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

BTN & DISH Agree to Deal (was BTN, Dish Network negotiation at stalemate)


  • Please log in to reply
153 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   John W

John W

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 586 posts
Joined: Dec 19, 2005

Posted 26 August 2012 - 01:16 PM

An impasse between the Big Ten Network and satellite company Dish Network could prevent customers from watching the opening weekend of the college football season.

Elizabeth Conlisk, the BTN’s vice president of communications and university relations, said today that the agreement between the Big Ten Network and Dish expires Friday — one day before BTN begins its 2012 college football broadcast schedule.

“We’ve offered proposals to Dish that are consistent with the current market value of the network,” Conlisk said. “Dish is insisting on some kind of preferential treatment and is looking for terms below market value.”

http://www.jconline....rk-Dish-Network

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#2 OFFLINE   Chihuahua

Chihuahua

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 195 posts
Joined: Sep 08, 2007

Posted 26 August 2012 - 01:49 PM

Here we go again!

#3 OFFLINE   ehilbert1

ehilbert1

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 312 posts
Joined: Jan 22, 2007

Posted 26 August 2012 - 02:01 PM

Here come the "I don't give a damn never ever watch it" people. Drop it and save me money!!!!!!!!

Don't underestimate college football fans and their love for their teams and watching them. Way more people will leave over this than AMC.

#4 OFFLINE   RAD

RAD

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,264 posts
  • LocationDripping Springs, TX
Joined: Aug 05, 2002

Posted 26 August 2012 - 03:54 PM

BTN has their site up http://www.iwantbtn.com/learn-more.php .

See post My Setup for configuration info.


#5 OFFLINE   beavis

beavis

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 528 posts
Joined: Jun 08, 2005

Posted 26 August 2012 - 03:58 PM

Yeah, I'm watching 49ers - Broncos and just saw the commerical.

#6 OFFLINE   nmetro

nmetro

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 747 posts
Joined: Jul 11, 2006

Posted 26 August 2012 - 04:31 PM

This is getting old. I pay for BTN because as part of the Sports Pack.Just like I paid for AMC, IFC, Sundance and We. So far no credit for the latter. You are told it is the cost of doing business. Of course, we never got credit when almost all the ESPN/Disney channel HDs feeds were removed. Now, it is BTNs (Big Ten Conference and FOX) turn to gouge customers, and we won't get a credit for that either.

The idea that carriers (cable and satellite) put their customers in the middle of their disputes just only add more ire to the situation. It is getting to point that a subscriber has to play a game of chance when they choose a provider, because the programming they subscribed to could be dropped because of greed by either the carrier or the provider.

Of course, if I lived in Columbus, Ohio, I would just go to the Ohio State game this Saturday. I am a seaon ticket holder. But, alas, I live in Colorado and my relatives use the tickets; at least they will get to see this week's game.

Finally, BTN telling folks to go seek out alternatives. Guess what? The HD feed is not carried by COMCAST in my area. I am in a two year committment with DISH; will they pay the $200 fee to change? Matter of fact, they are the only carrier in the area that will carry the PAC-12 network. Dish and DirectTV are is a dispute with them, as well. And, if I did change, what happens when COMCAST gets into a dispute? It gets expensive jumping from one carrier to another.

So this is the price people pay for media consolidation. Not only for the greed, but for the ever decreasing variety of programming that is now available. And we have politicians and government agencies which continue to ignore this problem.

So, if anyone knows a way to watch Big Ten games on my laptop come Saturday, please post the URL in this blog.

One last comment, didn't BTN require DISH, when BTN started, to pay $1 a subscriber for each subscriber in the Big Ten states and include BTN in DISH 100+? For those outside of the Big Ten States, one has to pay $7.99 (at the time it was $5.99) for the Sports Pack. This is not enough?

Edited by nmetro, 26 August 2012 - 04:46 PM.


