# LIN Media Restored on Dish Network



## tecumseh (Jan 17, 2009)

While I don't have Dish, I have plenty of family/friends who do. I was just watching WISH-8, and they stated that they are looking dimly at the possibility of a retransmission agreement with Dish by Mar. 4, and that WISH and WNDY will likely go dark beyond that. I realize these things happen, but wondered if someone here might have a better handle on the actual situation, versus the station attempt to paint it as they have. Thanks for any insight....


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Basically, the local provider wants more money from Dish (or DirecTV or FIOS or UVerse...) and Dish is not willing to pay that amount.


----------



## [email protected] Network (Jan 6, 2011)

We are currently in contract negotiations with LIN, the owner of some local station(s). LIN has demanded an outrageous rate increase of over 140% for the continued carriage of your channel(s). That is like demanding an overnight increase of nearly $8 a gallon for gas, which is unacceptable and irresponsible. We will continue to negotiate with LIN in hopes of a fair deal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Standard retransmission consent renewal issues.

http://investor.echostar.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=553321
*DISH Network Issues Statement on LIN Media Retransmission Negotiations*

ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Feb. 28, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- DISH Network L.L.C. issued the following statement about its ongoing retransmission negotiations with LIN Media regarding continued carriage of local channels in 17 markets:

"LIN Media, a corporate media conglomerate, is threatening to block DISH Network customers from watching its local channels in 17 markets across the country. LIN Media is demanding more than a 140 percent rate hike and other burdensome contract terms that ultimately will result in higher prices for consumers. We are pleased the FCC is meeting this week to seek changes to the outdated retransmission consent process. In the meantime, DISH Network is diligently negotiating with LIN Media, and we're hopeful we can reach a fair agreement."​
*Stations:*
WISH (CBS) and WNDY (MyNetwork) in Indianapolis.
WANE (CBS) in Fort Wayne, IN.
WTHI (CBS) in Terre Haute, IN.
WLFI (CBS) in Lafayette, IN.
WOOD (NBC) and WXSP (MyNetwork) in Grand Rapids, MI.
WOTV (ABC) in Battle Creek, MI.
WWHO (CW) Columbus, OH.
WDTN (NBC) and WBDT (CW) in Dayton, OH.
WUPW (Fox) in Toledo, OH.
WALA (Fox) and WFNA (CW) in Mobile, AL.
WTNH (ABC) and WCTX (MyNetwork) in New Haven, CT.
KRQE (CBS) and KASA (Fox) in Albuquerque, NM.
WIVB (CBS) and WNLO (CW) in Buffalo, NY.
WWLP (NBC) in Springfield, MA.
WPRI (CBS) and WNAC (Fox) in Providence, RI.
KXAN (NBC) and KNVA (CW) in Austin, TX.
KBVO (MyNetwork) in Llano, TX.
WAVY (NBC) and WVBT (Fox) in Norfolk, VA.
WLUK (Fox) and WCWF (CW) in Green Bay, WI.


----------



## tecumseh (Jan 17, 2009)

Hi Matt (and others), and thanks for the prompt response. That does seem quite outrageous. Such bad timing with the NCAA tournament right around the corner. I hope something works for all....


----------



## emathis (Mar 19, 2003)

Yeah, tonight during Wheel of Fortune KRQE ran a crawl asking us to call Dish if you didn't want to lose their feed on Dish on March 4th. Didn't we just go through this with Lin not too long ago?


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

It's very much like when Fox was trying to stick it to E* for their stations carriage.


----------



## Barrysb (Jul 16, 2004)

I don't mind too much how this turns out as I can receive the Norwalk, VA channels via an attic antenna. But does anyone know if the EPG info disappears if the channels are turned off? If so, then my timers won't work and I will be a bit angry.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Barrysb said:


> I don't mind too much how this turns out as I can receive the Norwalk, VA channels via an attic antenna. But does anyone know if the EPG info disappears if the channels are turned off? If so, then my timers won't work and I will be a bit angry.


Sorry, DISH typically destroys the EPG for channels when they are pulled from the air. Your OTAs will change to either "important information" or "Digital Service". Time based timers will continue to work.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

James Long said:


> Standard retransmission consent renewal issues.
> 
> http://investor.echostar.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=553321
> *DISH Network Issues Statement on LIN Media Retransmission Negotiations*
> ...


I still think all broadcasters should pay Dish, DireccTV, cable to carry locals. The system is backwards!


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> I still think all broadcasters should pay Dish, DireccTV, cable to carry locals. The system is backwards!


I completely agree with you on this. Without Dish,DirectTV, and cable carrying the locals there would be a lot less eyes on the channels


----------



## sliderbob (Aug 10, 2007)

What about adding a la carte, like the 5 superstations, other ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX west and east coast affiliates? It would be cheaper than paying those fees to LIN.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sliderbob said:


> What about adding a la carte, like the 5 superstations, other ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX west and east coast affiliates? It would be cheaper than paying those fees to LIN.


Unfortunately Congress has granted stations an exclusive within their market areas. LIN is the only CBS that can be delivered within the Indianapolis market, the only NBC that can be delivered within the Grand Rapids market. DISH cannot import another affiliate from outside the market (unless they deliver that affiliate ONLY to areas where the in market affiliate does not have OTA coverage - which is messy and doesn't cover the core population).


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

LIN is awful, IMO. They are the worst of the lot in terms of unreasonable demands on retransmission fees.


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

Sure seems like it. I sent emails to both CASA and KRQE slamming LIN for their greed and telling them I am 100% in Charlie Ergen and Dish's corner. I have an antenna and I will use it. This is a free signal. LIN wants Dish to pay for their new HD conversion it seems. :nono:



emathis said:


> Yeah, tonight during Wheel of Fortune KRQE ran a crawl asking us to call Dish if you didn't want to lose their feed on Dish on March 4th. Didn't we just go through this with Lin not too long ago?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*LIN Media Pulls Plug on Dish Network Customers, Continues Demands for Enormous Rate Increase*

ENGLEWOOD, Colo., March 5, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- DISH Network L.L.C., issued the following statement from Dave Shull, senior vice president of Programming, about its retransmission negotiations with LIN Media regarding carriage of 27 local channels in 17 markets:

"It's unfortunate that LIN Media, a corporate media conglomerate, pulled its channels down at midnight, holding viewers in 17 markets across the nation hostage while attempting to coerce DISH Network to submit to outrageous demands. Even more disappointing is the fact that LIN Media didn't even make an effort to keep negotiating during the final hours and failed to respond despite our numerous attempts to reach them. LIN Media also refused to grant the contract extension DISH Network proposed. DISH Network offered LIN Media a fee increase comparable to market rates already agreed to with more than 1,000 other TV stations. However, in the last few days, LIN Media increased its fees even more, demanding more than a 175 percent rate increase in the first year alone.

"LIN Media is simply being greedy, insisting on a rate increase so immense that DISH Network and its customers couldn't possibly absorb it. Their onerous demands and burdensome contract terms would result in payments of millions of dollars more each month, exceeding current market rates and demanding more money than we pay most of our popular national networks.

"We are pleased the FCC met this week to propose changes to this outdated retransmission consent process between broadcasters and pay-TV operators. We believe the system is broken and are happy to see the FCC recognize it is time to make changes that put consumers' needs at the forefront.

"DISH Network remains open to further talks with LIN Media in hopes of reaching a fair deal to restore the channels."

SOURCE DISH Network L.L.C.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Paul Secic said:


> I still think all broadcasters should pay Dish, DireccTV, cable to carry locals. The system is backwards!


I've said that many times here.

Their viewership increases as a result of cable and satellite which allows them to increase their advertising rates. They only gain from allowing their signal on cable and satellite.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

If the goal of LIN is to get the FCC to act more quickly to make changes, they have succeeded. Poor timing on their part.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Wow. Piss-poor timing on LIN's part.


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

The major networks need to step in and threaten LIN. In the end the networks are losing revenue because of LIN's greed.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Sorry, DISH typically destroys the EPG for channels when they are pulled from the air.


Why can't they provide the EPG data? I doubt that is part of their retrans agreement and the fact that some of the customers can receive the channel OTA would strengthen Dish's position.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

The networks don't have as much pull. Threaten LIN with what?

Dish Network carries network affiliates because they attract subscribers. If Dish Network no longer wants to carry network affiliates, such as LIN, they can watch their subscriber numbers start to tank.

The above two paragraphs are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but part of the reality is that the networks have given LIN an exclusive (their network programming), and in order for Dish Network to carry that exclusive programming in a given area, they have to negotiate with LIN to carry said programming. So to complain that LIN should pay Dish Network or that the networks should threaten LIN is folly.


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> The networks don't have as much pull. Threaten LIN with what?
> 
> Dish Network carries network affiliates because they attract subscribers. If Dish Network no longer wants to carry network affiliates, such as LIN, they can watch their subscriber numbers start to tank.
> 
> The above two paragraphs are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but part of the reality is that the networks have given LIN an exclusive (their network programming), and in order for Dish Network to carry that exclusive programming in a given area, they have to negotiate with LIN to carry said programming. So to complain that LIN should pay Dish Network or that the networks should threaten LIN is folly.


Not entirely so. If the major networks see declining ad revenue due to slipping market ratings you better believe they will have discussions with LIN.


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

BTW, is it really true that program data is broken even with the OTA module? I was going to buy a module for my 722k to get through the dispute... If this is the case it's pure stupidity on Dish's part.

*Could someone that has the module and is in an affected market please check and verify? *


----------



## skyviewmark1 (Sep 28, 2006)

Gilitar said:


> BTW, is it really true that program data is broken even with the OTA module? I was going to buy a module for my 722k to get through the dispute... If this is the case it's pure stupidity on Dish's part.
> 
> *Could someone that has the module and is in an affected market please check and verify? *


OTA guide data is broken too..


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

skyviewmark1 said:


> OTA guide data is broken too..


Thanks!

Can Dish not legally provide guide data during the dispute?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Gilitar said:


> BTW, is it really true that program data is broken even with the OTA module? I was going to buy a module for my 722k to get through the dispute... If this is the case it's pure stupidity on Dish's part.
> 
> *Could someone that has the module and is in an affected market please check and verify? *


DISH receivers get their OTA EPG via the satellite service, not via PSIP. Whatever EPG you are seeing for the -00 versions of the channel is what will be applied to the primary OTA channel (usually -01). If DISH has changed the -00 EPG to read "Important Information" then the related -01 channel will change to "Important Information".


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

I just called Dish.... they verified that LIN is somehow blocking the program data. I honestly don't have much patience for this after Dish deleted Disney and ABC family in HD. I understand that Dish is fighting over cost, but it may be time to make the switch.....

Thanks for all the help!


----------



## blackhawkzone (Nov 30, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> I've said that many times here.
> 
> Their viewership increases as a result of cable and satellite which allows them to increase their advertising rates. They only gain from allowing their signal on cable and satellite.


the big problem in the dvr world, more than 80 percent of their viewers do not watch them as they fast forward through them. I don't see how they gain if people dont watch the commercials, they actually lose out.

Since they cant sell advertising based on the above at their old rates, they have to go after rights fees to carry the channels.

Either that or disable the ff button.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^^ So you verified that LIN is the villain, but you're mad at Dish?


----------



## OceanaJones (Feb 16, 2005)

Dear John,

Thank you for your email. I can totally understand your frustration. 

WAVY-TV and FOX43 have been an important member of the local community since 1957, and we are committed to providing our viewers around-the-clock news, political coverage, traffic, weather, public service announcements, as well as high quality local and national programming. The bottom line is DISH profits by including broadcast stations like WAVY-TV and FOX43 in its line-up. Like any other business, DISH should pay fair market value for the ability to resell our station's programming to you.

The rates we are asking for are a fraction of what DISH pays for many cable networks that you may never even watch. Local television stations are consistently ranked among the most-watched channels, in part because we provide local news and programming that cable networks don’t offer and we host/sponsor important community service events. Yet we do not get compensated fairly for the value of our stations. Nobody would find that reasonable, which is why Congress enacted laws that allow us to negotiate for fair compensation. 

We are working hard to reach a deal with DISH so that you won't lose access to your favorite programs. All we want is what is reasonable so we can continue to serve our communities. 

Thank you for supporting LOCAL television.

Becky Jennette

General Manager's Office

WAVY-TV and FOX43


----------



## OceanaJones (Feb 16, 2005)

To which I replyed back:

Thank you for your quick response. I think a 140% increase in fees from Dish Network is a little over the top. I hope the FCC steps in and makes LIN network and others
play more fairly with a signal they are providing for free over the air. As of now, I am enjoying WTKR and WVEC for my local programing and I And my neighbors will be boycotting WAVY and all LIN affiliates until they can produce a fair agreement with Dish Network.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Yet we do not get compensated fairly for the value of our stations.


Your stations have NO value. Your programming is provided FREE over the air.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Personally, I wish Dish and DirecTv would just dump all the locals, lower my bill $5 a month, and use that for national satellite channels. I always thought it was rediculous to pay a satellite provider to give me something I can get free with an antenna. 

There are MANY DVR solutions for those that want to record locals with an antenna. 

I am also sure it costs the satellite providers much more than the fee they charge their customers to 1: receiver the local signal from every DMA in the country 2: send that signal to their uplink facility 3: encode that signal for their satellite 4: provide a special spot beam satellite for that signal 5: Pay for guide data for that signal 6: provide customer support for ever signal they carry in every DMA they carry.

Yea, satellite is making a "big" profit from the locals...NOT. Value added for the customer, I am sure, but monetary profit...No way is that possible.

Congress and the FCC need to get their act together, or we will all be paying over $100 a month just for "basic cable".


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ So you verified that LIN is the villain, but you're mad at Dish?


