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

Raycom stations may drop from Dish at midnight (and now back on Dish again)

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by FTA Michael, Jul 31, 2013.

  1. Aug 3, 2013 #61 of 115
    NR4P

    NR4P Dad

    6,361
    271
    Jan 15, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    Reduce power consumption? Nope. All our big screen TV's draw far more power than the 25" TV's they replaced. And with the new TV's we need soundbars and audio system. More power.

    The primary reason was spectrum efficiency. With Analog, you couldn't have adjacent channels in overlapping areas. Digital increased the TV station density and with that, comes more TV stations paying the government for licensing. It also eliminated the upper end of UHF TV, channels above 67. Where did they go? Reassigned for auction.

    Make no mistake about it, money was first, HD was second. But the consumer was sold on increased features with digital, and that's real too. And cool.

    Back to the original point of the thread... The DISH dispute has taken Fox off of that sat. where I live.
     
  2. Aug 4, 2013 #62 of 115
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,944
    1,024
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I believe the thought was reducing power consumption at the TV transmitter. Perhaps on a global scale it all balances out with more TVs and devices in homes. Of course, where some stations may be saving money each month on their electric bill they had to put out a lot of money for new transmitters (especially for full power stations with parallel operations a couple of years ago) plus all the new digital switch gear needed to retransmit and now produce live HD programming.

    And now, they are passing the expense on to you! For only $1 per month (or whatever Raycom is asking for) you can continue watching your Fox station. And if you don't think $1 per month is bad then wait until the other OTA network stations want their $1 per month ... would that be bad? And when the $1 per month contracts come up for renewal the local station will want $1.50 ... or $2. They won't want less. :)
     
  3. Aug 4, 2013 #63 of 115
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    27
    Apr 17, 2012
    If ATSC 8VSB had worked well on VHF 2-6, I think this would have been the case. In most markets, stations fought to not even be put on VHF-HI because it is inferior to UHF for reliable digital reception. I never heard power consumption being listed as a reason for pushing it.

    The government pushed the transition so they could sell off channels 52-69 for other uses. They stood to make billions selling off that spectrum. HD was the carrot to get the American public to buy into it.

    I had a 32" CRT that pulled somewhere around 400W. I replaced it with a 50" Plasma that uses an average of 40W and a peak of 80. An LED LCD pulls much, much less. Big screen TVs do not draw more power than a decade-old 25".

    What seems reasonable to me is for satellite to drop the locals, but still provide the guide data for DVRs. And then put OTA tuners (dual would be nice, Dish...) on every receiver and include an OTA install with every new Dish.
     
  4. Aug 4, 2013 #64 of 115
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    27
    Apr 17, 2012
    I had my numbers wrong yesterday. Analog UHF was 5000kw maximum ERP. Digital, because it uses a practically constant power, has the same effective coverage (and average power usage) at 1000kw. What is not in question is that the vast majority of lo-VHF stations moved to the higher-power-using UHF spectrum. In reading insider complaints about the digital spectrum, most stations who gave up lo-VHF (or hi-VHF) spectrum for the more reliable UHF state their power bills are dramatically higher. UHF stations have not saved energy by broadcasting digitally - they're using the same power now as before the transition (or more, in some cases.)

    I can find no evidence that analog transmitters had to be tube-based and that only digital ones can be solid state. Thus, any power savings from converting to solid state would be valid for analog as well as digital broadcasting. If the energy savings justified the cost, I find it hard to believe that stations would not have voluntarily replaced their transmitters long before the digital transition came along.
     
  5. Aug 4, 2013 #65 of 115
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Remember, electric rates have gone up in the last few years too. In some cases dramatically. I know mine has gone up close to 50% per KwH in 10 years.
     
  6. Aug 4, 2013 #66 of 115
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,944
    1,024
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It is more of a new vs old issue ... and transmitters are rather expensive. Even if a chief engineer approached the station bean counter and said they could save 50% on the power bill by upgrading the transmitter the price of the transmitter would push the break even point far enough out that the bean counter would win. One would practically have to lose a transmitter to get a new one.

    During conversion when they ran both the analog and the digital it was not a happy time for bean counters.

    The VHF markets faced different challenges ... blanket statements applied to all stations in the US based on the complaints of a VHF to UHF converting station or a VHF to VHF station would not apply. One thing that can be applied to all stations is that it cost them money. Paying engineers and specialized lawyers to protect their coverage area was only the beginning of the cost. It was not a cheap process.

