stations for access to network programming.

And the cash strapped local stations are of course regularly exploiting this Federal law to gouge the MVPDs for more and more money.

DIRECTV should have the right to reject the ever increasing exorbitant fees of the local outlets and allowed to bypass them by offering network programming from out of market sources if the government would simply stand up to the NAB and GET OUT THE WAY by repealing these now outdated market protection laws which were never intended to be used this way anyhow.

#87 OFFLINE   Mike Bertelson

Mike Bertelson

    6EQUJ5 WOW!

  • Moderators
  • 13,858 posts
Joined: Jan 24, 2007

Posted 28 March 2012 - 10:37 AM

I'm going to head off the potential political points now. Let's not go there please.

Mike

µß
Since it costs 2.4¢ to produce a penny, my 2¢ worth is really 4.8¢ worth.  That 4.8¢ is my own and not the 4.8¢ of DIRECTV, Dish, or anyone else for that matter.


#88 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,095 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 28 March 2012 - 10:39 AM

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.


They should have kept the WB & UPN, because they had better shows.

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#89 OFFLINE   inf0z

inf0z

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 259 posts
Joined: Oct 15, 2011

Posted 28 March 2012 - 02:12 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


1. Yes your rates will still go up because DIRECTV still accepts increases, but it depends on the increase. Some increases are unacceptable. This is also a factor of how much D* increases your bill.

2. You're trying to tell us because one channel takedown that has a small fan base will compensate the rest of the channels that increased their prices? What school of business did you go to? I’m a gaming addict for a lack of a better term to describe my stats as a gamer, and I rarely watched G4.

#90 OFFLINE   bobnielsen

bobnielsen

    Éminence grise

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 7,964 posts
  • LocationBainbridge Island, WA
Joined: Jun 29, 2006

Posted 28 March 2012 - 05:27 PM

Except, if I'm the local station, I'm seeing D use my product to make money. Why shouldn't I get some of that. If someone else uses your work product to make money and doesn't give you a cut, you'd be pissed. No different from Readers Digest reprinting articles, even of they are free from other sources, and the charging for their magazine. RD has to pay the original rights holder.


One could make an argument that by expanding the coverage to areas where OTA isn't possible, the viewership of the station has increased and the advertisers should pay more.

#91 OFFLINE   ActiveHDdave

ActiveHDdave

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 461 posts
Joined: Sep 15, 2007

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:27 PM

WHY? Stand behind DIRECTV and support them for negotiating fair retransmission fees and not folding to them and then having to raise prices more than the $3-4 yearly. :confused:

It's just a fact in my household that we watch Fox 43 a good bit of the time . Nascar, football, Local news ....ETC.

#92 OFFLINE   ActiveHDdave

ActiveHDdave

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 461 posts
Joined: Sep 15, 2007

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:30 PM

I guess I could watch Nascar hotpass.

#93 OFFLINE   Davenlr

Davenlr

    Geek til I die

  • Registered
  • 9,090 posts
Joined: Sep 16, 2006

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:33 PM

I guess I could watch Nascar hotpass.


Or put up an antenna...

Tivo Premier XL4, Tivo Premier, Tivo HD whole home on Xfinity HD, DirecTv Whole Home with 39" high gain KaKu dish, Roku3,SageTv 8 TB Win8 Server -> DVDO Edge-> Denon AVR, Klipsch KB15's/Panasonic 55ST60 plasma"


#94 OFFLINE   Gloria_Chavez

Gloria_Chavez

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 423 posts
Joined: Aug 11, 2008

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:54 PM

This is about the Cubs.

Currently, the Cubs annual take is 45M from WGN and Comcast Sports Network (CSN). WGN had a sweetheart deal b/c, up until a couple of years ago, it owned the baseball club. The WGN portion lapses in 2014 (the CSN until 2019), and the Cubs will probably seek a 4x increase in rights fees.

http://www.bleedcubb...me-the-tv-money

Who do I blame for this debacle?

I blame ESPN, and ESPN's enablers.

Everything is priced off ESPN, especially channels that carry sports. Heck, a couple of months ago even History Channel's chief argued that it should be treated like ESPN.
Since 1995 the average cable bill has increased 122%, while TV consumption per household just 13%.

http://www.multichan...1_Per_Month.php

http://blog.nielsen....-all-time-high/

#95 OFFLINE   Gloria_Chavez

Gloria_Chavez

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 423 posts
Joined: Aug 11, 2008

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:58 PM

Wow.

Just found out that The Big-10 Network charges me 36 cents a month. Why should this Cardinal football fan have to pay The Big-10 36 cents a month??!!!

That said, if Big-10 gets 36 cents a month, WGN will get, at least, 40 cents a month, going to 80 cents a month by year 5 of the contract.
Since 1995 the average cable bill has increased 122%, while TV consumption per household just 13%.

http://www.multichan...1_Per_Month.php

http://blog.nielsen....-all-time-high/

#96 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:59 PM

Who do I blame for this debacle?

I blame ESPN, and ESPN's enablers.


Oh good grief.
DTV = Digital Television

#97 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 28 March 2012 - 08:03 PM

Wow.

Just found out that The Big-10 Network charges me 36 cents a month. Why should this Cardinal football fan have to pay The Big-10 36 cents a month??!!!

That said, if Big-10 gets 36 cents a month, WGN will get, at least, 40 cents a month, going to 80 cents a month by year 5 of the contract.


Proof? Post the contract between DirecTV and The Big-10 Network.
DTV = Digital Television

#98 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,192 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:01 PM

This is about the Cubs.

Currently, the Cubs annual take is 45M from WGN and Comcast Sports Network (CSN). WGN had a sweetheart deal b/c, up until a couple of years ago, it owned the baseball club. The WGN portion lapses in 2014 (the CSN until 2019), and the Cubs will probably seek a 4x increase in rights fees.

http://www.bleedcubb...me-the-tv-money

Who do I blame for this debacle?

I blame ESPN, and ESPN's enablers.

Everything is priced off ESPN, especially channels that carry sports. Heck, a couple of months ago even History Channel's chief argued that it should be treated like ESPN.

The cubs did talk about starting there own tv channel.

But right now they own 20% of CSN Chicago
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#99 OFFLINE   FLWingNut

FLWingNut

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Nov 19, 2005

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:17 PM

One could make an argument that by expanding the coverage to areas where OTA isn't possible, the viewership of the station has increased and the advertisers should pay more.


Except that the locals aren't all that interested in places where OTA isn't possible; those are outlying areas where there aren't a lot of people that are going to be patronizing metro area advertisers. And those advertisers aren't going to pay more just to advertise to a relatively few (compared to the metro) people.

#100 OFFLINE   djrobx

djrobx

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 502 posts
Joined: Jan 26, 2009

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:19 PM

We enjoy the KTLA morning news, but I hope DirecTV tells Tribune to shove it.

It's free OTA. More eyeballs = more advertising dollars. DirecTV's doing them a favor by making it easier to receive. OTA HDTV is not available at my location, and I'm in the greater Los Angeles area. I think advertisers would certainly care about the 180,000 people in this valley alone.




spam firewall