Neither one is innocent. I'm honestly leaning towards cutting the cord, my contract is up next month anyway. In this case the greedy media providers will get zero! I'll have to switch everything back around to use my roof antenna. I already have a Roku and PS3 for streaming....


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Gilitar said:


> I just called Dish.... they verified that LIN is somehow blocking the program data. I honestly don't have much patience for this after Dish deleted Disney and ABC family in HD. I understand that Dish is fighting over cost, but it may be time to make the switch.....
> 
> Thanks for all the help!


Switching sounds like the best thing to do, until you think about it a bit more. The handwriting is on the wall. These broadcast stations, which more and more, are not locally owned, are all looking for more revenue. Expect to see more of these over the next year or so.


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

OceanaJones said:


> The bottom line is DISH profits by including broadcast stations like WAVY-TV and FOX43 in its line-up. Like any other business, DISH should pay fair market value for the ability to resell our station's programming to you.


Since the station is available, *free*, to those with an antenna, it seems that you have established a "fair market value", which is $0/month. Anything that any provider pays above that is gravy.



> The rates we are asking for are a fraction of what DISH pays for many cable networks that you may never even watch.


However there is no alternative option to receive those cable networks, short of switching to another provider.



> Local television stations are consistently ranked among the most-watched channels, in part because we provide local news and programming that cable networks don't offer and we host/sponsor important community service events. Yet we do not get compensated fairly for the value of our stations.


Again, if you are giving the product away for free, it seems that any transmission fee from Dish as well as the bump in advertising rates you can charge, due to increased viewership or market penetration, seems like fair compensation to me.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Gilitar said:


> The major networks need to step in and threaten LIN. In the end the networks are losing revenue because of LIN's greed.


The networks are still collecting their fee from LIN. That's all they care about.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> *Stations:*
> WISH (CBS) and WNDY (MyNetwork) in Indianapolis.
> WANE (CBS) in Fort Wayne, IN.
> WTHI (CBS) in Terre Haute, IN.
> ...


What's really interesting here is that the Nielsen sweeps period ended Wednesday.

If you look particularly at the seven CBS stations' prime time schedule for the next couple of weeks, it's full of reruns. Combine that fact with the percentage of Dish subscribers who get these stations OTA, there will not be a great impact on Dish there.

NBC offers everything on line, as does The CW.

The six [strike]American Idol[/strike] Fox stations, on the other hand could represent some leverage but I'm not sure for who.

The locals are in the less expensive packages that are the centerpiece of Dish's marketing. If Dish succeeds by fighting hard in every retransmission case over the next five years, they could keep the local-related costs down by $1-$2 a month.

So those with tight budgets that bail to cable or the other satellite company may find themselves wishing they hadn't.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Here is Lin's response:

Dear Viewer,

Thank you for your email and I understand your frustration. We are
trying hard to come to an agreement with DISH network. The rates we are
asking for are a fraction of what DISH pays for many cable networks that
you may never even watch. Local television stations are consistently
ranked among the most-watched channels, in part because we provide local
news and programming that cable networks don't offer and we host/sponsor
important community service events, yet we do not get compensated fairly
for the value of our stations. Nobody would find that reasonable, which
is why Congress enacted laws that allow us to negotiate for fair
compensation.

DISH is using 140% as a public relations scare tactic. The fact is we
are asking for pennies a day per subscriber. Any increase in pennies is
going to result in a large percentage. For instance, if you go from 1
cent to 2 cents, that is a 100% increase. We are only asking for fair
value, again pennies a day per subscriber, which is far less than what
DISH is paying for cable channels that you may never even watch.

DISH is already charging you the subscribers for carrying our local and
other local programming. We are just asking DISH for fair market value
on what they are already charging you the viewer.

We do not want to lose viewers; we just want to come to a reasonable
agreement with DISH. For more information; please go to our website
www.linmedia.com


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

One can't help but notice that in all these disputes no station owner ever addresses the issue that their primary obligation under their federal license is to transmit a signal within their DMA that viewers can receive for free. LIN isn't any worse than the others, but sometime someone representing station owners surely could say "we need the money and we can get it from you the viewer this way."


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

brucegrr said:


> DISH is using 140% as a public relations scare tactic. The fact is we
> are asking for pennies a day per subscriber. Any increase in pennies is
> going to result in a large percentage. For instance, if you go from 1
> cent to 2 cents, that is a 100% increase. We are only asking for fair
> ...


It is funny that neither side ever puts the real number out there. "pennies a day" is just as bad as the 140% tactic. How many "pennies a day" do they want?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> One can't help but notice that in all these disputes no station owner ever addresses the issue that their primary obligation under their federal license is to transmit a signal within their DMA that viewers can receive for free. LIN isn't any worse than the others, but sometime someone representing station owners surely could say "we need the money and we can get it from you the viewer this way."


That doesn't go over too well. It works better when both sides are "siding with the consumer" and keeping costs down. When someone says "we want your money" they lose support.

The common tactic is for a local broadcaster to point to the minimal profits a satellite/cable company is making on ALL of their programming (not just OTA) and misconstrue it in such a way that it makes it appear that ALL of the profits are made via rebroadcasting their local signal.

Pennies per day add up to dollars per month ... not many cable/satellite channels get more than ONE penny per day from subscribers but that doesn't stop some local stations from ignoring the majority of cable/satellite channels and compare themselves against the best and most expensive channels.

And of course, one of the first things the local station does is try to undercut the cable/satellite company and encourage viewers to switch providers. If you do so you're just playing their game. (LIN's last contract with DISH included a clause where LIN agreed to market DISH if a dispute between LIN and another cable/satellite company led to LIN pulling their signals. Telling viewers to dump their negotiating partner is NORMAL!)

In the case of a company like LIN, they are beyond the local level. Don't blame your local affiliate for this. They have been given a response by corporate and corporate LIN is the one making the decisions and pulling the content. And being a larger station group with major networks in 17 markets they have the leverage to ask for more than smaller station groups.

I expect this will be settled ... probably in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> Your stations have NO value. Your programming is provided FREE over the air.


If that were true then there wouldn't be a need for anyone to carry them. They do have a value and most consumers won't care who's fault it is. They will go to whoever has them. You can't post record profits and then state that you're protecting the customers, which most companies do, and expect people to buy it.

So to say they have no value is false.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

People seem to always miss this, so I'm going to try a new approach.

Everyone posting on this forum does so for free... no one is paid to post here... but lots of good information can be found.

So... if I decide to round up all the good posts and publish for sale a book of all the best info... word for word...

Tell me YOU wouldn't sue me if I didn't pay you for your quotes in my book? YOU wouldn't want your fair share of the revenue I was then making off of information you had previously given away for free but didn't give permission for me to collect and sell?

This is exactly what is happening with cable/sat carrying OTA locals. Yes, your local channel broadcasts for free to anyone with a TV and antenna. But that doesn't make the broadcasts free in perpetuity.

You can't record those broadcasts and sell them to others. You can't invite others to your home and sell tickets to that party. Dish, DirecTV, etc. can't receive and retransmit those signals without paying.

IF you want to receive them for free... you need to buy a TV, and antenna, and maybe a receiver... and you need to live in an area where you can get a good signal. That's all you have a right to do... You don't otherwise have a right to those signals. IF you need something additional, like cable or sat... then that doesn't entitle you to free locals via that transmission method.

Now... on a different front... the whole "pennies a day" thing is laughable. It means at least 2 pennies (but probably more)... so you can infer that it means a minimum of 60 cents per month increase that they are asking for... What are they getting today? I don't know... but if they already gt 60 cents, then another 60 cents would be a 100% increase to $1.20 total.

Are they worth that? I don't know. It depends on how much you watch them.

But the key is... they give them away within a limited market under the conditions that you can't retransmit or sell those transmissions without permission and, usually, compensation.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

I get your point, but you are missing some key things.

They are getting preferential treatment by not allowing anyone else to broadcast into their DMA. Why? because they are not supposed to be charging for viewing them. They bare the cost of doing business in return no one else can get their ad revenue and whatever else they get by being exclusive to the DMA. If you take away that, and let there be freedom to choose whoever you want I might bite at them charging.

They depend now very much on Cable and Sat to get their signal to people. As I understand it, - give whatever percentage you want - Dish/Direct pick up most or all of the cost to get the signal to us. If the problem is that Dish should not make a profit, then let the station pay for the transmission cost, then, again, I might bite at telling Dish/Direct they can not charge anything more than out of pocket cost. But if most or all the cost rests with the Sat providers, then the Sat providers should have the right to make some profit for getting the signal/ad revenue to the station. How about sharing that ad revenue with Dish? 

So if the sticking point is Dish/Direct making money off them, if the above is followed I might agree. Otherwise they can stick it....


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yes, your local channel broadcasts for free to anyone with a TV and antenna. *But that doesn't make the broadcasts free in perpetuity.*


By virtue of an FCC license, yeah, it does.



Stewart Vernon said:


> You can't record those broadcasts and sell them to others. You can't invite others to your home and sell tickets to that party. * Dish, DirecTV, etc. can't receive and retransmit those signals without paying.*


Not only should they be able to, they should be required to.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Gilitar said:


> BTW, is it really true that program data is broken even with the OTA module? I was going to buy a module for my 722k to get through the dispute... If this is the case it's pure stupidity on Dish's part.
> 
> *Could someone that has the module and is in an affected market please check and verify? *


Guide data is broken, but you can still watch the channels with the OTA module and an adequate receiving system. If you want to record - channel + start time + length i.e. just like the old days with a VCR.

If you have some tuner that will show more PSIP data, or the ROVI data (TVGOS ) - you can still see that data OTA.


----------



## OceanaJones (Feb 16, 2005)

Dear Mr. Jones,

One more response: Please know that DISH is using 140 or 175% (depending on the DISH source) as a public relations scare tactic. Any increase in pennies is going to result in a large percentage. For instance, if you go from 1 cent to 2 cents, that is a 100% increase. We are only asking for fair value, again pennies a day per subscriber, which is far less than what DISH is paying for cable channels that you may never even watch.
We have worked tirelessly to negotiate with DISH and will continue to do so in order to reach a fair deal. Had DISH accepted our offer made on February 28 to extend its existing agreement for an additional month, with no change in compensation or other terms during the extended period, we could have had more time for productive negotiations and minimized the possible interruption of service to our viewers. DISH's last minute attempt for an extension had erroneous provisions, including a clause that would prevent LIN from notifying viewers if negotiations were unsuccessful. We believe our viewers have a right to know if their local television stations will no longer be carried. Furthermore, DISH's claims that LIN is holding viewers hostage is mere public relations rhetoric that we do not believe to be productive to our negotiations.

Becky


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tampa8 said:


> They are getting preferential treatment by not allowing anyone else to broadcast into their DMA. Why? because they are not supposed to be charging for viewing them.


And they aren't charging you to view them via the intended OTA broadcast. The FCC grants the license to broadcast via OTA in part because of the free delivery/reception of OTA.

It does NOT, however, entitle you to receive the broadcasts via any other method for free NOR does it prohibit local stations from charging for retransmission via another method.



tampa8 said:


> They bare the cost of doing business in return no one else can get their ad revenue and whatever else they get by being exclusive to the DMA. If you take away that, and let there be freedom to choose whoever you want I might bite at them charging.


Yes... all OTA broadcasters are subject to the same set of rules in a given DMA. These are different rules, though, than those for cable or satellite transmission of signals.

When you retransmit a local channel via cable or satellite... then it no longer has that exclusive market does it? It is now competing against all of those channels directly... the "monopoly" over the local audience no longer exists... and neither do the OTA broadcast restrictions.



tampa8 said:


> They depend now very much on Cable and Sat to get their signal to people.


Do they? Or is it the other way around?

IF cable and satellite could not retransmit locals... I suspect more people would find ways to put up antennas and receive those signals.

How many times do people switch providers in order to get their locals? Clearly the locals are more important to the customer than the customer to the locals... The local station isn't trying to get the FCC to let it boost the signal to reach that other DMA... but people in that other DMA are trying to find ways to get that local signal.



tampa8 said:


> As I understand it, - give whatever percentage you want - Dish/Direct pick up most or all of the cost to get the signal to us. If the problem is that Dish should not make a profit, then let the station pay for the transmission cost, then, again, I might bite at telling Dish/Direct they can not charge anything more than out of pocket cost. But if most or all the cost rests with the Sat providers, then the Sat providers should have the right to make some profit for getting the signal/ad revenue to the station. How about sharing that ad revenue with Dish?


Does USA and TBS and F/X share their ad revenue with Dish?

If I take something without your permission... and I sell it for a profit... I can't argue that I have to charge for it because it costs me money to put forth the effort to take it from you without your permission. That makes no sense.



SayWhat? said:


> By virtue of an FCC license, yeah, it does.


As I said in a reply above to tampa8... The OTA license is subject to different rules and regulations than cable/satellite broadcasts.

The FCC license does require the OTA broadcast to be unencrypted and free to receive with the proper equipment... but it does NOT make that content free in perpetuity thereafter.

In other past discussions... I noted that this logic you propose would mean that TV on DVD and movies on DVD should be free too... because once broadcast they = free, right? So I should be able to walk into Best Buy and walk out with a copy of NCIS on DVD because my local channel broadcast all of those for free.

But it doesn't work that way. You have the right to watch the local OTA for free if you receive it OTA. Consumers earned the right even to record such broadcasts for their own use in their own homes.

But you can't give copies of that DVD/VHS recording to others... and you can't sell them.

The logic that says Dish should be able to get these for free and give/sell to their customers... also implies that I should be able to record from OTA and sell them too. What's the difference? There is no difference... both would be stealing if permission is not granted by the broadcast channel.

