[ImBack234]

DBS Says Potential Carriage Disputes Would Coincide with DTV Transition
By Ted Hearn -- Multichannel News, 8/27/2008 5:47:00 PM

Washington-Dish Network, the satellite TV provider, is telling the Federal Communications Commission that large cash demands by TV stations could lead to carriage disputes early next year on the eve of the transition to all-digital broadcasting.

"Broadcasters are seeking exponentially large increases in per-subscriber costs: demands are often for increases of over 200 percent of current rates," Dish Network said in an Aug. 27 filing at the FCC.

Dish Network officials met with aides to FCC chairman Kevin Martin on Aug. 26 and Aug. 27 to urge the agency's adoption of a so-called quiet period in which TV stations would remain on cable systems and satellite TV platforms around the time of the Feb. 17, 2009 digital TV transition.

Key members of the National Association of Broadcasters have proposed a one-month quiet period, from Feb. 4, 2009 to March 4, 2009. Dish Network, agreeing with the cable industry, said the quiet period should begin before thousands of TV station carriage agreements expire on Dec. 31, 2008.

"Starting a quiet period later than December would be pointless because programming would already be dropped and the harm done. Programming cannot be added back in February absent a new carriage deal," Dish Network said.

Dish Network, with 13.8 million subscribers nationally, provides local TV signals in about 175 markets.

 

[tkrandall]

Wait a minute. Is this correct: Local TV stations get paid by the cable and satellite companies for them doing the favor of eating up bandwith and carrying the stations in their packages? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

[HobbyTalk]

Of course, they have almost always been paid for the retransmission of their signal.

 

[aloishus27]

Wait a minute. Is this correct: Local TV stations get paid by the cable and satellite companies for them doing the favor of eating up bandwith and carrying the stations in their packages? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

yes which is why we pay a fee for the locals on our bill. We pay dish back for what they pay the locals + a little extra for the hassle of carrying the channels.

 

[James Long]

Wait a minute. Is this correct: Local TV stations get paid by the cable and satellite companies for them doing the favor of eating up bandwith and carrying the stations in their packages? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

The other way around is actually against the law. Channels carried as Local TV channels cannot pay for carriage or channel placement.

Blame congress? Personally I believe it should be free both ways.

 

[tkrandall]

Aren't they required to carry the locals? And they have to pay them too? Something is not right with either of those.

 

[tcatdbs]

Gee, so we'll have 150 HD channels by year end as "promised"... then only 50 in February....

 

[phrelin]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. The satellite and cable systems have been struggling to find bandwidth for HD. The satellite systems particularly have been working very hard to get hundreds of local stations HD signal up showing the same 4 to 6 network programs at the same time, And the carriage agreements expire on December 31, 2008.

Do these folks measure the "big picture" for planning in weeks or months?

 

[phrelin]

By the way. I would happily pay $10-$15 a month to get an East and West HD feed of network programming from ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, The CW, and MyNetwork. Leave the locals in SD for now until it's determined which ones are worth having.

 

[snowcat]

Aren't they required to carry the locals? And they have to pay them too? Something is not right with either of those.

I am pretty sure that Dish doesn't have to carry the locals. Isn't that why locals are an optional fee?

I also remember when my local ABC affliate wasn't on Dish because of a contract dispute. They eventually got it resolved, but it was distracting for a while.

HD locals are a completely different beast as well.

 

[tsmacro]

Wait a minute. Is this correct: Local TV stations get paid by the cable and satellite companies for them doing the favor of eating up bandwith and carrying the stations in their packages? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Let's see here satellite and cable companies provide a service to local channels by extending the range of their signals to places that might not get them or get them clearly otherwise. By doing this the locals get a larger audience and can therefore charge more for their commercial time. And in return for this favor they turn around and say oh thanks for the extra money but we want more so hand it over or else! Ok so for cable and satellite these local channels are important part of their line-up but you'd think it'd be a mutual, you help me out, we'll help you out thing and we all make money. Oh well greed rules.

 

[Satsince1978]

Maybe you can rob Peter to pay Paul after all!

 

[James Long]

DISH does not have to carry local markets ... although the FCC likes to encourage them (and DirecTV) to do so. Both companies have claimed to need their satellite space expansions for (among other things) locals and locals in HD. If they are not carrying the markets why do they need the space.

