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

Hearst Owned Stations Carriage May Be Discontinued

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by dlt, Dec 11, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 24, 2010 #81 of 154
    NR4P

    NR4P Dad

    6,382
    280
    Jan 15, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    Oddly enough, Directv added a channel for my Fox affiliate to warn me that the local Fox affiliate may not be available in the future.

    Yet they haven't done that with my ABC affiliate owned by Hearst. Probably not as serious yet.

    I wonder why Dish, Directv, Cable, FIOS and uVerse providers don't just ban together and tell all the local stations that their signal is free in the local area and stop charging people (sat and cable) that increase their ad revenues. If it wasn't for the sat and cable industry, the local stations wouldn't have any significant amount of viewers.

    They spend millions to put up towers with megawatt transmitters to offer free TV and then want to charge third parties that help them achieve that goal?
     
  2. Dec 25, 2010 #82 of 154
    DogLover

    DogLover Hall Of Fame

    2,510
    0
    Mar 18, 2007
    Unfortunately, the law takes a dim view of competing companies "colluding" to "fix prices" for an industry.

    However, I think it would certainly be good for the local stations to realize that they are not worth the money that they want to charge. If they didn't have a monopoly on the network programming for their area, no one would pay any money for them at all.
     
  3. Dec 25, 2010 #83 of 154
    NR4P

    NR4P Dad

    6,382
    280
    Jan 15, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    No need to collude.

    All it takes is one provider to have the guts to step up and announce publicly that enough is enough and they are taking a stand. That's what the airline industry does to raise prices. First one does it with a press release and others follow suit.
     
  4. Dec 25, 2010 #84 of 154
    FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    471
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    The issue from the broadcasters view is, while the signal is free to viewers, it's not free to be resold to viewers by cable or satellite companies without cutting them in. The cable and satellite companies use the signals to make money-- without locals they couldn't charge as much -- and the broadcasters say they should make some of that. It's no different than taking material off free websites, repackaging it and charging people to read it from your website without compensation.
     
  5. Dec 25, 2010 #85 of 154
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Then again...adding 1% to the cost of sat service but 200% profit by the broadcasters wouldn't seem to be quite equal either...
     
  6. Dec 25, 2010 #86 of 154
    FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    471
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    If those are the figures. It's all about negotiating.
     
  7. Dec 25, 2010 #87 of 154
    dualsub2006

    dualsub2006 Icon

    883
    21
    Aug 28, 2007
    Right. But we aren't talking about losing ESPN here. These are local, 100% free to air channels that give their content away for free. The 1 difference being that D* charges their subscribers money and the locals think that entitles them to a cut. It doesn't. I hope D* takes a stand here. When Hearst and Raycom are getting $0 in retransmission fees and then they have to turn around and lower ad rates to compensate for the rather large drop in eyeballs they will come to their senses.

    Local ad weasels quote cable and sat subscriber numbers when they try to convince you to over pay for ads on their channels. They don't talk about total households, or at least they didn't to us. They talk about subscribers, ratings and dollars.
     
  8. Dec 25, 2010 #88 of 154
    DogLover

    DogLover Hall Of Fame

    2,510
    0
    Mar 18, 2007
    That will take a lot of guts. With the airline industry, a price hike will be pulled if the competing airlines don't quickly follow suit. We are talking about only a matter of days or a few weeks. If the other airlines don't follow suit, they haven't lost that many fliers.

    However, with the satellite (and even cable) carriers, price changes can't happen automatically. They can only happen when a contract is up for re-negotiation (or perhaps at certain option points). So, whoever draws the line at the price hikes first, may be taking a big risk, especially if they have to drop channels.

    It actually appears that DirecTV is trying to have the guts to step and and avoid a large cost increase for these local stations. If they are successful, Dish and the cable companies will undoubtably follow suit and also refuse to raise the price paid to carry these stations. However, if the station refuses and they lose rights to carry, will Dish and cable follow suit? Or will DirecTV be stuck with losing some customers because of the lack of these stations.

    We'll all be waiting to see what happens.
     