I really don't know why this is so hard to grasp.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Without prolonging forever....I will again say this. If we are going to say once the signal is broadcast over Satellite, things change and that the "Free" part of their service goes away, then I say all privileges they have go away. You can't say one thing is now different, without other things being different unless you are completely favoring one side.

So there should be no more restrictions on my wanting to watch a different DMA (Distants) for instance... If they are now in effect charging for their programs, it becomes a marketplace. If FOX in LA wants become a nationwide channel and undersell the other FOX channels, they and I should have that option. Why should Dish be restricted into buying from my local channel if they want an arm and a leg, but could get that network much cheaper elsewhere? If Dish customers really want their local, not some other one, Dish will have to make that business decision, just like any other time....


----------



## bnborg (Jun 3, 2005)

It is all about the advertising.

Other than Public Television, the station exists to make a profit, which they get as part of their advertising fees. The fees charged for advertising are usually based on viewership. But local advertisers don't want to pay extra for viewers outside the local area. Sure, the station could change their business model, but they don't want to.

To further complicate it, the FCC requires a rebroadcaster to relay the signal as-is, that is without substitutions. One can contemplate a change to the rules to allow controlled channel changes for targeted comercials. After all the technology is there. But at the present time, it would seem moot.

These are my own opinions. If I've got any facts wrong, I'm sure you'll let me know.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

No link to this on the news section yet?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> People seem to always miss this, so I'm going to try a new approach.
> 
> Everyone posting on this forum does so for free... no one is paid to post here... but lots of good information can be found.
> 
> ...


Stewart, I'm old. From my fuzzy memory viewpoint these stations exist because they have an exclusive federal license that originally came with lots of rules about public interest that seemed to imply the station signal was free to any viewer in the station's service area who could pay for the equipment to receive the signal. Community antennas systems came into being as the logical next step for those who wanted to buy the equipment with others.

From my point of view, KPIX in San Francisco has been licensed to exclusively serve my neighborhood (DMA). I could build a 1,500' tower, but I'd rather pay Dish or Comcast to put in the tower equivalents to help me receive these signals that I was supposed to be eligible to receive free.

What the legal system is telling me now is if the 5,000 homeowners in my area each build those towers they each can receive the signal free, but if as a community of people we pay someone else to build and maintain that "tower" we become second class citizens ineligible for the benefits received by real Americans from the license issued to KPIX.

We can collectively attempt to negotiate with CBS, the owner of KPIX, but while the negotiating is going on the federal government is modifying the license to specifically permit CBS to withhold it's signal from us - but not others - as we are those second class Americans in the Bay Area DMA. First class Americans in our DMA are defined as those who have line-of-sight to Sutro Tower.

That's my view of the system as it works today.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

phrelin said:


> Stewart, I'm old. From my fuzzy memory viewpoint these stations exist because they have an exclusive federal license that originally came with lots of rules about public interest that seemed to imply the station signal was free to any viewer in the station's service area who could pay for the equipment to receive the signal. Community antennas systems came into being as the logical next step for those who wanted to buy the equipment with others.
> 
> From my point of view, KPIX in San Francisco has been licensed to exclusively serve my neighborhood (DMA). I could build a 1,500' tower, but I'd rather pay Dish or Comcast to put in the tower equivalents to help me receive these signals that I was supposed to be eligible to receive free.
> 
> ...


I agree.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Me too. People forget the "community antenna" aspect of cable/satellite rebroadcast. Most of us are not expecting to have the signal delivered anywhere outside of the coverage area the station promises ... we'd just like a clearer picture for a lot less money and hassle than installing thousands of towers and OTA antennas.

And now (since 2004) that the law protects that station's signal against duplication for the entire DMA the stations should expect that their signal be delivered ANYWHERE they are protected for free. It seems odd to give stations licenses and legal protections without requiring the stations to fulfill their responsibilities by allowing their signals to be rebroadcast. It is only fair.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> And now (since 2004) that the law protects that station's signal against duplication for the entire DMA the stations should expect that their signal be delivered ANYWHERE they are protected for free. It seems odd to give stations licenses and legal protections without requiring the stations to fulfill their responsibilities by allowing their signals to be rebroadcast. It is only fair.


I agree, and add to that, the stations should be REQUIRED to show the programming (network) they are being PAID to deliver, and not be allowed to preempt network programming to show INFOMERCIALS or other non-network coverage including but not limited to local sports, specials, and non-public service activities.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:



> Me too. People forget the "community antenna" aspect of cable/satellite rebroadcast. Most of us are not expecting to have the signal delivered anywhere outside of the coverage area the station promises ... we'd just like a clearer picture for a lot less money and hassle than installing thousands of towers and OTA antennas.


I would like my pizza delivered to me without me having to pay a delivery fee. IF I go get it myself, then I don't have to pay that fee... so why do I have to pay a fee if they bring it to me?

I would also like to be carried everywhere, so I don't have to walk and get tired. Walking is free... so why can't someone else walk for me? It doesn't cost them anything to walk for me?

I'm being silly.

So, seriously.... OTA is free if you invest in the proper equipment and are located in an area where you can receive it. You are entitled to no more or no less.

Nobody responded to my analogy of what if I sold your comments on this forum as a book... in part I expect because I know you would in fact want me to pay to use your ideas even though you originally posted them on this forum for free.

Local channels happily broadcast to you for free. You are not entitled to anything else.

Since you are willing to pay cable or satellite for retransmission... this is why they are willing to pay to get it! IF you refused to pay for it, then Dish and DirecTV wouldn't pay to get them either... and you'd be back to your need for an antenna.

Since you are willing to pay... Dish is willing to pay... and it all becomes a negotiation of how much each link is willing to pay the next link.

You could pay a one-time fee to install an outside antenna and get your TV for free after that... and if you amortized that cost for the antenna, you probably save money in the long run over what you pay to Dish to get them via satellite.

The community antenna aspect has been brought up... Well, that is probably still an option. You could go in with your community and invest in that if you wanted. So you've just explored another viable option to get your free OTA to you.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I would like my pizza delivered to me without me having to pay a delivery fee. IF I go get it myself, then I don't have to pay that fee... so why do I have to pay a fee if they bring it to me?


But Pizza Hut doesnt have to pay more to the Wisconsin Cheese Company for the cheese because they choose to deliver. I can see paying DirecTv (pizza hut) to deliver the content (cheese), but not pay more for the cheese because they are delivering it instead of making me drive to pick it up.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I would like my pizza delivered to me without me having to pay a delivery fee. IF I go get it myself, then I don't have to pay that fee... so why do I have to pay a fee if they bring it to me?


You pay for delivery because you're shopping at the wrong pizza joints. I have not paid for delivery (beyond a voluntary tip) for many years. (Although I'm probably getting overcharged by the delivery joints when I choose to pick it up myself.)

But if you want to use the pizza joint as an example (one that doesn't deliver):
I want a pizza. You make pizzas. In order to get your pizzas you make me go to your store. You leave it entirely in my hands to get to the store and retrieve the pizza.

So I call the local cab company, and ask for a round trip ride to your pizza store. I pick up the pizza and go home paying the cab company for the ride.

You, having the mindset of an OTA broadcaster call foul. You REFUSE to allow me to pick up one of your pizzas UNLESS the cab company negotiates a delivery fee to bring people to your door. After all, why should the cab company make money off of YOUR product.

And heaven forbid a cab company getting the idea to just take a pizza on a cab ride (deliver the food without the round trip passenger). With the OTA broadcaster mindset you would probably call the authorities and have the service shut down for catering without a license!​


> I'm being silly.


Fairly.



> So, seriously.... OTA is free if you invest in the proper equipment and are located in an area where you can receive it. You are entitled to no more or no less.


In my case the proper equipment is a small satellite dish and receiver. I have a rooftop antenna but due to my location it is less than reliable. Is my satellite dish not "approved" by the OTA broadcaster? Is the next step to tell me I have to buy an antenna off of their website to view their signals? Where does it end?



> Nobody responded to my analogy of what if I sold your comments on this forum as a book... in part I expect because I know you would in fact want me to pay to use your ideas even though you originally posted them on this forum for free.


There is a difference. Much of the content the station is giving away is not theirs to sell. They have signed a distribution agreement that allows them to distribute content owned by others. Very little of most station's programming is owned by the station.

On this forum the copyright belongs to the site owner. Congratulations David! As soon as I submit this post you own it (#32344 in a continuing series)! If I don't want David redistributing the content I contribute I wouldn't post it (and you should not either). If someone else compiles a book I'll let David know so he can handle the copyright infringement. 

Annoyed or not ... submitted content is no longer mine.



> Local channels happily broadcast to you for free. You are not entitled to anything else.


Not even a better antenna?



> The community antenna aspect has been brought up... Well, that is probably still an option. You could go in with your community and invest in that if you wanted. So you've just explored another viable option to get your free OTA to you.


Unfortunately not. Once one starts sharing antennas with too many people OTA broadcasters take notice and start putting their hands out. :nono2:


----------



## BenJF3 (Sep 12, 2008)

Bottom line is broadcast stations *NEED* cable/sat distribution to survive. Recently, Smith Media pulled all it's stations off Time Warner. Time Warner pre-empted this by negotiating with other broadcasters and the nationals to allow for distant signals to be imported. WKTV in Utica, NY pulled the plug and by morning Time Warner had on another NBC affiliate. Every major sponsor pulled their ads from WKTV and they were forced to run only station promos and PSA's to fill the ad slots. A small number of people sided with WKTV and jumped to Dish based on the propaganda WKTV was airing thus forfeiting their other locals and now getting locked into contracts. Some went the antenna route and others heeded my advice and waited it out. Within 2 or so weeks WKTV was back on cable.

Cable/Sat adds a massive amount of viewership to broadcast stations and that should be considered compensation enough. The FCC is exploring retrans right now and one of the options they are talking about is removing the DMA Exclusivity Restrictions so cable companies can negotiate with neighboring markets.


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

I am firmly in agreement with satellite on this. The stations are greedy with the networks much more so.

Dish Network carries the costs of transmiting the local stations, and for them to charge customers for this is reasonable. The stations should be getting NO revenue from their viewers, just like when we ALL got our signal OTA.

As previously mentioned, those customers in their DMA who couldn't get their signal simply did without, which is one reason why cable and satellite have been so popular by enabling all those extra eyes on those stations presumably increasing viewership.

If stations and networks are losing money due to viewers skipping the commercials, I maintain that much of that is their own fault. Though no one ever liked commercials, we used to see them at the hour, half-hour, and quarter hours only. With commercials now at over 8 minutes per half-hour, they are giving us much less value for our viewing time (hurray for The Masters golf tournament which only agrees to a limited number per hour!). And don't forget the "coming next" segments too. They don't count as commercials, but we aren't getting extra minutes of the program either. Plus we have to put up with constant scrolls or logos or 1/3 of our screens taken up with more ads.

I strongly feel that the stations and networks should pay to have their programs retransmitted via cable or satellite and the viewers shouldn't pay anything to watch them. They get no sympathy from me on this score. There is no value customers gain from OTA viewing that isn't there in watching them by any other means.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> I would like my pizza delivered to me without me having to pay a delivery fee. IF I go get it myself, then I don't have to pay that fee... so why do I have to pay a fee if they bring it to me?


 I'm not familiar with the history of Federal Pizzaria Commission licensing rules and regulations.

For me all analogies fall apart if there is no 90+ year old federal licensing history to talk about.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> I'm not familiar with the history of Federal Pizzaria Commission licensing rules and regulations.
> 
> For me all analogies fall apart if there is no 90+ year old federal licensing history to talk about.


For some reason that made me think of Monty Python...

If I were not in the FPC, something different I would be... IF I were not in the FPC, a window cleaner me... with a scrub scrub here... and a scrub scrub there...



Not to go all political and serious... but the same notion of government-creep that people complain about (i.e. you let the government run one thing, they will take control of more and more)... this concept also applies to consumers!

The more you give them... the more they ask for.

OTA is given free to you if you own a TV and an antenna tuned to the proper frequency... but for some that isn't enough... some people want the TV station to give them the antenna and the digital encoders... but then that isn't enough either... they want to be able to get that free OTA channel via cable or satellite...

Eventually consumers will demand that actors come and perform live in their living rooms for free.

Ok, maybe not... but the point is... when is enough free enough?

Libraries (stealing an example from a different forum) have books. You can sign up for a free library card... and take books home to read for free.

Since books can be borrowed and read for free at the library... but the library is farther away from me than Barnes & Noble... why can I not go to Barnes & Noble and have them give me free books to read instead?

The book is already being "given" away by the library to read as long as you bring it back... so by virtue of the logic used in this thread, that means the content of the book is now free... so I shouldn't have to go to the library to get it free.

Oh... and my radio plays songs all day for free... so I should be able to go online and get free copies of that music... oh wait, there actually are people who do think they are entitled to free MP3s... so maybe people are being consistent in wanting everything for free after all?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> In other past discussions... I noted that this logic you propose would mean that TV on DVD and movies on DVD should be free too... because once broadcast they = free, right?


Different situation. When you buy a program or series on DVD, you get a hard copy of it without the commercials of the broadcast version. When you watch it OTA (even DVR'd) you 'pay' every time you watch it by having to endure the commercials, even if you just FF through them.

But that does bring up a question I've never really gotten an answer to. When a program is put on DVD, why must certain rights be renegotiated if the producers have already paid for those rights initially? Example; _Married With Children_ on DVD could not use the same title theme. I believe somebody mentioned a similar problem with _The Wonder Years_ going to DVD because of some of the music used in the soundtrack.

Why don't the original rights remain intact?