But if DISH decides to carry ONE local station in a market they MUST offer carriage for ALL stations in that market, regardless of network, quality or popularity. The stations then get to elect (choose) whether to demand carriage (without payment) under the must carry rules or withhold their signal for payment (consent to carry). Network stations that consider themselves too popular not to carry generally choose "consent to carry" and charge whatever fee they can get. Others choose "must carry" and DISH has to find space for them too.

Digital channels are separate (for now) but as we approach the change over the same rules should be applied. The difference being the bandwidth of the signal. The FCC is allowing satellite carriers to carry some digital channels within a market in HD and others in SD. That will be phased in to a "carry one in HD carry all available in HD" rule over the next few years. (The choice being carrying entire markets in SD if DISH does not want to carry all of the HD channels available - but this is phased in over time and we're more likely to see ALL available HDs carried before seeing a market drop HD to become all SD again.)

 

[tkrandall]

That makes a little more sense but it seems to put most of the control in the stations hands, and especially favors the low powers stations who get a free coverage area boost.

What about sub channels? Those are not required (if carry one must offer to carry all provision) are they?

 

[Stewart Vernon]

I'm not sure why people are surprised or think it is unfair. It would be monumentally unfair if Dish and others were allowed to retransmit and sell OTA signals without compensating the local stations. Just because one person gives something away doesn't mean you can take it and sell it. That's law by the way.

I can't speak for others... but in my area the local broadcasters years ago made a plea to cable (this was before satellite retransmission was happening at all) to give their channels to cable customers. Cable had been charging customers and the local stations wanted that to stop. They issued an ultimatim:

1. Cable should stop charging customers for their channels OR
2. Cable should stop carrying their channels OR
3. Cable should pay the local stations for retransmission.

In the end, the choice was made to pay local stations because cable did not want to give them away for free... and this started the precedent here once satellite started negotiating for carriage.

Basically the local stations in my area were perfectly willing to grant free retransmission IF the cable/satellite companies would not sell and profit from their content... but that was not what the cable company wanted so here we are.

 

[James Long]

That makes a little more sense but it seems to put most of the control in the stations hands, and especially favors the low powers stations who get a free coverage area boost.

LPs don't have the same rights as full power stations. Satellite does not have to carry the LPs (but often does when they are owned by full power stations that use LP carriage as the price of full power carriage).

What about sub channels? Those are not required (if carry one must offer to carry all provision) are they?

Last I checked sub-channels are not required ... but again, a full power station may use carriage of a sub channel as part of their carriage deal. Everything is up for negotiation.

 

[phrelin]

Well, for what it is worth, I sent the following to California Senator Barbara Boxer who is on the Senate Commerce Committee:

Beginning last November I wrote a series of blogs that nobody read on the radical changes occurring in the TV industry. Basically I pointed out that the local broadcast TV industry in 2008 is exactly where the radio industry was in 1948.

The only difference is that we have such a myriad of federal regulations protecting local TV stations to the detriment of the public that they may not adapt effectively until it's too late and we, the public, have lost any chance at meaningful local TV.

It now appears that their primary attempt to adapt is to collect higher fees (as much as 200% higher) from cable and satellite carriers which will be passed on to us, the viewing public. In effect, they are attempting through a back door to become "pay TV" since fewer than 20% of homes are without cable or satellite services.

And with NBC announcing they will be charging the locals for network programming, it could be said that the networks are also becoming "pay TV" through the back door.

It's time for the Senate Commerce Committee to hold hearings on this attempt to turn broadcast television into "pay TV."

 

[Sirshagg]

Maybe you can rob Peter to pay Paul after all!

As a Paul I must say this sounds like a good plan

 

[grog]

Well if Dish drops the carriage for all 'pay-local-television' then we will have more room for more fishing channels.

 

[joshjr]

yes which is why we pay a fee for the locals on our bill. We pay dish back for what they pay the locals + a little extra for the hassle of carrying the channels.

Thats not true in my area. I have personally talked to the president of all 4 of my major locals here and was told that none of them were asking for any money from D* just that they broadcast them and thats it. I just looked at that DMA report in another thread and my DMA was like 148 for the year. Guess we are not that important.