  9. Dec 25, 2010 #89 of 154
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    That kind of disparity can't typicaly be negotiated - too far apart.

    Just ask Dish and Disney.
     
  10. Dec 25, 2010 #90 of 154
    awblackmon

    awblackmon Legend

    183
    1
    May 20, 2009
    Local TV stations should not be entitled to money for retransmission. That simple. Congress needs to fix its mess.[/QUOTE]

    I totally agree. The stations should be excited to have the eyes on screen count to give their prospective advertisers for sales. I don't like that they charge me to watch them AND cram ads at me just because I am watching over satellite vs. over the air antenna.
     
  11. Dec 25, 2010 #91 of 154
    FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    471
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    Says who? You?

    The signals are free to the viewers, not for other businesses to use to make money with. If they don't choose "must carry" status, then they are entitled to be paId for use of their signal to make money. The government says so.

    And BTW, I am in an affected market (Orlando) and hope they work this out. I'm not happy with the prospect of a rate hike. I'm not arguing that what Hearst is asking for is fair, I'm just saying they have the right to negotiate a fee.
     
  12. Dec 25, 2010 #92 of 154
    tcusta00

    tcusta00 Active Member

    7,911
    1
    Dec 31, 2007
    Just saw the crawl on my local NBC station tonight for the first time that we'll lose it unless a new agreement is signed by Jan 1. I hadn't heard any of this until now.

    We get it OTA on one tv that's hooked up to the antenna and has an AM21 so it's not that big a deal but it's going to be annoying if an agreement isn't reached.

    These things always seem like chest puffing pissing contests.
     
  13. Dec 25, 2010 #93 of 154
    ActiveHDdave

    ActiveHDdave Godfather

    461
    2
    Sep 15, 2007
    Then just give up your locals for OTA. I can't unless I want to purchase another TV, or OTA HD tuner.
     
  14. Dec 29, 2010 #94 of 154
    nitty316

    nitty316 Legend

    254
    3
    Aug 27, 2008
    Any word if they have made progress? Blackout is coming in 2 days. Kinda need my ABC affiliate.
     
  15. Dec 29, 2010 #95 of 154
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    That one was anticipated to go down to the wire...

    Searched online everywhere...no updates seen.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see it go down to the deadline...any maybe even past it slightly...depending on who blinks on the price negotiations first.
     
  16. Dec 29, 2010 #96 of 154
    ffemtreed

    ffemtreed Icon

    969
    1
    Jan 30, 2008
    does anyone know if DTV will let you file a waiver for your local station that we will lose if you can't get them OTA??????
     
  17. Dec 29, 2010 #97 of 154
    jimmyv2000

    jimmyv2000 Hall Of Fame

    1,015
    0
    Feb 15, 2007
    Manchester NH
    you can try but 99.9% of the time you will be DENIED
    i can't get WMUR via ota at all but the staion says i can.I have a huge hill to my north.
     
  18. Dec 29, 2010 #98 of 154
    tj177mmi

    tj177mmi AllStar

    91
    0
    Mar 22, 2008
    It ultimately depends on where you are geographically. Where I am located, I cannot receive any OTA signals from the major networks in my area (Burlington, VT and Manchester, NH). It is possible you can get a waiver, especially if others in your area have the same issue as you.
     
  19. Dec 29, 2010 #99 of 154
    ffemtreed

    ffemtreed Icon

    969
    1
    Jan 30, 2008
    I was more worried about DTV's policy's. I can get OTA for CBS, ABC and Fox but not NBC. I am just wondering how quickly DTV will admit they really don't have fox anymore once the stations go dark and let me apply for a waiver. In other words when is the left hand going to catch up with the right hand.

    calling a CSR for waivers is like asking them about nuclear physics. There is almost no point in wasting your time. The online form pretty much blocks you from any requests because "we already have locals in your area". I am wondering when they drop all these locals will the online form allow you to ask for waivers.
     
  20. NR4P

    NR4P Dad

    6,382
    280
    Jan 15, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    Have you tried to invite the station engineering mgr to your home? Seriously, you should do that. Let them come to your home and show you that it can be done.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page