Might be related to the retrans topic. Might not be.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

James Long said:


> And now (since 2004) that the law protects that station's signal against duplication for the entire DMA the stations should expect that their signal be delivered ANYWHERE they are protected for free. It seems odd to give stations licenses and legal protections without requiring the stations to fulfill their responsibilities by allowing their signals to be rebroadcast. It is only fair.


Yes Sir. That is why I say if they still are going to get the priviledge of being protected, as you so well point out, even in areas they were not protected before, (Where we could get distants but now can't just because Sat carries their signal) they can't now say they are going to charge. Once they can charge it becomes open to anyone to compete for that network signal. Why should they have a monopoly AND charge what they want, or get to withold their programming? That is exactly the situation now.

And last I saw, I can pay someone to bring me the Pizza (signal) and just pay the delivery person nothing more to the Pizza shop. And to go with my example along with the Pizza example, I can get someone to deliver me Distant Pizza from the exact same company (Network) if it is cheaper. And that does indeed happen right now. In my College town Dominoes does not always have the same specials as the one in the town about a 1 1/2 away. ......

Attica Attica Attica......oh.....sorry....


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Expanding on that, I _can_ order a pizza from Chicago or New York if I want to pay the delivery charge. And I can order just what I want on it. No law prevents me from doing so.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

OceanaJones said:


> To which I replyed back:
> 
> Thank you for your quick response. I think a 140% increase in fees from Dish Network is a little over the top. I hope the FCC steps in and makes LIN network and others
> play more fairly with a signal they are providing for free over the air. As of now, I am enjoying WTKR and WVEC for my local programing and I And my neighbors will be boycotting WAVY and all LIN affiliates until they can produce a fair agreement with Dish Network.


Good for you.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Do you REALLY believe that, if you order a pizza from a Domino's a thousand miles away, that they will cook it there and fly it to you on a private jet at NO EXTRA CHARGE?

They'd just have your local franchise cook it and deliver it, or they'd go out of business.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> OTA is given free to you if you own a TV and an antenna tuned to the proper frequency... but for some that isn't enough... some people want the TV station to give them the antenna and the digital encoders... but then that isn't enough either... they want to be able to get that free OTA channel via cable or satellite...


Most people don't want a "gift". They are more than willing to pay the cost of getting the signal. It is frustrating when the station changes the way they broadcast (NTSC to ATSC for example) and expects their viewers to upgrade all of their equipment ... but REFUSES to allow viewers to use shared antennas (the community antenna provided by cable/satellite and on a smaller scale MATV systems) without additional unearned fees. Why do I have to pay a local broadcaster a fee to use someone else's shared antenna system? Greed?



> Since books can be borrowed and read for free at the library... but the library is farther away from me than Barnes & Noble... why can I not go to Barnes & Noble and have them give me free books to read instead?


Different entities. If your local K-Mart is offering free popcorn while you shop you can't force WalMart to do the same. They might through market pressures ... and it surprises me that B&N and other bookstores allows reading without purchasing the books. They are bookstores ... not libraries.

Some communities have "free bike" services. Pick one up wherever and ride it wherever as long as you leave it for others to ride when you're not. Such a service does not make EVERY bike in town free.

Sometimes I think people are deliberately obtuse just to cloud the issue.



> The book is already being "given" away by the library to read as long as you bring it back... so by virtue of the logic used in this thread, that means the content of the book is now free... so I shouldn't have to go to the library to get it free.


If you want to pay a cab company or the neighbor kid a couple of bucks to go to the library and pick up a free book for you (a delivery charge) I'm not stopping you. But someone with the broadcaster mindset might. They would charge the delivery person a fee for picking up that freely distributed content.



kenglish said:


> Do you REALLY believe that, if you order a pizza from a Domino's a thousand miles away, that they will cook it there and fly it to you on a private jet at NO EXTRA CHARGE?


He didn't say that it should be at no extra charge (not even for extra cheese). Only that there are no laws against it.

There could be a franchise agreement that prohibits that distant Dominos from marketing outside of their franchise area (much like the one that prevents the station you work at from trying to resell network and syndicated content outside of your franchise area). But there is no federal pizza law preventing the out of market delivery of pizza, nor protecting pizza places from others redelivering their product for a profit.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

kenglish said:


> Do you REALLY believe that, if you order a pizza from a Domino's a thousand miles away, that they will cook it there and fly it to you on a private jet at NO EXTRA CHARGE?
> 
> They'd just have your local franchise cook it and deliver it, or they'd go out of business.


If I order from Luigi's in New York, I'm sure they'd have no problem letting FedEx pick it up and ship it to me overnight if I wanted to pay the delivery charge. But the price for the pizza itself would be the same as if I walked in and picked it up.

I can order lobsters from Maine and pineapples from Hawaii the same way if I pay delivery.

I have no problem paying Dish a small delivery charge for getting a signal using their service and equipment, but it's a different matter when it comes to paying a fee that goes back to the local broadcaster I can get OTA for free. The only reason I would consider getting my local locals from Dish is that I have one major channel that flakes out quite a bit since the "Big Switch". Never had that problem previously thank you very much FCC.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Different entities. If your local K-Mart is offering free popcorn while you shop you can't force WalMart to do the same. They might through market pressures ... and it surprises me that B&N and other bookstores allows reading without purchasing the books. They are bookstores ... not libraries.


You just supported my point.

K-Mart is giving away the same popcorn that Wal-Mart is charging for... K-Mart and Wal-Mart are two different ways to get that same popcorn... so why can't I force Wal-Mart to give me that same popcorn for free?

Same as... local channel gives it away for free via OTA... but charges if you want it via cable or satellite.

It's the exact same example. You just proved my point 



James Long said:


> Some communities have "free bike" services. Pick one up wherever and ride it wherever as long as you leave it for others to ride when you're not. Such a service does not make EVERY bike in town free.


I agree... but people in this very thread are saying that because the programming is broadcast for free via OTA it should be free via any other broadcast method (online streaming, cable, satellite, etc.).

That's not what I'm arguing... that's what many in this thread are arguing.

I agree that not all bikes are free just because some are lending them for free.

Just like I believe the local channel broadcast is not free for cable/satellite to retransmit without permission.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You just supported my point.


Then you did a lousy job of making your point in the first place or you changed your point to fit the response.



> Same as... local channel gives it away for free via OTA... but charges if you want it via cable or satellite.


No, it isn't. You're completely ignoring that in the OTA vs via satellite/cable that the intermediate source is the same store.

K-Mart isn't giving away Wal-Mart's popcorn and Wal-Mart isn't giving away K-Mart's popcorn. Just like the library and B&N are not sharing the same materials. Similar, but not the same.

K-Mart is giving away free popcorn. So I pick up a bag and take it home to my wife. When K-Mart finds out I delivered the popcorn to my wife they demand that I pay for the free popcorn. THAT is what OTA stations are doing. They are distributing content for free but when they find out someone is helping in the delivery - even at great cost to the deliverer - they slap them with an upcharge.



> Just like I believe the local channel broadcast is not free for cable/satellite to retransmit without permission.


It should be. Or at least under a statutory license that does not allow signals to be withheld from viewers on a provider by provider basis.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

And yet... on this very forum... we have rules that prohibit any of us from taking content from another forum and posting it here in its entirety.

I can't go to another satellite forum, and copy content that I can read for free there... and paste it here in entirety without permission from that other site.

Why not?

Because even though the other Web site gives that information access for free if I visit them... they do not extend that right to me to take that information and put it on another Web site.

The concept here is very similar.

Taken a step further... Let's say I buy a domain... and on that domain I start my own satellite Web site... but I populate that Web site with a live feed from DBSTalk. Users login to my site and pay a fee to read word-for-word content taken from DBSTalk as it is posted. Maybe some people can't get to DBSTalk because of a routing issue or their office has blocked the dbstalk.com domain... so they need to go to my site if they want to read what is being posted at DBSTalk.

Do I have the right to do that? DBSTalk is free... and it is on the internet, which is granted license to exist by the same government process that grants OTA broadcast... So why should DBSTalk have a monopoly on its content? Its free content... that I simply choose to repurpose on my Web site.

Just because something is given away doesn't make it free.

Local broadcasters give their signal for free if you receive it in the way it was intended and for the use it was intended. You are not granted retransmission rights. That is very clear up front.

Incidentally... your K-Mart free popcorn example comes with disclaimers too... Usually stores with a free giveaway have something like "No dealers, please" in their disclaimer... because they don't want dealers coming in and getting the free stuff, then reselling it themselves.

So once again... giving away doesn't make it free. Generally there are conditions on giveaways.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

The broadcast signal is free to receive OTA, but not to disseminate without permission. Use of program content is restricted due to copyright.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

"So once again... giving away doesn't make it free. Generally there are conditions on giveaways."

I can generally agree with that. But here's the problem. The people giving it away for free are protected - no one else can give it away for free - or even charge. The agreement is, you give it away for free, we (the government) protect your area where you are giving it away free. Fair enough.

But now, there is an area you won't or can't give it away free to. You are supposed to, but you are unable to. So those people had to pay, but could get the stuff you are giving for free from a distant place that will give it free too, but they have to pay the person delivering it. Still, fair enough.

But now the problem comes in. You now have the government protecting the whole area, even if you can not deliver the free stuff yourself, and depend on someone to deliver it for you. You decide, the free stuff now costs the person delivering your free stuff X amount. And next year it will cost X times 140%. You won't pay for their gas or provide them a car, but you will still charge them, and thus of course the person who is expecting to pay the person delivering the free stuff a transportation fee, is told you now have to pay for the free stuff also, even though the government has denied anyone else from providing you the free stuff.........

So, the remedy? Ok, you can charge anyone who delivers your free stuff. But if the delivery service can find equal free stuff, for less of a cost, they are free to do so, as we live in a free market society. Now, if you want to go back to making your stuff actually free to the delivery person, or perhaps charge a nominal amount, we can go back to the government protecting you....

I have stated before, I would agree if the network is not allowed to charge Dish or Direct (or only a nominal fee) then it would be right that Dish or Direct can only charge a nominal fee, but can cover their cost to get it delivered... I think (but admit do not know for sure) the $5 for distants probably is not much over what it cost to provide them.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

A fair solution to all this would be if the government would just allow the broadcasters to recover 10% of the profit from retransmitting their service, except in the case where the cost to deliver their service costs the delivery provider more than they are collecting in fees, in which case the broadcasters would be required to pay the delivery provider 10% of their costs to deliver the programming, or opt out of their exclusive DMA protection.

Anyone that can honestly believe DirecTv is making money on locals, given the costs of the spot beam satellites, the headends, the fiber to the uplink facility, and the manpower to monitor all those stations...while only charging the customer $3 or $5 a month, is smoking something illegal. Does it add value to their service? Sure. 

What happened was the government screwed up when it changed the rules allowing corporations to own more than X number of stations, thus letting FOX, and LIN (those seem to be the two greediest) to procure several stations in key markets, and then leverage that against the viewers. The FCC had things in perfect shape back in the 60's and 70's. It was when they changed the rules to allow Murdock to create his media empire while probably filling the polititians pockets to change the rules, that all this trouble started. I remember when for $10 a month, I could watch all 3 timezones of all the networks...until the rules got changed. Big mistake. They need to fix their mistake, and not at our expense.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Incidentally... your K-Mart free popcorn example comes with disclaimers too... Usually stores with a free giveaway have something like "No dealers, please" in their disclaimer... because they don't want dealers coming in and getting the free stuff, then reselling it themselves.


Sure there is a purpose in loss leaders and special deals offered in exchange for something else ... free popcorn gets you in the store to see the attractive profitable deals that they do make money on. Loss leader advertising gets you in the store to save money on the advertised item at a loss to the store but they hope you buy something related that they do make money on (like batteries and cables - some of the most marked up items around).

With a broadcast station they are giving away the whole store. There is no add on. They make no special money by forcing their viewers to spend hundreds of dollars on antenna equipment to receive their signal (although those who spend a lot on an OTA antenna might not buy a competing cable/satellite program source).

Broadcast stations run "the free stuff store" and at best they could sell copies of their programming or related items to their viewers (entire season DVD sets or Ice Road Trucker snow globes - if IRT wasn't a cable program). PBS does this on a regular basis ... want to own a copy of the show you just watched for free?

Rebroadcasters (as required by law) take EVERYTHING that broadcaster transmits on their free feed and retransmit it without editing. No added commercials. No inserting a feed from another market because that market has ruined the feed with routine weather information and day care closings. No improvement or repackaging just transport. They are simply the taxicab taking people to the "free stuff" store. And the only thing wrong with that is that the cab takes viewers to all of the "free stuff" stores. Even when giving away their content broadcasters can't stand the competition ... so they put up a toll gate and charge.

LIN Media says: "We are only asking for fair value, again pennies a day per subscriber, which is far less than what DISH is paying for cable channels that you may never even watch." Well surprise - you're doing the same thing, requiring DISH to pay you for "subscribers" that don't watch your programming. And with laws that basically eliminate a la carte within the satellite locals package and require cable to deliver locals stations get their money - whether the "subscribers" want to pay them or not. Nice racket.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I've got a solution for all of this. Let's reallocate the remaining broadcast TV portion of the public's airwaves - they still are the public's airwaves as the feds just auctioned off some - to video game companies. We get rid of those pesky broadcast stations neither we nor the networks really need and they're still devoted to entertainment.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Another aspect I've brought up in the past...

In the Raleigh DMA... years ago, the locals were free to Time Warner for retransmission... but they were charging customers for that service. Was Time Warner profiting? I don't know...

But... several local channels banded together and made commercials and simply said "We believe OTA should be free to you if it is free to them... so we have offered a choice. Time Warner can give you our OTA channel feed for free and we will continue to provide it to them for free... BUT... if Time Warner wants to charge for it, then we want to be paid a fair price."

