Almost always FOX too.
WSVN Fox Channel 7 Miami saying bye to Directv?
A scrolling message indicates its lights out for our Miami Fox affiliate on directv if a new carriage agreement is not reached by January 13th.
Never seen TV negotiations get so ugly and public as they've been these past few months.... can't they all just get along? My monthly bill indicates they should all be very, VERY happy.
Never seen TV negotiations get so ugly and public as they've been these past few months.... can't they all just get along? My monthly bill indicates they should all be very, VERY happy.
1 - 20 of 188 Posts
Looks like NBC in Boston is affected as well.
It sucks when it's "my channel", but this crap does need to get fought over as the program providers are asking ridiculous prices from DirecTV for what they're sending out over the air [in this case] "for free" to the same customers.
DirecTV has the clout to fight or push back.
If nobody did, lord knows what our bills would be.
DirecTV has the clout to fight or push back.
If nobody did, lord knows what our bills would be.
This happens. They'll get a deal done. Happened to me twice recently with both my ABC and my Fox o&o station. Just look at the cities involved. There's no way they let Miami or Boston go without local networks. Puts them at competitive disadvantage in market. Expect a last minute deal.
Looks like Sunbeam Television channels (2 in MA & 1 in FL):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunbeam_Television
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunbeam_Television
Here we go again. Another greedy station owner trying to extract more money. And folks wonder why everyone's rates go up every year?!?
The good news is that DirecTV has an excellent track record of settling these disputes before the stations pull the plug.
The good news is that DirecTV has an excellent track record of settling these disputes before the stations pull the plug.
yes, we are going to see more and more of these. here's the latest one with Dish http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2939194#post2939194
IMHO, DirecTV should ask for payment from the stations for the privilege of having their station carried.
This blows! 
We watch lots of stuff on WSVN, and now with new shows coming.......ahh crap!!!!
These stations/companies are becoming more and more greedy, they also think they are entitled to have the bigger piece of the pie. Their customers will take notice, IMO, this will come back to hurt them. I agree w/ previous post: "Why can't they all get along?":nono2:
We watch lots of stuff on WSVN, and now with new shows coming.......ahh crap!!!!These stations/companies are becoming more and more greedy, they also think they are entitled to have the bigger piece of the pie. Their customers will take notice, IMO, this will come back to hurt them.
I agree w/ previous post: "Why can't they all get along?":nono2:
DirecTV is fueling the beast of high programming costs by paying companies like ESPN, TNT, TBS, etc. incredible $ per subscriber. The big 4 have to compete somehow. If DirecTV is charging their monthly fee for local channels, the the broadcasters have a right to a piece of the action. Frankly, I'd like to see D* do away with charging for "free" locals.... but then there's this nice bill our friends in Congress mandated...veryoldschool said:It sucks when it's "my channel", but this crap does need to get fought over as the program providers are asking ridiculous prices from DirecTV for what they're sending out over the air [in this case] "for free" to the same customers.
DirecTV has the clout to fight or push back.
If nobody did, lord knows what our bills would be.
It's not like DirecTV is making crumbs and is exactly a consumer advocate with the annual price increases higher than the rate of inflation in many cases.
A-LA-CARTE is the way to control these skyrocketing increases from the satellite networks. ESPN would be getting half of what it does now for their poker and dog shows. There'd be many channels just falling off into bankruptcy because their bad programming is no longer subsidized like a welfare handout.
I'm in a completely different market, and Sacramento has been very lucky not to have a carriage dispute on either cable or satellite carriers. Still, I'm expecting on, and that's why I'm working on getting an outdoor antenna installed.
I have a real problem with local stations doing this.
There are basically two types of program suppliers:
"Cable only" channels who's only outlet is to cable/SAT providers. They charge for their programing [or not depending on the viewer share]. This makes sense in the "free market". Now a danger that has shown up lately is too many are being owned by one company and fee negotiations are getting harder as these companies threaten to withhold ALL their channels if they don't get their demands.
The other type are OTA locals. Now these get licensed by the FCC and "used to" operate in "the public interest" for the right to use our public airwaves. Their business model was to sell airtime to support them. They have "pretty much" total control over who gets to receive them and who doesn't, or who can't get "their network" from another station, though the FCC waiver process for DNS. This too makes sense in the "free market". I wouldn't want to invest in a business that had to be licensed if it didn't give me some control [protection] over my market.