#7 OFFLINE   buck1973

buck1973

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 5 posts
Joined: Aug 07, 2007

Posted 26 August 2012 - 04:54 PM

T

Of course, if I lived in Columbus, Ohio, I would just go to the Ohio State game this Saturday. I am a seaon ticket holder. But, alas, I live in Colorado and my relatives use the tickets; at least they will get to see this week's game.

So, if anyone knows a way to watch Big Ten games on my laptop come Saturday, please post the URL in this blog.


If your relatives have Time Warner or Directv as a provider, use their logon to watch the game on bnt2go.

#8 OFFLINE   Rainbird

Rainbird

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 30 posts
Joined: Aug 21, 2002

Posted 26 August 2012 - 05:20 PM

In April this year Dish got in a dispute with Fox West Sports over carrying the Anaheim Angeles games that were formerly carried on KCOP Channel 13 in Los Angeles. Dish was wanting to add the games to it's current lineup. Negotiations dragged on and never did get resolved.

#9 OFFLINE   Oswald13

Oswald13

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 7 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2007

Posted 26 August 2012 - 06:08 PM

Wonderful. Just switched from Directv this spring, so I have a 2 year commitment. Anyone know what is the lowest package I can downgrade to without penalty?

#10 OFFLINE   nmetro

nmetro

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 747 posts
Joined: Jul 11, 2006

Posted 26 August 2012 - 06:17 PM

If your relatives have Time Warner or Directv as a provider, use their logon to watch the game on bnt2go.


Thanks. Well, there is always Buckeye Vision for $9.95 a month. Though, it looks like Buckeye Vision is part of BTN Digital fro $119 a year or so.

It is almost cheaper to drop DISH, go with DirecTV and pay the $200 for breaking the two year commitment.

#11 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,621 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 26 August 2012 - 09:03 PM

BTN has their site up http://www.iwantbtn.com/learn-more.php .


What amused me from that site... from the Q&A section of the "Get the facts" link...

"Q: Are your proposals "unreasonable?"
A: No. BTN’s proposals are entirely reasonable and in line with the BTN agreements already secured with other TV providers within the marketplace."

Why amusing?

Because... what else would they say to that question? Yes, out proposals are entirely unreasonable. In fact, we are amazed that Dish didn't laugh in our faces when we threw the numbers on the table... I mean, we are SO out of bounds it isn't even funny... if only I could tell you, you'd say 'yeah, that is unreasonable!'

Talk about useless Q&A...

How about this... any Web site that puts up a link that says "Get the Facts"... whether it is Dish or anyone else... you MUST actually put the facts on that link destination!

Don't say "our request is reasonable and in line with market values" without actually telling people what you are requesting.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#12 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 626 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:53 AM

Don't say "our request is reasonable and in line with market values" without actually telling people what you are requesting.


I agree. Say, for example, "We currently get $1/subscriber from Dish. We are now requesting $1.10.". It is insulting to be told to trust them when they say they are being reasonable. Dish could counter with, "95% of subscribers to packages with the BTN never watch it. This is not a popular channel. Other channels with similar peak ratings receive $0.40/subscriber or less.". But the days of transparent contract negotiations are likely never going to come.

#13 OFFLINE   festivus

festivus

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 195 posts
Joined: Nov 09, 2008

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:52 AM

It's no wonder people are ditching cable and satellite packages and going with OTA plus online options. I'm tired of these stalemates. :mad:
Panasonic TCP50S1 50 inch plasma in great room, Dish VIP622, Pioneer Surround System

Sanyo PLV-Z5 Projector in basement, 106 inch gray screen, 2nd Dish VIP622. LG Surround System

db2 antennna in attic for both VIP622s

Time Warner Roadrunner

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. ~Carl Sagan

#14 OFFLINE   jdskycaster

jdskycaster

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 272 posts
Joined: Sep 01, 2008

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:03 AM

The timing of these negotiations are always a killer for the viewers and seem to be in favor of the content provider. It stinks for the fans as I like to watch Big 10 football but maybe it would be better for Dish to wait until the season is over and sign a deal which expires on that date in the future. Yes, we lose a season of viewing but there is at least a chance at moving the expiration date beyond the beginning of the season.