Now of course we have disputes based on what that "fair price" might be...

But at least in my DMA... this debate was ended years ago over whether or not the cable and satellite companies could retransmit for free... when those companies did not want to deliver to their customers for free.

When the locals gave a choice... the cable company wanted to pay so they could charge, rather than give the signal to its customers for free.

I know there are arguments that the satellite company (Dish) has to invest in uplink equipment... that's a valid point... but Time Warner really didn't have to do anything in a local market where they already maintain the equipment anyway... and they wanted to sell locals at a profit to customers rather than pass it along free.

It could be that Dish/DirecTV are willing to just recoup their uplink costs... because it makes them competitive with the local cable company.

The other entangled problem... Some are discussing as if it is an either or situation... as if the only subscribers to locals through Dish can't get them OTA. Does Dish only sell locals to customers who can't possibly get them OTA? I doubt that.

I have OTA... and I subscribe to the locals through Dish for extra tuner DVRing options + EPG data... So, I'm paying Dish for local channels that I can and do get via OTA.

The only way, to me, that one can argue that Dish carrying OTA channels "increases viewership" of those local channels... would be IF and only IF Dish restricted sales of the local channel package for that DMA to only people who could not watch via OTA.

Would Dish be willing to do that? Only deliver the locals to areas within the DMA that otherwise that OTA broadcast would not reach?

If not... then Dish is effectively "poaching" to some extent... taking viewers away from OTA that otherwise would watch via OTA if Dish did not carry their locals.


----------



## Rduce (May 16, 2008)

I live in Kalamazoo, MI and in the mid-90’s our same NBC station was pulled from our then local cable company over the same thing; the only difference is now they also took our local ABC affiliate off with them. It went on for weeks and I put up a roof mount antenna. 

The irony of the story is that even though once the roof antenna was up I also got the NBC station out of Jackson, MI too. Well, I have been watching channel 10 out of Jackson ever since and really do not care if WOOD has been pulled.

My Dish OTA receiver pulls in Jackson just fine and I can watch ABC on the sat through WZZM, which has better sound.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Now of course we have disputes based on what that "fair price" might be...
> 
> When the locals gave a choice... the cable company wanted to pay so they could charge, rather than give the signal to its customers for free.


The infrastructure isn't free ... all the receivers, cables, amplifiers and the cost of keeping it all running? If the local stations wouldn't allow an "infrastructure fee" that actually covered costs the deal is a non-starter.



> I know there are arguments that the satellite company (Dish) has to invest in uplink equipment... that's a valid point... but Time Warner really didn't have to do anything in a local market where they already maintain the equipment anyway... and they wanted to sell locals at a profit to customers rather than pass it along free.


There is no free. Cable is required by law to carry locals in the lowest level and offer a "lifeline" package. There is a lot of infrastructure required to do that - and since "lifeline" is the base level of service required of a cable company - those infrastructure costs need to be recouped at that level.

For satellite a "fair price" would have to be based on the costs involved to set up POPs, backhauls, uplink centers and spotbeam satellites. All that expense only makes sense when the satellite provider is not also over paying for retransmission consent. There is no way the $3-$5 attributed to locals is paying the cost for all of that equipment. Locals are a loss leader.

The base cost of satellite is paid for by people wanting content that isn't available OTA - and those people are subsidizing the cost of all the extra equipment needed to deliver thousands of local channels to the right viewers.



> It could be that Dish/DirecTV are willing to just recoup their uplink costs... because it makes them competitive with the local cable company.


From a competitive standpoint - thanks in part to a system that makes it illegal for cable providers not to offer local channels and illegal for satellite to provide the desired network content from other sources - satellite providers sell a few more of their programming packages because local channels are available.

But profit from locals? How many people want satellite JUST for locals?



> The only way, to me, that one can argue that Dish carrying OTA channels "increases viewership" of those local channels... would be IF and only IF Dish restricted sales of the local channel package for that DMA to only people who could not watch via OTA.


I can receive locals OTA ... I can receive them better via satellite. Back in the days of NTSC I could receive a watchable signal and my locals were not on DISH.

I didn't watch much on the local channels. When I came home from work I turned on my DISH receiver and watched programming I was paying for. Watching local TV meant changing the channel on the TV from 3 or 4 to some UHF channel. Not convenient ... so I didn't watch. This lasted for about two years of OTA network free living.

Then my locals became available ... and I started watching the networks again. My viewership of local channels certainly shot up because they were carried by DISH. The one tuner convenience made that possible.

In the age of ATSC many people get a better signal from their locals via satellite without being geeks with RF experience. Better signal means more viewing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> The infrastructure isn't free ... all the receivers, cables, amplifiers and the cost of keeping it all running?


This is where cable differs from satellite... They don't have to launch satellites or uplink facilities to carry the locals.

They can put up a simple antenna in most cases and receive the OTA broadcast. In our area, the local channels invested in fiber-optic feeds for several channels to deliver those to Time Warner.

Also... a lot of those "basic retransmission costs" are typically built-in to the base packages already... Cable and satellite first add in the cost they pay to the channels, then cost to do business (which includes paying employees) and then add extra for profit so that their company makes money and/or has money available for future company improvements.

So... I'd be very surprised if much of the cost of supplying the locals isn't really already there whether or not the company spends it.

Consider, in the case of Dish... the receiver fees they charge for extra receivers... Those $7-$15 fees and those $6-$10 DVR fees are being charged for things that technically aren't costing Dish any money when the receiver is in the field...

And they don't stop charging those fees once initial development costs of the receiver technology is recouped... so there's a source right there for money to pay for those OTA facilities to uplink.



James Long said:


> There is no free. Cable is required by law to carry locals in the lowest level and offer a "lifeline" package.


They might be required to carry them in the lowest tier... but I can't believe they are required by law to carry the locals. IF they are required to carry the locals, then how can there be any local channel disputes with cable? And yet there have been local channel disputes where the local channels have pulled (or threatened) their feeds from cable companies...

Or am I missing something?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^^ It might be by franchise, but every local cable system I've seen has required the main network locals be included.

Maybe the mega-cable systems that serve multiple communities have gotten away from that.


----------



## BenJF3 (Sep 12, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This is where cable differs from satellite... They don't have to launch satellites or uplink facilities to carry the locals.
> 
> They can put up a simple antenna in most cases and receive the OTA broadcast. In our area, the local channels invested in fiber-optic feeds for several channels to deliver those to Time Warner.
> 
> ...


I can't speak for your division, but in pretty much all of New York State (at least Upstate and Western) Time Warner footed the bill to run the fiber links directly to the studios and maintains them. In fact, WKTV is frequently off the air due to transmitter problems or power outages, but the signal is up via Time Warner because of their investment in said fiber link. Cable gives the broadcast value by reaching far more people. WKTV liked to site it's ratings during the dispute when they pulled their signal. Well, guess what? 80% of their viewers were from Time Warner Cable, so they derived better rating because of it. Once they pulled the signal, their numbers tanked and they lost all their advertisers. People said on their Facebook page "I'm not investing in antenna equipment for ONE channel" and Time Warner imported an NBC affiliate from Scranton to fill the void so people didn't miss their network shows. In fact, many people to this day say they can't believe how amateur WKTV is now that they had a taste of the Scranton station. It didn't take long for the station owners to cave because they were bleeding money.

As far as being required to carry the locals, that only applies if they have an agreement.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> So... I'd be very surprised if much of the cost of supplying the locals isn't really already there whether or not the company spends it.


Cable or satellite?

Cable has CATV roots ... the community sharing a really good antenna. It really helps in areas where 30ft or better towers and large antennas and rotors (or multiple antennas and professionally designed antenna mixers) are required to get a signal. It doesn't take much to be a cable system. The apartment complex I lived in a few years back is still a separate cable system. (Although now they also offer DISH on their master antenna feeds along with the analog service.)

Since cable is REQUIRED to offer carriage to locals it is hard to argue that the costs of delivering locals is not part of their base expenses.

Satellite has roots of being alternative programming to locals. People got their first C Band dishes to get something else than what the local stations provided. Sometimes that was distant stations and raw feeds TO those local stations. But people got sports from across the country (wild feed and subscription channels) plus national news, weather and entertainment channels. As the craze grew networks started protecting their signals with most allowing subscription via satellite. The first DBS systems were a simplified version of the subscription system C Band had morphed in to. And over the years DBS is becoming more of a consumer system where users wouldn't know if they had satellite or cable unless they looked outside for the dish or drop.

Where a cable system can (and must) use a portion of it's capacity to provide local stations they only have to provide channels that are local on that system. For satellite there is a much higher cost to provide locals.



> Consider, in the case of Dish... the receiver fees they charge for extra receivers... Those $7-$15 fees and those $6-$10 DVR fees are being charged for things that technically aren't costing Dish any money when the receiver is in the field...


DISH and DirecTV pay nearly $800 for each new customer they install. Those free HD receivers and DVRs they hand out (lease) are not free. The monthly fees help offset the cost of equipment and pay for continuing development of both the receivers in the field and the next receiver. Development doesn't end until a receiver is discontinued AND pulled from service (with the pulled from service part being the key).



> And they don't stop charging those fees once initial development costs of the receiver technology is recouped... so there's a source right there for money to pay for those OTA facilities to uplink.


Since the locals fee comes nowhere close to covering the total cost locals have to be subsidized from somewhere.

I believe requiring customers to subscribe is one way DISH and DirecTV is helping to cover the costs. The receive-backhaul-uplink-satellite-staffing costs remain the same for a market whether there are 1000 subscribers in that market or 100,000 ... making all 100,000 pay does a better job of covering the cost than allowing people to opt out.



> They might be required to carry them in the lowest tier... but I can't believe they are required by law to carry the locals. IF they are required to carry the locals, then how can there be any local channel disputes with cable? And yet there have been local channel disputes where the local channels have pulled (or threatened) their feeds from cable companies...
> 
> Or am I missing something?


Offer carriage.

Cable companies are REQUIRED to offer carriage to local stations ... but stations have the same "must carry" and "consent to carry" rights as they do with satellite providers. If a station refuses to be carried they cannot be carried. As long as they were offered carriage the cable company is compliant. (Oversimplified. There are a lot of rules.)


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

James Long said:


> Most people don't want a "gift". They are more than willing to pay the cost of getting the signal. It is frustrating when the station changes the way they broadcast (NTSC to ATSC for example) and expects their viewers to upgrade all of their equipment ... but REFUSES to allow viewers to use shared antennas (the community antenna provided by cable/satellite and on a smaller scale MATV systems) without additional unearned fees. Why do I have to pay a local broadcaster a fee to use someone else's shared antenna system? Greed?


A "shared antenna" would be just that....an antenna that is shared among a group of people, for OTA reception of a broadcast signal. But, Cable and satellite companies are a lot different than that. They are a money-making business that sells multiple channels of TV programming and other types of media. They purchase the programming, package it, put a price tag on it, and re-sell it.
A true "shared antenna" would be an MATV system, not a Multi-Channel Video Provider (MCVP) business. And, stations would not charge for using a true MATV system, any more than they would charge you for using a splitter to feed two sets.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

phrelin said:


> I've got a solution for all of this. Let's reallocate the remaining broadcast TV portion of the public's airwaves - they still are the public's airwaves as the feds just auctioned off some - to video game companies. We get rid of those pesky broadcast stations neither we nor the networks really need and they're still devoted to entertainment.


Careful. Nobody is supposed to know about that until it's a done deal.


----------



## Lebowski13 (Mar 7, 2011)

I completely disagree with your efforts to extort Dish into paying exorbitant retrans fees for your otherwise terrestrial stations. In fact, you should be paying them, you're an advertising funded broadcast company, Dish carries your advertising without capturing that revenue. Without their capital investments and infrastructure, as well as subscriber base, you would simply be an OTA antenna based channel without any viewers. 

You lobbied congress to take away our distant locals from Dish programming, so you have essentially cornered the affiliate market...and now you want to extort fees? We don't mind the fees if you bring back choice! Surely these will be passed down to consumers, Dish charging for locals is not designed to cover retrans...it's designed to cover uplink and management. Which, as a former employee, I can assure you is quite the undertaking. 

This is essentially biting the hand that feeds you, if you paid attention to history...you would recall that Dish doesn't back down from this type of activity. You need them far more than they need you, I know for a fact that they would rather subsidize OTA antennas and OTA expansion cards to their interested consumers than pay you. I will stream my Fox shows online and I will start watching other networks...P.S. I DVR your stuff anyway so I've never even watched a commercial.

Concerned Dish Subscriber


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> A true "shared antenna" would be an MATV system, not a Multi-Channel Video Provider (MCVP) business. And, stations would not charge for using a true MATV system, any more than they would charge you for using a splitter to feed two sets.


The trouble is where one draws the line. Since consent is required on shared antenna systems the broadcaster gets to choose ... even on a system with zero non-broadcast content ... whether consent is granted free or for a fee. If the MATV has ONE too many non-broadcast channels or charges more than the station (in it's sole and unquestioned judgment) considers fair as an infrastructure fee ZAP! the station refuses carriage without payment.

Where that line is drawn varies ... but the station draws the line. I believe that is wrong and more oversight is needed to protect the consumer. Consumers NEED protection from companies that are granted legal monopolies such as OTA stations. It is a small price to pay in exchange for a broadcast license.


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

James Long said:


> Where that line is drawn varies ... but the station draws the line. I believe that is wrong and more oversight is needed to protect the consumer. Consumers NEED protection from companies that are granted legal monopolies such as OTA stations. It is a small price to pay in exchange for a broadcast license.


Agreed. If the viewer/consumer had a choice about which network affiliate to use to get their programming in a competitive marketplace, I'd fully support every affiliate's right to charge whatever the market would bear; in a functional, competitive market those making excessive demands couldn't survive as few would "buy" their services.