    And now the cost is passed on to you ... the cable or satellite customer.

    The stations I feel for are the small non-network stations who do not have highly rated content to hold hostage. Stations that if they asked for a dime a month would be refused and few would notice. They still have the expense of running a station but don't have the pull of a major network station when it comes to negotiations.

    Which begs the question ... If a small non-network station can afford to stay on the air with less advertisers, lower ratings and no retransmission fees why can't the larger network stations live off of their advertising and not charge a retransmission fee? The powerhouse stations that allegedly cannot survive without $1 per month from cable/satellite viewers ... they should learn something from the smaller stations that are surviving.
     
  7. Aug 4, 2013 #67 of 115
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    For one thing, I'd say the smaller stations don't have several people drawing multi-million dollar salaries.
     
  8. Aug 4, 2013 #68 of 115
    TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    Just think $1 per station in a market Like NYC or LA!



    I suspect that both claims could be true.
    I can wrap my head around the thought (Theory) that Viewers that only have OTA will end up watching more Local TV stations content than a Cable or Satellite Viewer that can cherry pick shows to watch from the local stations plus all the non OTA content. On the other hand they can say more viewers since the entire DMA gets their channel. Hmmm...............

    A conspiracy type might claim that they are trying to get more people to go back to OTA only by raising prices on Cable or Satellite.
     
  9. Aug 4, 2013 #69 of 115
    TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    Anyone watches NBC? Do they have anything worth watching?
     
  10. Aug 4, 2013 #70 of 115
    fudpucker

    fudpucker Godfather

    1,072
    54
    Jul 23, 2007
    NW Iowa
    While you always see people saying, in discussions like this, "Well. I never watch NBC so who cares?" or whatever network channel, the fact is that most people watch the networks a LOT. A rating on a cable station that is much smaller than a rating on one of the big 4 networks is often considered very good. Sports, top prime time shows, etc. Plus for many the local news.

    Something really does need to be done. I understand the arguments for TW or Dish or DirectTV, etc. refusing to pay fee increases, but for many of us a carrier missing one or more of the major networks is unacceptable. The only reason I subscribe to Dish is to watch the stations; I.e. the stations are the dog and Dish is the tail for me. I can't get my locals via OTA, plus I'd lose my ability to record them via DVR (which is how we watch most TV, for various reasons.)

    I do know that when the local CBS and Fox stations were within days of dropping off of Dish, even though it may have been the "fault" of the owner of the networks, the local cable people and DirectTV were bombarded with people dumping Dish. People who post on forums like this tend to be more hardcore than the average viewer, who just wants to watch their NCIS or NFL game or the Masters golf tournament or Community, etc. And most people, if they are faced with one provider in the area not carrying CBS or NBC or Fox or ABC and other carriers who do, they will switch to the ones who do. Yeah, yeah, good luck when you switch from Dish to Time Warner and then Time Warner loses CBS, but then they'll just jump ship again. I don't know of many people who would be happy that their Dish bill was $2 less per month but they don't get CBS and Fox.

    I do believe that this is a case where Congress (bleh) should jump in and set some rules on the public network and re-transmission fees.
     
  11. Aug 4, 2013 #71 of 115
    seern

    seern Active Member

    2,210
    23
    Jan 12, 2007
    Glen Allen, VA
    Only the evening news as far as I am concerned. Though Crossing Lines is not bad for a summer show. Yes I am lurking here from the Direct area, but our NBC station is a Raycom unit so I was curious as to how this was playing.
     
  12. Aug 5, 2013 #72 of 115
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    27
    Apr 17, 2012
    Okay, what market do you have in mind? In mine, we have 6 broadcast channels + 1 local translator. That's 1 each for ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, and 2 for PBS. The translator is for 3ABN. The local TBN translator got shut down due to high costs. ABC multicasts This, CBS multicasts MyNetwork, NBC multicasts CW, and Fox multicasts MeTV. None are O&O, so they are all paying significant fees to the major networks to be affiliates. Plus they're paying to carry their multicast channels. And those multicast channels are not on Dish. For a couple, there isn't even guide data for OTA reception and recording.

