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

Local pricing unfair.

Discussion in 'General Satellite Discussion' started by AJ2086, Jul 31, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AJ2086

    AJ2086 Godfather

    360
    1
    Jun 1, 2002
    OK Locals are all one price, 4.99. But in some areas you get screwed. In the LA DMA its 21 channels thats 0.24 a channel. But in the Hartford DMA with 7 channels offered its 0.71 a channel. That is just wrong. If one person can get 21 channels for the same price that Im getting 7 for I should get some sort of reembursement or extra channels from a neighboring DMA or some free premium. Like an HBO or 1 free PPV a month. I dont want to cause issues here but this is how I feel.
     
  2. Aug 1, 2002 #2 of 49
    Mike123abc

    Mike123abc Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,818
    0
    Jul 19, 2002
    I bet when the do LIL into all markets, they will stop charging for LIL and simply bundle it in with other programming.

    But, aside from that, you do not have to buy LIL, you could just put up an antenna and get them for free. Same thing happens with cable, in bigger markets cable cos have to carry tons of local signals.
     
  3. Aug 1, 2002 #3 of 49
    woodman

    woodman Mentor

    45
    1
    May 17, 2002
    I agree wholeheartedly with your position - although trying to make the premise workable would present a logistic nightmare for the provider - whether it's Dish Network or DirecTV or the two combined into one.

    I've been involved with television since it began, and I'm not at all happy with the way the industry has changed. It started out as essentially a FREE service for the public (provided that you lived in a "good" location for TV reception). The programming was all paid for in it's entirety by advertising dollars. Then, thanks to the invasion of all of America by the evil menace known as "cable", we were given the opportunity to BUY programming ourselves ... pay a fee for the programs and enjoy entertainment without commercials. Then, the sneaky bastards started to include more and more channels WITH commercials - all the while raising everyone's rates. A full 65% of America signed up for "cable" and we suddenly became a nation that pays for TV programming and must endure commercial ads besides!

    When satellite tv for consumers became available, we just got more of PAYTV! It caused an epidemic of piracy (myself included) that had no problem with paying for programming withOUT advertising, but were irate at the very idea of having to pay for programming that included advertising! It's totally unfair is what it is. But how can we do anything positive about it? I'm sorry to say that I don't hold out any hope.

    The only thing that even MIGHT stand a chance of effecting change would be for ALL of us - you and me and everybody else to write letters, e-mails, telephone calls, etc. to our elected representatives in the federal government. Getting even a large percentage of the people to do anything at all is nearly impossible in my experience - no matter how strong their grievance - it doesn't seem to matter.

    Sadly,
     
  4. Aug 1, 2002 #4 of 49
    Jacob S

    Jacob S Hall Of Fame

    7,657
    1
    Apr 14, 2002
    This is like saying that because one cable company in one state is offering more channels than another in a different state then those in the other state that are not receiving as many channels should receive a discount or more channels to make up for it.

    Also would it be fair for Dish to drop all the extra channels and offer everyone just four locals NBC ABC FOX CBS if they could do this? ( I know they cant do that because of must carry) Would it be fair if they just did not offer the locals in places that require too many channels that must be carried in order to be put up or for those that only had one channel or just a few?

    It is not fair either way you look at it. It is better to have some locals than none at all. Just because one guy gets more channels included in the price dont mean that the other guy should not receive all the additional ones. It can be unfair either way you look at it.

    Just because the one company is providing everyone with programming vs. different cable companies should not make it unfair with satellite when it would not be unfair with cable. If it is unfair with satellite then it should be unfair with cable as well. Some are lucky to even have their main locals to be provided at all. Its like getting the rest of them for no additional charge then when you cant get the additional free ones you want a discount for something you are not paying additional for.
     
  5. Aug 1, 2002 #5 of 49
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,430
    59
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    AJ2086 - don't let the door hit you on your way out !!

    If you think it is unfair, MOVE to a city that gets 21 locals. I bet you don't watch much beyond the top 6 or 7 (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, PBS) anyway.
     
  6. Aug 1, 2002 #6 of 49
    bryan27

    bryan27 DBSTalk E* Spot Beam Guru

    443
    0
    Apr 1, 2002
    AJ, this is more or less what I told the FCC in comments on the merger and the One Rate Plan. I said that under E*s One Rate Plan those in rural areas would be paying more per channel for locals than those in large urban areas.

    Mike, even if locals are bundled to the package rural subs would still pay a higher per channel rate than urban areas because there are fewer channels in the package.

    Scooper, that's too easy of an answer. If someone in LA is paying $5.99 for a 21 channel service then someone in Glendive should get a comparable 21 channel service for $5.99. Of course this would never work. What could be done is model LIL for smaller markets like that of cable. For cable the small systems have to at least carry 6 broadcast stations. This could be done easily with DBS where every market will less than 6 stations would get the other stations from another market to get the total to 6. For instance lets take Youngstown OH and Lima OH.