But when something is given a government-granted monopoly within a particular region and consumers are prohibited by law from obtaining services from a competitor, there is (or should be) at least some consumer protections built in to make sure that the monopoly status isn't abused. And I think more than any other station-owning corporation, LIN is the poster child of abusing monopoly privilege.


----------



## [email protected] Network (Jan 6, 2011)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Consider, in the case of Dish... the receiver fees they charge for extra receivers... Those $7-$15 fees and those $6-$10 DVR fees are being charged for things that technically aren't costing Dish any money when the receiver is in the field...


I have to speak in general business terms for any company that deals in a business like our own. When thinking about "recouping" costs, we must consider that there are always expenses to keeping units in the field. There are things like the software support needed to keep those receivers in the field, correcting issues or improving functionality, the cost of refurbishing and redeploying units (or replacing if needing to be "scrapped"), building new units that go to customers at no charge when starting service or replacing under warranty, and then the overhead for the facilities to do so. Also, there is R&D to bring things like the ViP922, SlingAdapter, SlingReceiver, and anything else that may come down the pipe. DISH Network pays Echostar for the receivers, software maintenance, and all of that. If you imagine the cost of one employee working on software, rebuilding units, or R&Ding some new feature, it would take a lot of receivers to pay just that one employee over a month.


----------



## metrounit9 (Apr 26, 2005)

I sent an e-mail to the WTNH (CH 8 - New Haven, CT) last night to the '[email protected]' e-mail address. Told them I was very disappointed with their actions and would be getting an antenna to get the ABC affiliate in Springfield, MA.

Here is their reply:

*Good afternoon,

If DISH hadn't rejected our many previious offers to extend the existing agreement for another month there would have been no interruption in service. DISH removed the signals on the day and hour it chose, over LIN's objection. Please know that we are still negotiating with DISH in the hope that a new agreement can be reached.*

*Regards*

Now off to get that antenna -- actually its already on the roof -- just need to wire it all up.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Has anyone been able to find out exactly what Lin is currently charging, and what they want to charge DISH? Dish saying the increase is 175% is meaningless unless I know 175% of what?

I asked DISH directly. Their response:

_*they do not release that information as the agreements keep it confidential between the two sides*_.


----------



## BenJF3 (Sep 12, 2008)

brucegrr said:


> Has anyone been able to find out exactly what Lin is currently charging, and what they want to charge DISH? Dish saying the increase is 175% is meaningless unless I know 175% of what?
> 
> I asked DISH directly. Their response:
> 
> _*they do not release that information as the agreements keep it confidential between the two sides*_.


This has also been a sticking point. There should be FULL DISCLOSURE as both side tend to skew the data.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

[email protected] Network said:


> I have to speak in general business terms for any company that deals in a business like our own. When thinking about "recouping" costs, we must consider that there are always expenses to keeping units in the field. There are things like the software support needed to keep those receivers in the field, correcting issues or improving functionality, the cost of refurbishing and redeploying units (or replacing if needing to be "scrapped"), building new units that go to customers at no charge when starting service or replacing under warranty, and then the overhead for the facilities to do so. Also, there is R&D to bring things like the ViP922, SlingAdapter, SlingReceiver, and anything else that may come down the pipe. DISH Network pays Echostar for the receivers, software maintenance, and all of that. If you imagine the cost of one employee working on software, rebuilding units, or R&Ding some new feature, it would take a lot of receivers to pay just that one employee over a month.


I hear you... and while I don't like the fees, and think they are higher than they ought to be... I at least understand the concept of recouping development costs as well as funding support of the product for its life-cycle.

I only brought it into the discussion really as an example of how Dish (like any other company) does build-in fees to cover infrastructure... so whenever someone says that Dish needs to charge for something, I always wonder do they really? Or is some of that cost not already being charged.

Kind of like.. those things on high tech equipment that say "reserved for future use"... I think of some parts of company fees to customers as being money "reserved for future use" as well.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

BenJF3 said:


> This has also been a sticking point. There should be FULL DISCLOSURE as both side tend to skew the data.


We likely will never get that info.

Dish has no reason to want to disclose it, because it tells the customer how much Dish is profiting vs their expense for a given channel.

LIN (or other channel providers) has no reason to want to disclose it because it tells the customer how much they are paying for that specific channel.

This is why both companies insist on those confidentiality clauses. You can be sure that both sides want to keep the details private, and for largely the same reasons.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I'd say fee disclosure should be part of the new rulemaking since we're dealing with FCC licensees and what has effectively become a quasi-utility.


Hmmmm..... That brings up another question. What kind of licenses does a Satellite provider need. They're running transmitters for the uplink sites, no? Just how much are they under the FCC's thumb?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Hmmmm..... That brings up another question. What kind of licenses does a Satellite provider need. They're running transmitters for the uplink sites, no? Just how much are they under the FCC's thumb?


Seems pretty much completely in terms of the use of satellites and related radio wave technology, plus all those pesky rules related to locals for starters.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> Hmmmm..... That brings up another question. What kind of licenses does a Satellite provider need. They're running transmitters for the uplink sites, no? Just how much are they under the FCC's thumb?


As much as Congress allows them to be.

There are some rules that apply to cable that could be applied to satellite ... and those changes are part of the rulemaking that is just beginning. I'm not sure a 30 day notice would help customers in a two year contract.

There are some DISH policies I'd like to see changed (which are theirs to change - not the FCC's) but why should DISH help OTA broadcasters? Perhaps both the broadcasters and the satellite companies need to look at it the way they write in their press releases - helping the customers. It may cost them money but keeping customers happy isn't a bad thing.


----------



## BenJF3 (Sep 12, 2008)

You want to stop all this nonsense altogether? Make television the way it was intended to be and eliminate ALL carriage fees. Open up everything and make it advertising based. You want cable or sat, fine - you pay a "service fee" for infrastructure. The programmers *NEED* MSO's to get their signal out. This is the way it was meant to be, but it got perverted and people got greedy. The result? Cable/Sat bills that are as high as car payments and a plethora of redundant channels and programming.

We know that's not going to happen, so the next best thing would be Ala Carte offerings. Neither will happen...


----------



## Lebowski13 (Mar 7, 2011)

FCC and government intervention in general has created the current monster that TV has become...not greed. Leave them alone and the market will eventually bear what we all want...it has to when the consumer is calling the shots.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

brucegrr said:


> Has anyone been able to find out exactly what Lin is currently charging, and what they want to charge DISH? Dish saying the increase is 175% is meaningless unless I know 175% of what?


The percentage suggests a multiple of 4. My blind guess would be that Lin used to charge 20 cents per sub per month and set its new desired fee at 55 cents. If it were 4 cents going up to 11, I think Dish would have paid it.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Well this is certainly interesting news...FCC plans on allowing imported channels for sat and cable?

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=190795

Edit: Whoops, missed that thread. Legislative.


----------



## Renob2317 (May 14, 2008)

That is good news. The only negative is with local sports. You would have to watch the local teams the other affiliate is showing. I am Indy and if the local CBS doesn't come back then I will not get to see most of the Colts games next season. Other than that I never watch CBS.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

I am certainly glad it is being contemplated, but unless I actually see congress go against the NAB I won't get too excited. 

There of many of us who will pay to get distants from a city we have interest in and/or for time shifting. In that case I would not mind the distant network from getting income from that, as I am not likely to buy locally from their advertising. Maybe congress has heard enough of the ongoing problems and will make some changes in our favor.....


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

tampa8 said:


> I am certainly glad it is being contemplated, but unless I actually see congress go against the NAB I won't get too excited.
> 
> There of many of us who will pay to get distants from a city we have interest in and/or for time shifting. In that case I would not mind the distant network from getting income from that, as I am not likely to buy locally from their advertising. Maybe congress has heard enough of the ongoing problems and will make some changes in our favor.....


Never happen. Politicians get too much money from media companies. I must admit the older I get, the less tolerant I am of advertising. Even skipping forward through the ads is bothersome. We dropped the core package and added HBO and Netflix - pay TV without the ads - the way it should be - and cheaper.


----------



## IndyTim (Nov 11, 2007)

While it's not a big deal to me since I get a nice OTA signal for free (but paying for ALL HD locals), I am p-o'd that the guide doesn't show programming. Instead, for both the OTA and the sat listing, it says "Important News- Press Info!". It would be nice to know what's on the channel *THAT I AM NOT WATCHING*.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

One of many on-line program guides:

http://titantv.com


----------



## [email protected] Network (Jan 6, 2011)

Just to let you know, I have escalated the OTA guide data issues as a whole to the engineering department best suited to deal with this issue, in particular the LIN guide data issue. I also mentioned the other OTA guide data as a "while you are fixing". No ET on a fix yet, but ball is already rolling on it.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

I would never have Dish Network without a good OTA antenna with good reception of my local channels.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

We live between Ft Wayne and Toledo. Toledo is our local on Dish. 50 miles from Toledo, 40 plus miles from Ft Wayne......leaves us with OTA channels that may or many not come in, and that's only if our antenna is on a tower. Since we don't have a tower we have no way to watch the Lin channel, Fox 36. 

It sucks. I hope this standoff is resolved soon. We don't watch a lot of Fox programming but we are missing House and American Idol.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

brucegrr said:


> We live between Ft Wayne and Toledo. Toledo is our local on Dish. 50 miles from Toledo, 40 plus miles from Ft Wayne......leaves us with OTA channels that may or many not come in, and that's only if our antenna is on a tower. Since we don't have a tower we have no way to watch the Lin channel, Fox 36.
> 
> It sucks. I hope this standoff is resolved soon. We don't watch a lot of Fox programming but we are missing House and American Idol.


You're the person who gets the raw end of the deal, can't reliably get locals from the antenna, and because of a dispute can't watch a couple of shows you really like. If you are in a white zone (sounds like you may be) you might be able gets distants from AAD....


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

[email protected] Network said:


> Just to let you know, I have escalated the OTA guide data issues as a whole to the engineering department best suited to deal with this issue, in particular the LIN guide data issue. I also mentioned the other OTA guide data as a "while you are fixing". No ET on a fix yet, but ball is already rolling on it.


Thanks! Please keep us updated. If they can fix the guide for OTA it would save me from disconnecting my service.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Gilitar said:


> Thanks! Please keep us updated. If they can fix the guide for OTA it would save me from disconnecting my service.


?? I'm, being honest, not snide. If that would make you switch to some other service, you should do it and be done with Dish. There will be other fights, other program guides not showing, or a favorite show not being broadcast in the future. Don't let the fact that other providers are now going through the same thing....and you might not have an OTA guide with any of them..deter you. I have learned you have to look at the whole service compared to others. If it isn't as good, switch. But you can't be upset over a bump in the road from time to time and pull the switch card...


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

tampa8 said:


> ?? I'm, being honest, not snide. If that would make you switch to some other service, you should do it and be done with Dish. There will be other fights, other program guides not showing, or a favorite show not being broadcast in the future. Don't let the fact that other providers are now going through the same thing....and you might not have an OTA guide with any of them..deter you. I have learned you have to look at the whole service compared to others. If it isn't as good, switch. But you can't be upset over a bump in the road from time to time and pull the switch card...


I just lost ABC family and Disney HDs and had to upgrade my programming to get them back a few months ago.... at some point it all becomes to much trouble. I do like Dish, but I like some stability in programming too.


----------



## BenJF3 (Sep 12, 2008)

Gilitar said:


> I just lost ABC family and Disney HDs and had to upgrade my programming to get them back a few months ago.... at some point it all becomes to much trouble. I do like Dish, but I like some stability in programming too.


Well, think about what you just said there. You had to upgrade to get back channels you lost, but you want stability? You likely had to upgrade to a higher package because ABC Disney wielded it's program tying power and Dish had to pay excessive fees to get that, which in turn has them bump channels. The OTA nets are doing the same thing. By abusing FCC rules they are forcing Dish's hand. If Dish pays they may have to either move other channels or jack rates. These retrans disputes are ALWAYS Lose-Lose for the MSO and Subscriber.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BenJF3 said:


> Well, think about what you just said there. You had to upgrade to get back channels you lost, but you want stability? You likely had to upgrade to a higher package because ABC Disney wielded it's program tying power and Dish had to pay excessive fees to get that, which in turn has them bump channels.


Actually he subscribed to a HD only package. When the HD versions were dropped he lost the channels. The SD versions continue to be carried but to receive them one has to change to a package containing the SD channels. (The HD packages were sold at a discount due to the SD channels they did not include.)



> The OTA nets are doing the same thing. By abusing FCC rules they are forcing Dish's hand. If Dish pays they may have to either move other channels or jack rates. These retrans disputes are ALWAYS Lose-Lose for the MSO and Subscriber.


At some point DISH has to decide if the price is worth the channel. Sometimes the answer is no and the channel goes away. DirecTV makes the same decisions - and has said no as well.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

To be fair to Gilitar, if they can, Dish probably should have put the SD versions into the HD only if that is what happened.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tampa8 said:


> To be fair to Gilitar, if they can, Dish probably should have put the SD versions into the HD only if that is what happened.


There is no if ... that is what happened with the ABC/Disney HD channels. There are several threads dating back to last year when it happened - and before that when ABC/Disney filed the lawsuit that ended up getting the channels pulled.

"HD Only" is a pretty clear title. The only SD channels included are SD versions of the HD channels in the package, SD channels DISH is required to deliver (public interest) and shopping/infomercial channels that cost DISH more money to leave out than include. Plus local channels.

On a national basis, making "HD Only" a package that includes a HD plus select subscription SD annoys the SD providers that are not in the package. Adding ABC Family, Disney, DisneyXD and ESPNNews in SD and not TVLand, Nick Jr, Nicktoons and Bloomberg is a non-starter.