    The big networks are charging affiliates more than ever for membership. Those dollars have to come from somewhere, and they're coming from cable and satellite viewers. In exchange, the big networks are able to bid for the rights to major events, and even so, they lose frequently to ESPN or one of the other cable networks. What isn't there is a serious containment of costs. Every channel in turn gets to hold the providers hostage, and providers who don't want to lose a lot of customers end up caving and paying whatever the channels want. The channels then outbid each other for programming with their newfound wealth, which leads to another round of holding providers hostage. The cycle will not stop until people stop paying for television (or at least, stop paying traditional sources for it) in large enough numbers to matter.
     
  13. Aug 5, 2013 #73 of 115
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    27
    Apr 17, 2012
    Most people who state they can't get their locals via OTA are wrong. I'm not saying there aren't white areas in the country, but those areas are few and far between. There are probably many more who live in condos or other areas that face the wrong way and can't erect an antenna where it will work, though the modern tuners are able to deal with signals bouncing off buildings better than anything in the old analog days this number is also probably smaller than people think. And there are OTA-only DVRs out there, and there's the HTPC option.
     
  14. Aug 5, 2013 #74 of 115
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,944
    1,024
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    No specific market or station in mind ... just looking at thousands of stations without the "big network" leverage that manage to keep the transmitter on and fed.

    Once again you're expecting DISH to pay a penalty to stations. Retransmission rights payments should be for the signals that satellite and cable retransmits ... not for signals they do not retransmit.

    And that is the root of the problem ... Fox telling their affiliates to demand $$ per subscriber regardless of market. And then instead of supporting the local station it just goes back to the national programmer.

    Have you forgotten who ESPN is? They are the owners of a Mickey Mouse OTA broadcast network called ABC. Who are they bidding against? NBC Universal, the owners of another major OTA broadcast network and many cable channels? Fox, the owners of the Fox Sports empire? The big OTA networks ARE the major multiple cable channel networks!

    Good luck with that. A decade of a la carte talk has led to more firmly entrenched package/tier system. As long as the major players own their content it will be delivered to people on the major players terms.

    Unless you're suggesting that the government should seize sports and other programming and force it to be delivered to customers at a government set rate. :)
     
  15. Aug 5, 2013 #75 of 115
    Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    6,226
    23
    Dec 16, 2003
    Nope.
     
  16. Aug 5, 2013 #76 of 115
    Michael P

    Michael P Hall Of Fame

    3,114
    22
    Oct 27, 2004
    None. TWC's dispute is with CBS O&O, Dish's is with Raycom, which owns different network affiliates in different cities. Since there is only (usually) one CBS local per market, it would be impossible for two "CBS" stations to be off both systems in the same city. However if Raycom owned a station with a different network in the same city as a CBS O&O, then it's possible that one market could have a system down a CBS and the other down an NBC/ABC or FOX.
     
  17. Aug 5, 2013 #77 of 115
    Michael P

    Michael P Hall Of Fame

    3,114
    22
    Oct 27, 2004
    My local NBC one time subbed a Matlock rerun in prime-time and got better ratings than the NBC program in that time slot (it was a rerun anyway).

    This week two day's worth of NBC programming will be subbed with live sports: A Cleveland Indians game and a Cleveland Browns preseason game.
     
  18. Aug 6, 2013 #78 of 115
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    27
    Apr 17, 2012
    Actually, a la carte is here for many things. It's called pay-per-view, and it's the ultimate in a la carte. Pay for the programs you watch, pay nothing for the ones you don't. So far, many sports have resisted jumping on this bandwagon, but it will only be a matter of time before they see money signs in their eyes and cut out the middleman.

    No, I don't want government stepping in. You don't solve a problem by making it worse.
     
  19. Aug 6, 2013 #79 of 115
    bnewt

    bnewt Godfather

    398
    5
    Oct 2, 2003
    I lost a job after 30 years.......yes, I have a job now, but had to take a pay cut for this smaller company. Not sure how the health care agenda is going to hurt.....
    Yes, I want a raise, but haven't had one in over 7 years, almost 5 years at present job with nothing
    The problem is still the economy. Business' have learned that they can do just as much with less, so they aren't hiring & when they are, they look for the younger, less expensive employees, not the older, experienced ones
     
  20. Aug 6, 2013 #80 of 115
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    The money's there. The problem is that the suits are sucking it up from every source they can, no matter who else has to suffer.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page