#15 OFFLINE   APB101

APB101

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,096 posts
  • LocationMichigan
Joined: Sep 01, 2010

Posted 29 August 2012 - 03:13 PM

Another programming negotiation dispute?

Is Charlie Ergen trying to nickel and dime?

This seems to have now become the norm with him and Dish Network!

#16 OFFLINE   Ira Lacher

Ira Lacher

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 823 posts
Joined: Apr 24, 2002

Posted 29 August 2012 - 03:29 PM

All the latest technology is useless if there are no channels to watch.
-- Ira

================================================
"There are no solutions to complex problems" -- Stan Littman, longtime social studies teacher at The Bronx High School of Science

#17 OFFLINE   nmetro

nmetro

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 747 posts
Joined: Jul 11, 2006

Posted 29 August 2012 - 05:17 PM

Another programming negotiation dispute?

Is Charlie Ergen trying to nickel and dime?

This seems to have now become the norm with him and Dish Network!


After 14 years, I have decided to jump to DirecTV. The now weekly disputes became more and more annoying; and is costing me money. One of the reasons I subscribed to satellite was that one way or another I would be able to have access to Ohio State/Big Ten sport. Be it ESPN, ABC, and, in the past few years, BTN. Comcast, until recently, did not carry BTN and ABC regionally shows either Big 12 and now PAC 12 (University of Colorado recent relocation helped spur the change.

I pay extra money to get BTN, because I do not live in a Big Ten State. To me that is $7.99/month or about $96/year. So, to me it is not a $1 per subscriber. I generally do not watch out of market RSNs and rarely watch other channels which are in the Sports Pack.

I am fully aware that DirecTV has its issues, many are mentioned in these blogs. They had an issue with Viacom a few weeks ago. But, the DirecTV provider disputes are not the norm, like they have become at DISH.

In the end I will be paying about $20/month more, once all the promotional credits run out. But, I do not have to play channel dispute roulette almost on a weekly basis and not see any credit for lost channels.

#18 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,621 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 29 August 2012 - 07:51 PM

Good luck to you... I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically... I think DirecTV's recent temporary drop of Viacom signals a brand new day where DirecTV will be playing hardball like Dish has done... so I don't think there will be a provider immune.

We even have the do as I say not as I do scenario with AMC calling Dish penny-pinching for dropping them, while simultaneously Cablevision (with many of the same board members as AMC) has dropped other channels that wanted more money... so when the shoe is on the other foot, the channel owners don't want to pay more either!

I expect DirecTV to step up and negotiate harder in the coming years.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#19 OFFLINE   nmetro

nmetro

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 747 posts
Joined: Jul 11, 2006

Posted 29 August 2012 - 08:28 PM

By the way, after I wrote what I posted, I learned that a company called "Local TV", which seems to be made up of mostly FOX stations, is about to be dropped by DirecTV for WJW in Cleveland (FOX 8). The usual, the stations want more money for transmission. While they have not said they will do the same in Denver (KDVR and KWGN) are owned by "Local TV". So, that thread about FOX being dropped by DISH may actually have some traction in a few weeks; as it is now happening with DirecTV.

So, Sinclair is not the only group playing the increase the transmission cost game.

Another argument that local TV stations should not be allowed to charge for their signals. If I owned a cinema, and charged people to see a local broadcast (you can do this now with Digital Transmission), I would get in trouble with the FCC. Because the frequencies are owned by the public; you cannot charge for them. But, NAB and our so called "representatives" in Congress has let them do just that with Satellite and Cable; sell their signals.

#20 OFFLINE   DCSholtis

DCSholtis

    Up The Irons!

  • Registered
  • 5,775 posts
Joined: Aug 07, 2002

Posted 29 August 2012 - 08:57 PM

By the way, after I wrote what I posted, I learned that a company called "Local TV", which seems to be made up of mostly FOX stations, is about to be dropped by DirecTV for WJW in Cleveland (FOX 8). The usual, the stations want more money for transmission. While they have not said they will do the same in Denver (KDVR and KWGN) are owned by "Local TV". So, that thread about FOX being dropped by DISH may actually have some traction in a few weeks; as it is now happening with DirecTV.