----------



## 722921 (Jan 3, 2008)

The lack of guide info, and therefore automatic recording of programs is not doing anyone a favor. Both parties loose credibility.


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

722921 said:


> The lack of guide info, and therefore automatic recording of programs is not doing anyone a favor. Both parties loose credibility.


Exactly!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Guys, I realize that looking at an online guide like Zap2It or Titan TV and setting manual timers is a pain, but it is possible.

There are many who don't have the OTA option.


----------



## wbowery (Jul 18, 2007)

Apparently a deal has been reached since our CBS affiliate from Fort Wayne is back on Dish. I hope Dish didn't cave and pay the ransom LIN Media was asking. Still, glad to have CBS back for the DVR!


----------



## KTMCDO (May 31, 2003)

same thing for ABQ NM 
krqe and kasa are showing programming


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

wbowery said:


> Apparently a deal has been reached since our CBS affiliate from Fort Wayne is back on Dish. I hope Dish didn't cave and pay the ransom LIN Media was asking. Still, glad to have CBS back for the DVR!


WANE-TV has now posted that an agreement has been reached on their web site.


----------



## jdmart (Jan 9, 2004)

Our LIN Channels for FOX & CBS are back up In Albuquerue.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Yep, looks like it. Local LIN station has it on their web site, http://www.kxan.com/dpp/about_us/retransmission/dish-network-retransmission-dispute-deal-reached


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

jdmart said:


> Our LIN Channels for FOX & CBS are back up In Albuquerue.


Great!


----------



## clotter (Apr 12, 2008)

wbowery said:


> Apparently a deal has been reached since our CBS affiliate from Fort Wayne is back on Dish. I hope Dish didn't cave and pay the ransom LIN Media was asking. Still, glad to have CBS back for the DVR!


+1 on that, I hope Dish didn't cave either.

I checked our local Fox network in the Green Bay area after reading this and it is back.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

From Dish's news release:


> *DISH Network Reaches Agreement With LIN Media
> 
> LIN Media Restores Local TV Channels in 17 Markets*
> 
> ...


----------



## AlbuquerqueJohn (May 30, 2009)

And now everyone will be all snuggly-butt with Dish and presume they did it for our own well being. The intent of Congress was never meant to allow customers to be held hostage. Congress should review their intent, make it clear and nail down rules and regs through the FCC and other appropriate agencies so this hostage taking situation is never allowed to happen again.

Dish is (was) as much to blame as 'LIN'. The canned-answers, their farce on Facebook and Twitter and our inability to even discuss the matter with a live individual while the so-called negotiations were taking place says little about the commitment they have towards customers.

Both sides took advantage of the situation. Only Dish took our money and did not supply the product - nor did they offer any form of credit for those who were "contract bound". They are certainly not a blameless party and they could not care less.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Nope. Flaws throughout your argument. I know it's PC to blame both sides in a dispute, but that isn't always the case.

1. You were able to get compensation if you wanted it. I asked and received a free PPV, worth far more than the few days I lost the network. Just how much do you think you were charged for the week for that one or two stations? If you really want a 49 cent credit I'm sure Dish will be willing to do so.

2. Exactly what did you want Dish to discuss with you personally? Do you really think any of the CSR's had any real info? Did you want the CEO to call you? If it was my company no way would I discuss or have employees discuss on an individual basis an ongoing dispute or possible litigation. 

3. Dish in their public statement made if very clear they made an offer to extend the current contract, and retro any increase in fees. They also made it clear in the last few days Lin would not return phone calls. Dish did not just let it all happen without trying to avert losing the channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tampa8 said:


> 3. Dish in their public statement made if very clear they made an offer to extend the current contract, and retro any increase in fees.


LIN made the same claim ... with the exception that they were offering a month at the old rate while negotiations continued.

Sometimes the PC "they're both wrong" is correct. I'm just glad they came to an agreement and wish they had done it a little sooner.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

But to believe that, it would take Dish, who would like nothing more than no increase in price, turning down another month with exactly what they want, no increase in price, while negotiations continue. Not buying it. This was Lin trying for a money grab, perhaps before the FCC makes some changes.


----------



## AlbuquerqueJohn (May 30, 2009)

Dish made their statement - LIN made theirs. The reply I received from LIN when I asked for information was far more than Dish offered. I felt and still do feel that LIN was the more truthful of the two. I could easily contact LIN management - Dish, not so. Customers deserve more than a '800 number and a recording'.

(QUOTE)
"Thank you for writing. I've heard about the responses that DISH is giving
their customers. One of the questions I hear their customers asking is,
what does my subscription fee pay for exactly?" That's a great question.
Let me give you a few facts that they have failed to mention:

First of all, they broke of negotiations last week to go skiinig. We
offered to extend the contract by 30 days to keep talking and they declined
to meet over the weekend and now here we are.

More importantly, Dish (and DirectTV, Comcast; etc.) have each made a
business out of picking up the free over-the-air programming that local
stations like ours (and KOAT, KOB, etc.) pay for and produce, and then they
sell us to you . It's been a good business for them, in fact local stations
account for most of the viewing of their satellite customers. What they are
not telling you however, is that they not only make money off your
subscription fees, they also derive revenues from selling advertising, and
then they use these profits to go buy hundreds of niche networks that very
few viewers will ever watch (did you notice you were paying for KBS World,
the Korean broadcast network with english subtitles in your basic package?
How much would you be paying if you paid for what you actually watch?)
What they do not want you to know is that you are subsidizing the purchase
of other networks, some of which they compensate multiple times the amount
they pay local stations. And they compensate other small, niche networks
catering to only a handful of viewers. They pay for these networks but then
they threaten to raise your subscription fees and blame local broadcasters
for increases in your subscriptions. Does that make sense to you? This has
been a problem for some time, so agreeing with broadcaster's right to fair
compensation, Congress gave broadcasters the right to negotiate with these
guys for fair value for our programming. That was the meeting that Dish
walked out of. We are a company that has invested heavily here in New
Mexico, being a local business and a steady employer. And they are
everything but that. Which is why you can make contact with me today, but
you have to speak to a 1-800 operator with Dish.

I sincerely apologize for this, I know it may seem to you like greedy
businesses just bumping heads. It's a more principled disagreement than
that. One of us has taken great financial risk creating all of this
programming, and one of us is hoping to benefit from that obscenely. If you
want to pay for what you watch, and do not want to subsidize the University
of California Channel (that's in your basic package too) let them know
that, and I think you'll find they have plenty of other opportunities to be
profitable without cheating us or raising your fees.
(END QUOTE)

Dish was all over the place with their canned replies. The most obvious was the jump from 140% to 175% increase they claimed LIN demanded. Funny Dish made the jump in the claimed LIN demand just after midnight when transmissions ceased to be available.

Congress should set this straight, however, I don't put too much faith in them either.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> More importantly, Dish (and DirectTV, Comcast; etc.) have each made a
> business out of picking up the free over-the-air programming that local
> stations like ours (and KOAT, KOB, etc.) pay for and produce, and then they
> sell us to you .
> ...


Both of those statements are propaganda and probably false.

As has been discussed in may other threads, the $5/mo Locals Fees (now built in to the base rate) doesn't even cover the cost of the equipment and other costs satellite providers incur to carry locals. They're not making any money by carrying locals.

As to the other, I don't know of anyone who pays $40/mo or so to a satellite provider so they can watch local TV, so I don't know how they can say "local stations
account for most of the viewing of their satellite customers" with a straight face.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AlbuquerqueJohn said:


> Dish was all over the place with their canned replies. The most obvious was the jump from 140% to 175% increase they claimed LIN demanded. Funny Dish made the jump in the claimed LIN demand just after midnight when transmissions ceased to be available.


If you want canned replies look to LIN. 17 markets and every station using the same talking points. Yet NONE of those stations were actually involved in the negotiations. The negotiations were taking place at LIN's corporate level - so anything you heard from the station (other than the talking points that could easily be found by looking on the web for responses from another station) was likely a lie or office gossip.

Just because LIN said more to you doesn't mean it was more truth.



AlbuquerqueJohn said:


> What they are not telling you however, is that they not only make money off your subscription fees, they also derive revenues from selling advertising, and then they use these profits to go buy hundreds of niche networks that very few viewers will ever watch (did you notice you were paying for KBS World, the Korean broadcast network with english subtitles in your basic package?


Here is a falsehood. KBS World is provided as a "public interest" channel - kind of like the local government channel on cable. Satellite carriers are required to offer carriage to such channels, with a threshold that must be met. Such channels pay satellite carriers for carriage.

Also, while DISH does sell advertising on it's cable channels (insert ads and infomercial channels) this is NOT the primary source of their income. Without ad income DISH would have to charge their customers more. DISH cannot sell advertising on local station feeds - those feeds must be passed without changing the content. Besides. What is so wrong with advertising? Does this local LIN station not sell advertising? Should we tell their advertisers what this LIN station thinks of advertising or is that revenue stream somehow restricted to local stations?

DISH makes their money off of subscriptions. People subscribing to "hundreds of niche channels". Content that the local station does not have room or time to air. Stuff like the other three NCAA games that are not on the LIN CBS affiliate. Of course this station's lies fall apart when one looks at this truth. Are we supposed to believe that the subscription fee goes to profits, the local station gets nothing and advertising pays for hundreds of channels? Really? Whoever wrote that response to you wasn't thinking.



> What they do not want you to know is that you are subsidizing the purchase of other networks, some of which they compensate multiple times the amount they pay local stations.


How many? The SNL Kagan numbers that keep getting posted show few stations getting more than 30c per month and even less getting more than 60c per month. LIN was openly stating that all they wanted was "pennies a day" for their signal - pennies plural puts them in the range of the most expensive channels. Only a handful of networks get more compensation than LIN wants for themselves. Only two would qualify as "multiple times" the pennies LIN was asking for.

If you want to talk subsidies, look at the cost of carrying local stations. Expense out the price of a receive facility (antennas, equipment, rent). Plus a fibreoptic connection to the uplink facility. Plus the uplink facility (one that would not exist if DISH didn't carry locals). Plus the spotbeam satellite (one that could be simpler or non-existent if DISH didn't carry locals). A great deal of DISH's expense goes into subsidizing the rebroadcast of local stations. Cost that CANNOT be recouped from the local stations (DISH can't charge stations for carriage). DISH provides the station viewers that they cannot reach due to issues with the OTA signal - and LIN wants to be paid?



> One of us has taken great financial risk creating all of this programming, and one of us is hoping to benefit from that obscenely.


Since the local station isn't creating all of the desired programming (they just buy it from a network intending to make a profit off of the rebroadcast) I'll assume that the "one of us" "hoping to benefit from that obscenely" is the LIN station.

The real benefit to satellite rebroadcast is the viewer ... someone who is getting forgotten in this station's tirade.



> If you want to pay for what you watch, and do not want to subsidize the University of California Channel (that's in your basic package too) let them know that, and I think you'll find they have plenty of other opportunities to be profitable without cheating us or raising your fees.


More slander. The University of California Channel is another public interest channel PAYING for carriage. There are about 20 channels that pay DISH for carriage.

If I were at LIN corporate I'd want to know who wrote this reply so they could be retrained in how to deal with the public. They gave you a response - but it was a rambling rant that was off of the talking points and something that could do damage to the relationship between LIN and DISH.


----------



## AlbuquerqueJohn (May 30, 2009)

Everyone makes good points, some pro - some con, so rather tan beat the proverbial 'dead-horse', I'll stop. Thank You to the folks for their well made points on behalf of both sides. In the end the ones who know the truth about the negotiations have no doubt agreed to be silent. Best I do the same --- and go back to paying my bill and watching the danged programs I enjoy. 

Thanks again to all.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

As a general rule the longer the explanation, the more apt it is to be false.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I think there's a generation gap here.

In the early 1950's I lived in Sacramento, California. The federal government licensed frequencies for individuals and corporations to use *the public's airwaves*, licenses designed to prevent geographic overlapping so that a licensee using, say, channel 4 had exclusive rights to transmit in a particular region. At that time, those licenses had many, many public interest conditions. But most of all, the primary fact of the license was that if a resident in the geographic area had the equipment they knew they could view the signal transmitted by the licensee at no cost.

Those that were fortunate enough to get a license for a TV frequency built a tower, transmitter, and other "station" assets and broadcast programming, selling advertising or obtaining donations (as in the cases of PBS stations) to support the programming. The one thing that was understood was that the stations couldn't, didn't, and _were never ever going to be able to charge the viewer_ who lived in the stations exclusively licensed region.

At first, the only stations we could watch in Sacramento were located in the San Francisco Bay Area. We put up a 60' antenna with a rotor and watched programming on our old Hoffman TV. People in some areas couldn't get a signal. They joined together forming a community-based non-profit corporation and together spent money to get the equipment and wiring to be able to see the signal that was licensed to be free to anyone who could get it. That was a community antenna system.

Less than a decade, private corporations started building the community antenna systems (and later satellite systems) and people like me paid them in order to offset the costs of construction and ongoing maintenance and operation and agreeing to let them make a profit. Not only did they deliver to peoples homes the signals that were licensed to be available free, they delivered new channels called "cable channels" which were not licensed to use the public's airwaves and were subscription supported.

