Local pricing unfair.

Originally posted by AJ2086
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.

Click to expand...

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,

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.

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.