# Local pricing unfair.



## AJ2086 (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.


----------



## Mike123abc (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.


----------



## woodman (May 17, 2002)

> _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. *


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,


----------



## Jacob S (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.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

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.


----------



## bryan27 (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.


----------



## AJ2086 (Jun 1, 2002)

I'm just saying Locals should go by 0.25/channel not one package.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

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. 

The choice is yours.


----------



## Geronimo (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?


----------



## BrettR (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.


----------



## James_F (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....


----------



## AJ2086 (Jun 1, 2002)

OK I see everyones point.


----------



## Jacob S (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.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

So raise my rates so some hick can "get his money worth"? Thats a joke!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Please raise James' rates so I can get my money's worth. That's NOT a joke! 

Just kidding.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

There is must carry for cable. Has been for some time.


----------



## woodman (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.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (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"


----------



## James_F (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....


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *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.... *


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 ?


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

But why should Cable be require to carry it and not DBS? They are the same to me... :shrug:


----------



## Karl Foster (Mar 23, 2002)

AJ, you need to detmine whether you are receiving value for your dollar spent. If your locals cost too much, don't order them. Pretty simple. I currently pay $4 per month for locals (Total Choice Plus $35.99 w/locals $39.99) and feel I receive my money's worth simply for the convenience of recording them on my PVR. If I felt that the $4 was too much, I wouldn't subscribe.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

I'm not going to stop saying it. They need to give the $0.98 savings for AT100 and AT150. Actually, they need to give a $1.50 savings on this package for AT100 and a $2 savings for AT150. All this new package and any package with AT50 does attract people who don't have cable or satellite. If they want get people to switch from cable they need to make deals with AT100 or AT150.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Do you really think a louzy 0.98 is going to convince anyone? We waste larger amounts of money on the littlest things in life. 

I think the locals should be the same price everywhere even if some cities have more locals, we should not penalize some for having more or having less locals than the other. They could make up for this by adding distant networks not offered in that city and that would even things up if this became a real issue.

Also because there is one company vs. many companies over the U.S. that should not make a difference in the number of channels into each market that goes up which would result in a great number of channels just like there is on must carry vs. what it would be if it was just used for one area of the country.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

My solution is that we charged by the number of eyes we use to watch the locals. I jsut listen to the sound so ii should get them for free. 

I also think that Nick should not be allowed to post because neither provider carries the locals on Nevele.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Nicj? Wait a minute! I know him. He floats over in the next nitrous oxide bubble, about 2 kiloflarbs away.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Go ahead Nick make fun of the arthritic guy. lol


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

The DBS companies make more money off of the big markets that have more channels then the small markets with less channels. The cost of getting the signal to the POP is the responsibility of the "must carry" channels, the cost to DBS providers to provide the POP is ruffly the same weather it is a large or small market. If one wants to take to the extreme then it would be more fair for the small market to pay more for less channels in their locals package. If the merger goes through and I get my Chattanooga locals on satellite I will be more then happy to pay $4-6 extra for my 7 or 8 local channels even though NY or LA may get 20+ for the same price.

If the merger is approved and the New E* does put up all 210 DMA's I suspect all new subs at that time will only have the choice of basic programing packages that include locals. I suspect that these packages will still be $4-6 higher then they would be without the locals, however their will no longer be a choice, at least for new subs. By bundling locals with all basic programing packages it will help defray the expense of putting up all 210 DMA's plus make for good marketing.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Why bundle it if people are willing to pay for it? :shrug:


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Why bundle it if people are willing to pay for it? :shrug: *


Because not everyone buys the locals, if the New E* sells only bundled basic packages then %100 of new subs will be paying for locals, thus more money to help pay for those smaller DMA's that will be loss leaders anyway.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Maybe, then again the lower (but not entirely comparable) price without locals looks good against cable.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

The price may even be less for the locals if everyone takes them. When bundled with the basic packages this will be very important.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

yes it MIGHT be. It M(GHt NOT be too.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Well as long as they can get away with it, they will. And I'll be at the front of the line with my $5...


----------



## Karl Foster (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Well as long as they can get away with it, they will. And I'll be at the front of the line with my $5... *


Me too. For the $4 I spend each month for locals, I receive the most value for the minutes spent.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I figure they will have a package for $25 with the locals for a basic package, maybe even a lifeline type of service where they offer just locals or the locals and a few cable channels like cable does, but more likely a cheap basic package with the locals. If it gets above $25 say like $28-$30 for the cheapest package then this is not going to look as competitive against cable. Not everyone will want the locals if they can receiver them from an outdoor antenna yet cable makes u take the locals.

Very interesting what they will choose to do. When the digital standard in 2006 comes around or whenever it does more people will be able to receive them on an antenna and less will want the locals, am I right?