    A 6 channel LIL package could be easily made like this if 6 broadcast channels are required like cable:


    -Youngstown-
    WYTV(ABC) Youngstown
    WKBN(CBS) Youngstown
    WFMJ(NBC) Youngstown
    WNEO(PBS) Alliance
    WNYW(FOX) New York
    WPIX(WB) New York

    -Lima-
    WLIO(NBC) Lima
    WTLW(PAX) Lima
    WABC(ABC) New York
    WCBS(CBS) New York
    WNYW(FOX) New York
    WNET(PBS) New York

    At least with a 6 channel broadcast station minimum every LIL sub would at least get 6 broadcast stations and over 50% of the DMAs would receive 6 stations.
     
  7. Aug 1, 2002 #7 of 49
    AJ2086

    AJ2086 Godfather

    360
    1
    Jun 1, 2002
    I'm just saying Locals should go by 0.25/channel not one package.
     
  8. Aug 1, 2002 #8 of 49
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,906
    209
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Cable and DBS subs are not paying extra for TV programming; we are paying for the delivery of TV programming, plus a ton of channels we wouldn't get OTA.

    Think of it as buying a king mattress set. You can load it on top of your '88 Honda Civic and take it with you for free, or you can pay a delivery charge and two big smelly guys will bring it to your home. :D

    The choice is yours.
     
  9. Aug 1, 2002 #9 of 49
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Some of these channels are must carry. Some the DBS Company must pay for directly. Some they must pay for by carrtying other channels. any pricing scheme would be deemed inequitable by someone.


    ia m not sure this scheme is perfect but what is so magical about $.25 a channel?
     
  10. BrettR

    BrettR Legend

    181
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    I changed my mind over the months and am against mustcarry for satellite. I think there should be mustcarry for cable though. Cable can replace the national feed with the local feed. Thats what they did here with Univision when they bought Ch.65. But satellite cant and satellite cant offer all its services and channels to all its subscribers already.

    Now if the broadcasters want exclusivity, thats fine. If Dish cant offer national Univision anymore in Philadelphia, thats fine. The local viewer can put an antenna up for Ch.65 or get it with lifeline cable.

    But I dont think the provider should be forced to carry the local channel. Maybe there should just be a broader PI requirement to carry more educational channels, and this would serve all customers.
     
  11. James_F

    James_F Damn you woman! DBSTalk Gold Club

    5,205
    1
    Apr 23, 2002
    Why should I pay more because I live in a city? I like the $4.99, plan. Anyway you can get them free if you don't like it....
     
  12. AJ2086

    AJ2086 Godfather

    360
    1
    Jun 1, 2002
    OK I see everyones point.
     
  13. Jacob S

    Jacob S Hall Of Fame

    7,657
    1
    Apr 14, 2002
    Its like this, should you pay more than 5.99 in the bigger cities that has more channels available? The price most certainly is not going to be less than 5.99 in the cities that have the fewer channels, if anything would change, the bigger cities would just get charged more, then that would be unfair pricing because it would not be nationwide pricing. And there is nothing that can be done about making the number of channels the same in each market because some markets dont have that many channels.

    The only thing one could do is take some of those from the other market where there are more channels from another market and put it into the market where there are fewer channels, thats the only solution to the problem.
     
  14. James_F

    James_F Damn you woman! DBSTalk Gold Club

    5,205
    1
    Apr 23, 2002
    So raise my rates so some hick can "get his money worth"? Thats a joke!
     
  15. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,906
    209
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Please raise James' rates so I can get my money's worth. That's NOT a joke! :(

    Just kidding. :D
     
  16. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    There is must carry for cable. Has been for some time.
     
  17. woodman

    woodman Mentor

    45
    1
    May 17, 2002
    Why is it such a difficult concept to grasp? Must carry for cable may not be "fair" to the cable company, but at least it is not a huge burden. Must carry for satellite makes no sense whatsoever, because it IS a huge burden to deal with and would not have come into being were it not for the lobbying efforts and political clout of the cable industry. Must carry for a LOCAL business is one thing - for a NATIONAL business like DBS satellite it's an entirely different matter altogether, and completely, totally, 110% unfair.
     
  18. Scott Greczkowski

    Scott Greczkowski Banned User

    6,968
    4
    Mar 21, 2002
    I think that sooner or later we will see the $5.99 fee for locals DROPPED (of course hidden in somewhere) then the DBS companies will claim they are offering "Free Local's with every programming package"

    Thats basicly what they are doing now with the new "Dish Pack"
     
  19. James_F

    James_F Damn you woman! DBSTalk Gold Club

    5,205
    1
    Apr 23, 2002
    I demand my locals. If I couldn't get them though DirecTV, I'd go back to cable (only if Sunday Ticket was on cable). Why shouldn't they be required? Cox/AT&T/TW are all national companies and they have to carry locals... No different here....
     
  20. JamesMH

    JamesMH Guest

    They should be offered, NOT required. I think every channel should be available alacarte, but it'll never happen.

    Here in LA, with 21 local channels, most are not in English, so they are useless to me. Should I get a discount because I can't understand Spanish or Korean or xyz ?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page