Now where I do have serious problems is when these stations want to extort "retransmission fees" out of cable or SAT providers. A moderate fee seems reasonable to recover any of their costs to supply their signal to these providers, but they've gone well beyond that lately.
The networks are squeezing the local affiliates and they are squeezing anyone they can.
"Well guys" you can't have it both ways.
You are either a cable only channel, or you are licensed to use the public airwaves. Pick one, but not both. If you can't stay in business, then either fix it or get out of it, "in the free market".
There are basically two types of program suppliers:
"Cable only" channels who's only outlet is to cable/SAT providers. They charge for their programing [or not depending on the viewer share]. This makes sense in the "free market". Now a danger that has shown up lately is too many are being owned by one company and fee negotiations are getting harder as these companies threaten to withhold ALL their channels if they don't get their demands.
The other type are OTA locals. Now these get licensed by the FCC and "used to" operate in "the public interest" for the right to use our public airwaves. Their business model was to sell airtime to support them. They have "pretty much" total control over who gets to receive them and who doesn't, or who can't get "their network" from another station, though the FCC waiver process for DNS. This too makes sense in the "free market". I wouldn't want to invest in a business that had to be licensed if it didn't give me some control [protection] over my market.
Now where I do have serious problems is when these stations want to extort "retransmission fees" out of cable or SAT providers. A moderate fee seems reasonable to recover any of their costs to supply their signal to these providers, but they've gone well beyond that lately.
The networks are squeezing the local affiliates and they are squeezing anyone they can.
"Well guys" you can't have it both ways.
You are either a cable only channel, or you are licensed to use the public airwaves. Pick one, but not both. If you can't stay in business, then either fix it or get out of it, "in the free market".
Maybe you didn't see this did happen last fall, but there were scrolling across KCRA about losing their channel "if" it didn't get resolved [which it did].Mark Holtz said:I'm in a completely different market, and Sacramento has been very lucky not to have a carriage dispute on either cable or satellite carriers. Still, I'm expecting on, and that's why I'm working on getting an outdoor antenna installed.
Don't get me wrong here, DirecTV isn't some benevolent customer advocate. They are simply the 800 lbs gorilla here who can have some effect.aa9vi said:DirecTV is fueling the beast of high programming costs by paying companies like ESPN, TNT, TBS, etc. incredible $ per subscriber. The big 4 have to compete somehow. If DirecTV is charging their monthly fee for local channels, the the broadcasters have a right to a piece of the action. Frankly, I'd like to see D* do away with charging for "free" locals.... but then there's this nice bill our friends in Congress mandated...
It's not like DirecTV is making crumbs and is exactly a consumer advocate with the annual price increases higher than the rate of inflation in many cases.
A-LA-CARTE is the way to control these skyrocketing increases from the satellite networks. ESPN would be getting half of what it does now for their poker and dog shows. There'd be many channels just falling off into bankruptcy because their bad programming is no longer subsidized like a welfare handout.
I'm not in the DirecTV defined Miami market, they have me in WPB. Thus, I put up an antenna to grab Miami (and WPB for that matter). 7 has a great OTA signal, you should get an antenna up.
gteach26 said:A scrolling message indicates its lights out for our Miami Fox affiliate on directv if a new carriage agreement is not reached by January 13th.
Never seen TV negotiations get so ugly and public as they've been these past few months.... can't they all just get along? My monthly bill indicates they should all be very, VERY happy.
I didn't. It has never gone down to station removal.veryoldschool said:Maybe you didn't see this did happen last fall, but there were scrolling across KCRA about losing their channel "if" it didn't get resolved [which it did].
Correct it didn't get dropped, but had a few weeks of the scrolling notice that it would, and suggesting to either shift to an antenna, or change providers.Mark Holtz said:I didn't. It has never gone down to station removal.
Jeez, the whole LIL situation is just a mess! They take up so much bandwidth, they cost a fortune, and they basically run all the same shows in every market, with the exception of local news.
Is it illegal for DirecTV to replace a local affiliate with a NY/LA substitute is they can't reach an agreement?
Is it illegal for DirecTV to replace a local affiliate with a NY/LA substitute is they can't reach an agreement?
Will put up an antenna, watch the game then do the same for the rest of the games, after the season you can get rid of WSVN, I don't care.
1 - 20 of 188 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
DBSTalk Forum
A forum community dedicated to digital bit streaming enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about programming, content, and reception, home theaters, displays, models, styles, satellites, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