----------



## woodman (May 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Jacob S _
> * When the digital standard in 2006 comes around or whenever it does more people will be able to receive them on an antenna and less will want the locals, am I right? *


No, not really, Jacob. When the transition has been completed, the reception of "locals" with an antenna will most likely DEcrease - not INcrease! The reason? Digital tv signals will, like DBS satellite be either a "go" or a "no go" situation. You'll either get crystal clear pix or, you'll get nothing at all ... nothing in between. This means that it won't be an option for people to accept less than optimum signals on "locals" since they're getting them for free via an antenna. Depending on where they live and the distance from the local transmitters, many people will get NO reception of the DTV signals, when they used to get the NTSC analog signals OK if not actually good. Thus, the need to get local channels from satellite or cable (ugh!) will increase, not the other way around.

Also, FYI - the completion of the transition to DTV was scheduled for December 31st, 2006 or, in other words the beginning of 2007. But this date has already been unofficially scrapped, as it has become apparent that it will not be met! When the day finally will arrive is anyone's guess at this point - but it will probably be several years after the scheduled date, IMO.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Then again not everyone WANTS them. Unlike USA, TNT,CNN etc some people get them adequately (dare I say it BETTER) for free.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Agreed with the fact you can get them free, but when you have a PVR its much easier to just get them from the satellite...


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

That is true, the PVR feature of the satellite and better picture quality and everything with one dish will be a great convenience.

With these DTV signals will it come in better for some that can get enough signal to come in with less interference? Could the stations boost the power on these so that so many people will not lose the signal?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

NOt everyone owns a PVR though---or wants one.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

One could purchase a PVR standalone like Tivo has for those that dont have or want a satellite system.

Couldn't there be repeaters or towers which will repeat the digital local tv stations just as they do with cell phones? All they have to do is add them to the towers. They could pay a nominal fee and each tower would serve a number of households which would be worth it to be able to broadcast that signal to those homes.

Would there be wireless cable being used this way as well when it comes out? Where the customers could buy a box to bring in the cable digital channels and those without the box would just get the locals?


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Geronimo,

Right, that is why they charge extra for the PVR and Locals...


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Thats why a lot of people dont want it, bc they charge extra for it. Some will not have a choice though, some dont have a choice now.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

That is my point. Some don't waht tehese and ashould not be required to pay for either. Me I want both but that was my choice.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Unfortunately society is getting to charge for things that used to be for free but sometimes being enhanced. It will be more convenient, just be an expense as well. 

A lot of poeple are used to getting them for free with an off air antenna.


----------



## BrettR (Apr 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by woodman _
> *
> 
> No, not really, Jacob. When the transition has been completed, the reception of "locals" with an antenna will most likely DEcrease - not INcrease! The reason? Digital tv signals will, like DBS satellite be either a "go" or a "no go" situation. You'll either get crystal clear pix or, you'll get nothing at all ... nothing in between. This means that it won't be an option for people to accept less than optimum signals on "locals" since they're getting them for free via an antenna. Depending on where they live and the distance from the local transmitters, many people will get NO reception of the DTV signals, when they used to get the NTSC analog signals OK if not actually good. Thus, the need to get local channels from satellite or cable (ugh!) will increase, not the other way around.
> *


Some of the locals might be out of business by then!

Seriously, if the networks want their advertising to get most exposure, they'll need to increase the number of affiliates if necessary.

That might mean WTVE 51 in Reading PA picking up ABC, NBC affiliation, WFMZ 69 in Allentown picking up FOX and CBS and transmitting Network programs through simulcasting.

It would be decreased market share for the Philly O&O group, but they would have to make this sacrifice to save the networks. If the networks rely too much on PAY TV and cable, they'll fade into being just worth a cable channel.

Right now, cable systems are required to carry a lifeline cable package which is usually only broadcast channels. The broadcast channels still have more exposure than the cable networks, but DirecTV can put locals in the higher packages.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

If the satellite company starts broadcasting the locals then there will be a LOT more people viewing the channels so the advertising would have more people that they are reaching, and on top of that they would be getting an income from the satellite company for allowing their station to be transmitted, therefore they would make money that way as well which owuld help make up for the digital standard and keep the stations alive.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

A combined E/D* will probably have no choice but to bundle in locals in a base price. It is very expensive doing locals for DBS companies.

Costs include:

1. A receiving site in each DMA, in some DMAs that could be more than one if some stations are widely separated. These costs include land/building/antennas/amplifiers/mowing the grass/etc, probably someone there 7/24 or at best someone on call at all times, people tend to get mad if the tv stops working.

2. Transmission to Dishnetwork... most likely leased land based fiber optic.

3. Equipment at the uplink station to handle the data coming in from each DMA, compressing, encoding, etc., monitors, people to watch the monitors to make sure signal is working.

4. Bandwith to send up the signal to the satellite (all licensed from the FCC).

5. Transponders/spotbeams/satellites etc in orbit.

All in all very expensive to ship 1400 signals up from all over the US verses just receiving a bunch of signals off of C-Band, and shipping up to satellite.

Not to mention startup costs, the DBS company has to negotiate carriage of the signals, in small DMAs maybe negotiate to allow adjacent channel reception or distants.


----------