So, Sinclair is not the only group playing the increase the transmission cost game.

Another argument that local TV stations should not be allowed to charge for their signals. If I owned a cinema, and charged people to see a local broadcast (you can do this now with Digital Transmission), I would get in trouble with the FCC. Because the frequencies are owned by the public; you cannot charge for them. But, NAB and our so called "representatives" in Congress has let them do just that with Satellite and Cable; sell their signals.


All stations owned by Local TV LLC are up for renewal on 9/1. There are 21 involved. IIRC
Dan Sholtis
"The Raiders will be back. I have unshakable confidence, the will to win, and I just know that the fire that burns brightest in this building is the will to win. And we will win. We will win."---Al Davis. Rest In Peace, Al

#21 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,621 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 29 August 2012 - 09:20 PM

Another argument that local TV stations should not be allowed to charge for their signals. If I owned a cinema, and charged people to see a local broadcast (you can do this now with Digital Transmission), I would get in trouble with the FCC. Because the frequencies are owned by the public; you cannot charge for them. But, NAB and our so called "representatives" in Congress has let them do just that with Satellite and Cable; sell their signals.


That is apples vs oranges, though.

OTA stations don't charge you to receive the OTA broadcasts either... and in my DMA they didn't want cable or satellite to charge you... My DMA, the local stations years ago were willing to even provide fiber links to the cable company for free if the cable company would deliver them to you the viewer for free... but cable wanted to charge for the locals... so the locals said, if you want to charge then you have to pay us.

Cable and satellite had the opportunity years ago to suck it up and retransmit locals for free, but they saw it as a place to charge money... so that ship sailed.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#22 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,881 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 29 August 2012 - 09:37 PM

It is illegal for a local station to be charged for carriage or channel positioning - although it is legal for them to cover the costs of getting their signal to the cable/satellite company's headend/point of presence.

For cable, once the signal is at the head end it is carried along with all the "pay" cable channels using the same infrastructure and consuming space. There are laws that require cable systems to set aside a certain number of channels (based on system size) for locals. Once they have met that threshold additional channels do not need to be carried.

For satellite the point of presence is only the beginning of the journey. From there the station is backhauled to an uplink center (one of 10 regional centers, depending on the satellite the channel will appear on). Then it is uplinked to a specialized satellite that allows the satellite company to carry different locals in each market. The law does not allow satellite to carry another market's locals, which means to achieve full carriage thousands of channels need to be backhauled and uplinked - at no cost to the local channel. (If there is no local of a major network in a particular market distants can be imported ... but if a local of a major network exists that is the ONLY station that can represent that network in that market. Which leads to a lot of uplinks.) Satellite is also burdened with "carry one/carry all" where all stations in a market must be offered carriage - not just a quota.

While it may sound like a grand gesture to have stations say that their feed can be carried for free if a satellite/cable company doesn't charge for the signal it doesn't match the economics. Carrying local stations, especially on satellite, is very expensive. The satellite providers might be better off not carrying them at all ... except that satellite providers compete against cable providers who can carry a few local stations at each headend fairly cheaply.

I wish people at the stations could see the costs and partner with the satellite providers to extend their coverage and reach viewers without demanding an additional charge. But when offered an income source the local station certainly is not going to turn it down.

#23 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,621 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:26 PM

While it may sound like a grand gesture to have stations say that their feed can be carried for free if a satellite/cable company doesn't charge for the signal it doesn't match the economics. Carrying local stations, especially on satellite, is very expensive. The satellite providers might be better off not carrying them at all ... except that satellite providers compete against cable providers who can carry a few local stations at each headend fairly cheaply.


I wonder how the cost-comparison is for Dish to carry local markets vs their subscriber-base VS the cost of a local channel to build/power its transmitter?

Local stations put a lot of money into their tower & transmission equipment... and their only source of revenue is from the programming they carry and commercials. OTA stations don't charge their viewers (for the purposes of this argument, PBS is being ignored since they are privately funded and do solicit viewer donations)...

So I don't discount the cost to Dish to retransmit locals... but how does that cost compare to the cost the local station has to exist?

Meanwhile... we've seen how customers demand that dish or DirecTV carry their locals. Now that most are carried, the noise has died down... but lots of people would switch to Dish or DirecTV if only one carried their locals... people used to have to get "lifeline" cable for their locals before the satellite companies started carrying LiLs...

so... from Dish's point of view, there is a cost of providing the locals BUT also they gain a lot of customers who wouldn't subscribe to Dish at all without the LiLs... so it isn't entirely fair to paint Dish's cost of providing/uplinking LiLs as just an expenditure that doesn't in and of itself pay off in the form of subscribers.

Example... in the Raleigh, NC DMA where I live... there would be a lot less Dish customers if they didn't carry LiLs... consider the Hopper too currently without OTA support... without Raleigh, NC LiLs in my DMA nobody here would sign up for Dish and get a Hopper and lose their OTA networks if Dish didn't have the LiLs.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#24 OFFLINE   Jhon69

Jhon69

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,650 posts
Joined: Mar 27, 2006

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:34 PM

By the way, after I wrote what I posted, I learned that a company called "Local TV", which seems to be made up of mostly FOX stations, is about to be dropped by DirecTV for WJW in Cleveland (FOX 8). The usual, the stations want more money for transmission. While they have not said they will do the same in Denver (KDVR and KWGN) are owned by "Local TV". So, that thread about FOX being dropped by DISH may actually have some traction in a few weeks; as it is now happening with DirecTV.

So, Sinclair is not the only group playing the increase the transmission cost game.

Another argument that local TV stations should not be allowed to charge for their signals. If I owned a cinema, and charged people to see a local broadcast (you can do this now with Digital Transmission), I would get in trouble with the FCC. Because the frequencies are owned by the public; you cannot charge for them. But, NAB and our so called "representatives" in Congress has let them do just that with Satellite and Cable; sell their signals.



That is correct the "airwaves" are supposed to be free,but there is no"air" in space.;):D

#25 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,881 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:54 PM

I wonder how the cost-comparison is for Dish to carry local markets vs their subscriber-base VS the cost of a local channel to build/power its transmitter?

How many millions of viewers does the local station reach vs the 12%(?) market share that DISH has? How many people in the local market cannot receive the OTA signal due to the lack of the proper outdoor mast mounted antenna?

DISH comes along and offers to help the station distribute their signal to their entire market and their thank you is a per subscriber bill from the station?

Local stations put a lot of money into their tower & transmission equipment... and their only source of revenue is from the programming they carry and commercials. OTA stations don't charge their viewers (for the purposes of this argument, PBS is being ignored since they are privately funded and do solicit viewer donations)...

Local stations can make money off of the programming they produce, and from commercial sales/underwriting. And now they have added reselling their signal to cable/satellite to their ways of making money.

Perhaps the local stations should just say no ... absolutely NO retransmission of their signals whatsoever. See how they survive without the audience cable and satellite providers give them. Especially in a market where the other stations have said yes and subscribers can more easily watch competitive programming.

So I don't discount the cost to Dish to retransmit locals... but how does that cost compare to the cost the local station has to exist?

The cost to the local station is there with or without DISH carriage. It doesn't cost the station any more to be carried on DISH ... other than what they pay their lawyers and negotiators to argue over the contract.

[W]ithout Raleigh, NC LiLs in my DMA nobody here would sign up for Dish and get a Hopper and lose their OTA networks if Dish didn't have the LiLs.

I had DISH for a couple of years before my locals were added. And while I could receive some of the signals OTA (analog) I found the DISH interface more convenient and didn't watch the locals. Getting added to DISH increased those station's reach. Once they showed up in the guide I watched them.

And now with the Hopper automatically recording the big four I'm watching more of the local stations. It certainly sounds like a win for the local stations to be part of the DISH lineup and available on the Hopper. Yet they also want cash or other payment.




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