Those of us who lived through the period from 1950-1980 had what we thought was a clear understanding about those federal broadcast TV licenses. But in the 1980's something changed. The timing corresponded to an ominous event. Australian millionaire, right wing political activist Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation launched the Fox broadcast network in 1986, buying up existing or building broadcast stations, far more than the law allowed by cleverly thumbing his nose at people like me. As explained in Wikipedia:


> Fox survived where DuMont and other attempts to start a fourth network failed because it programmed just under the number of hours to be legally considered a network by the FCC. This allowed Fox to make money in ways forbidden to the established networks, since during its first years it was considered to be merely a large group of stations. By comparison, DuMont was hampered by numerous regulatory roadblocks, most notably a ban on acquiring more stations since its minority owner, Paramount Pictures owned two television stations. Combined with DuMont's three television stations, this put DuMont at the legal limit at the time.


Now let's move to what is my opinion, supported by facts, but my interpretation of the meaning of the facts would be ideologically disputed by Rupert Murdoch and those who were broadcast TV executives from 1980 to the present.

My opinion is that Congress, regardless of party, pretty much gave away the entire public interest concept of broadcast TV licenses. Nothing in the history of broadcast TV licenses as I understood them prior to 1980 prepared me to accept the idea that broadcast TV stations would become subscription channels.

_*Here's where I think there's a generation gap.*_ From my perspective this is an issue between me and the broadcast station's owner, with the FCC and Congress in between. The satellite/cable company that is working for me is never at fault for trying to keep the "free" broadcast subscription channels fees down.

My perception is that it is an out-and-out lie when companies like Lin start complaining with a statement like "More importantly, Dish (and DirectTV, Comcast; etc.) have each made a business out of picking up the free over-the-air programming that local stations like ours (and KOAT, KOB, etc.) pay for and produce, and then they sell us to you."

IMHO the truthful perception is that:

I want to watch the broadcast TV stations originally licensed to serve my DMA without a subscription charge to viewers.
Rather than operate and maintain at 1200 foot tower, I can hire Comcast or Dish (because of LOS problems, I can't use DirecTV) to build, operate and maintain the hardware needed for me to receive these stations.
The liars, cheats and thieves that own the stations have broken their contract with me and other Americans and are charging a subscription fee _*and*_ the liars, cheats and thieves in Congress are allowing it.
I can understand why someone born after 1980 who has never seen TV except from cable or satellite would perceive this as a dispute between between greedy corporations. But someone my age whose family experience dates back to radio in the 1930's, it is personal, it is me versus the station owners and Congress.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> _*Here's where I think there's a generation gap.*_ From my perspective this is an issue between me and the broadcast station's owner, with the FCC and Congress in between. The satellite/cable company that is working for me is never at fault for trying to keep the "free" broadcast subscription channels fees down.
> 
> My perception is that it is an out-and-out lie when companies like Lin start complaining with a statement like "More importantly, Dish (and DirectTV, Comcast; etc.) have each made a business out of picking up the free over-the-air programming that local stations like ours (and KOAT, KOB, etc.) pay for and produce, and then they sell us to you."
> 
> ...


I was born in 1970... and didn't have cable as an option until nearly the time I graduated high school in 1987...

I don't think it is a generation gap... I think it is a copyright-understanding gap.

I've beat the opposite dead horse of the one you are now beating  but I'll beat again for posterity... 

You still have the same option now as you did 50 years ago to watch OTA for free as long as you are willing to invest in the necessary equipment (TV, tuner, antenna, electricity). That has not changed. Some of the technology has changed (digital vs analog broadcast)... but the same free OTA is out there for you to get for free.

You don't have the right to hire someone else (cable/satellite) to provide you with something that they don't have the right to provide you with.

You, for example, don't have the right to put up retransmission equipment in your back yard and receive OTA, then retransmit it to other people and charge them a fee to receive it. You just don't have that right... and neither to cable and satellite companies.

I've said before... channels in my DMA offered years ago to continue providing free access for retransmission IF cable/satellite would pass that along for free to their customers. Cable/satellite doesn't want to do that... they want to charge... and so the local stations want a cut of that fee.

That seemed fair to me then, and seems fair to me now... Local stations can choose must carry if they agree to not charge OR can choose to negotiate carriage for retransmission fees. BUT why would a local station give something for free to a company that plans on reselling it?

You might produce something for free... to enhance your business... and entice customers to your company to spend on other product... BUT if a competitor comes and takes all of your free samples... then you don't get to reap the rewards of those customers coming back to you.

Bottom line... local OTA has the right to charge for retransmission if they want. IF cable/satellite companies want to charge, then they should expect to pay. IF cable/satellite is willing to give the locals away for free and the locals still want money, then I would change sides.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You still have the same option now as you did 50 years ago to watch OTA for free as long as you are willing to invest in the necessary equipment (TV, tuner, antenna, electricity). That has not changed. Some of the technology has changed (digital vs analog broadcast)... but the same free OTA is out there for you to get for free.
> 
> You don't have the right to hire someone else (cable/satellite) to provide you with something that they don't have the right to provide you with.


Actually in 1972 I helped a community get a private cable system that did provide those broadcast channels for free. We customers of the company paid the company to build, operate, and maintain the equipment and to earn a regulated profit on their investment. We did not pay for those stations and, at the time, they would not have even given charging a second thought. We just added to their stats for selling ads.

Again, someone decided to change the game after 1980, a change which constitutes a promise to me broken by those someones - namely the station owners and Congress. And Congress even took the right to regulate the rates away from the community. I'll continue to take it personally until those stations are out of business, or I'm dead which likely will come sooner.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I was born in 1970... and didn't have cable as an option until nearly the time I graduated high school in 1987...


CATV was the only way to see TV where I lived in 1972 (very rural area). After moving a couple of times the next time I had CATV was in 1978 - antennas were an option for half the channels on CATV (all OTA except a weather channel that had a black and white camera aimed at weather dials as it scanned back and forth). There was a concrete base next to the house where a previous owner had a tower before CATV was available. That system grew into "cable" with TWC, CNN, HSN, WTBS, WGN, WOR and premiums from HBO and Showtime.



> I don't think it is a generation gap... I think it is a copyright-understanding gap.


Oh, it think the "younger generation" understands copyright - perhaps even better since it is a bigger part of their daily lives - the younger generaton's copyright problem is they just don't care. But when it comes to reception of OTA television - I believe both generations can get it right by saying there should be no charge for a rebroadcast.

Retrans fees are not about copyright anyways. Otherwise they would be required on "must-carry" stations. There is no copyright fee for retransmitting an OTA signal within it's own market, coverage area or significantly viewed coverage area. That is written into law.



> You don't have the right to hire someone else (cable/satellite) to provide you with something that they don't have the right to provide you with.


Forty years ago the right wasn't questioned. Then the right TO rebroadcast was affirmed. Then the laws were changed to take away that right. Saying they "don't have the right to provide" is a restriction that has been added over the years. Broadcasters have worked hard to take away what was adjudicated as being a right.



> You, for example, don't have the right to put up retransmission equipment in your back yard and receive OTA, then retransmit it to other people and charge them a fee to receive it.


That is more of an issue with broadcast rules than copyright. You could set up that equipment to feed video of your dog or cat ... or even a camera pointed at a goldfish bowl ... and still not have the right to broadcast.



> I've said before... channels in my DMA offered years ago to continue providing free access for retransmission IF cable/satellite would pass that along for free to their customers. Cable/satellite doesn't want to do that... they want to charge... and so the local stations want a cut of that fee.


It is amazing that cable/satellite does not want to spend MILLIONS of dollars helping to deliver an OTA station to their viewers without any fee to cover the costs involved. 

It is already required to be an unmodified rebroadcast of every minute of the OTA station's broadcast. Laws prohibit charging the station for delivery. Someone has to pay for the system.

We're going to reach a breaking point. More content is moving to real PayTV (cable channels). At some point the demands of the TV stations simply will not be met. Look at the case in this thread. LIN Media withholding content in 17 markets. Most subscribers blaming LIN for the issue.

We're informed people. We understand what pennies per day add up to. We wish we could get a few more pennies per hour of pay instead of less (someone forgot to tell employers who cut pay that the recession ended - or the unemployed that there was enough jobs for everyone). I don't believe we're at a breaking point yet - but we're getting closer to where people will accept a missing OTA station, blaming the station, and content providers will just work around OTA stations and deliver via PayTV (cable/satellite or internet distribution).



> BUT if a competitor comes and takes all of your free samples... then you don't get to reap the rewards of those customers coming back to you.


How does cable/satellite take all of OTA's free samples? It is an intangible item with as many "copies" as needed to serve everyone. An OTA signal isn't limited to serving "200,000 free copies" and when those are gone the signal magically doesn't work for viewer 200,001. :nono2:

NOTHING a cable/satellite company does prevents an OTA broadcaster from continuing to hand out as many "free samples" as there are people to receive them. Cable/satellite helps in the process by delivering the "free samples" and making it trivial for the customers to come back for more. If an OTA broadcaster's intent is to have repeat customers cable/satellite provides that.

That just shows that the OTA broadcaster's intent really isn't distribution. It is MAKING MONEY. Which somehow is OK when it is an OTA broadcaster but the worst thing in the world if you're a cable/satellite company. I wonder how many millions of dollars LIN made last year? They are not a benevolent not for profit company delivering network TV out of the goodness of their heart. They are part of a cutthroat business.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

James Long said:


> NOTHING a cable/satellite company does prevents an OTA broadcaster from continuing to hand out as many "free samples" as there are people to receive them. Cable/satellite helps in the process by delivering the "free samples" and making it trivial for the customers to come back for more. If an OTA broadcaster's intent is to have repeat customers cable/satellite provides that.
> 
> That just shows that the OTA broadcaster's intent really isn't distribution. It is MAKING MONEY. Which somehow is OK when it is an OTA broadcaster but the worst thing in the world if you're a cable/satellite company.


That really is the essence of the situation. I will just add two things. The fact that broadcasters have the protection of the Government is really based on the fact that they are giving a free signal, in return get the ad revenue for their given area. They even got added that the Sat company can not even offer a distant anymore even if the subscriber is in a White Zone. What the broadcaster now wants is to make a profit to have their signal sent at the cost of the Sat company, and still not allow any other same network. I again say at that point it becomes a monopoly not originally contemplated by the laws that protect them. It should be opened up to any same network that the Sat company wants to carry.

Second, what about the Sat company making a profit? The law doesn't say they can not. But I would understand if they were making an obscene profit by charging, oh let me think,.... a 140% increase in price...  But they are charging $6 for all the locals in your market which like not too much more than the cost of delivering them. 
If the broadcasters want to really get into it, Sat should be able to charge the broadcasters for the subscribers that otherwise would not get their signal and see their ads.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> CATV was the only way to see TV where I lived in 1972 (very rural area). After moving a couple of times the next time I had CATV was in 1978 ...


I realized I fudged a little... We moved in early 1984 to an area where cable existed... so technically we could have gotten cable in 1984... but not anywhere we had lived prior to that. We didn't get cable for a couple of years after we had moved there, though.

As far back as I can remember we had a mastpole and outdoor above-the-roof antenna installed at the various places we lived.



James Long said:


> Forty years ago the right wasn't questioned. Then the right TO rebroadcast was affirmed. Then the laws were changed to take away that right. Saying they "don't have the right to provide" is a restriction that has been added over the years. Broadcasters have worked hard to take away what was adjudicated as being a right.


That is probably a discussion for a completely different kind of thread... because we can find all kinds of examples of things where the laws/regulations have changed one way or the other. Sometimes the rules become less restrictive (giving the right to vote at 18 years of age)... while other times the change becomes more restrictive (raising the legal drinking age to 21)...

So we kind of have two arguments in play here:

#1. The law is the law. It can perhaps be changed, but whatever the law is now is how it will and should be enforced until an effort to change it succeeds.

#2. Regardless of what the law is or isn't... what do the people believe the law should be? IF the belief is different than the current law, then will there be enough effort to effect the change.

I think #2 is what we are really arguing about in this thread... and unless we come to a consensus, we are probably stuck with #1 as-is.



James Long said:


> It is amazing that cable/satellite does not want to spend MILLIONS of dollars helping to deliver an OTA station to their viewers without any fee to cover the costs involved.


Ok... but then where is the line item on my Dish bill that charges for the uplink facilities for the SAT channels? Or the line item where I pay for all the service technicians who do those free installations? Or the line item where I pay for the launch of the next satellite into space?

My point here is... Presumably the bean counters at Dish are setting their prices based upon the cost-of-doing business plus a desired profit margin... So they take into account the cost paid to channels, cost paid to Dish employees, advertising, launching satellites, uplink facilities, etc. etc.... and then they add something to make a profit.

So... my assumption is that whatever it would cost Dish to support infrastructure of LiLs would be part of that cost-of-doing-business that I'm already paying in my monthly fees.

In some ways, that appears to be what Dish and DirecTV are doing now by not itemizing the locals anymore and saying they are "included" with the monthly packages.

This is also like the semi-double DVR fees... where Dish charges a monthly DVR fee to each account with a DVR... AND also charges more per month for DVR receivers than non-DVRs... It's a valid question to ask if they need to charge more for DVRs... but why do they need to charge two different ways?

So for LiLs... I strongly suspect Dish includes the uplink/collection facilities in their other costs of doing business... because people who live in areas where Dish does not carry their locals are certainly not being charged less anymore... and some markets also have a lot more locals than others but the same general cost appears to be in the package fees.



James Long said:


> We're informed people. We understand what pennies per day add up to. We wish we could get a few more pennies per hour of pay instead of less (someone forgot to tell employers who cut pay that the recession ended - or the unemployed that there was enough jobs for everyone). I don't believe we're at a breaking point yet - but we're getting closer to where people will accept a missing OTA station, blaming the station, and content providers will just work around OTA stations and deliver via PayTV (cable/satellite or internet distribution).


And that's the other side to the equation... Some local stations are being greedy... and that's especially bad in this economy.

Those stations do make it harder for me to support the position I normally support.



James Long said:


> How does cable/satellite take all of OTA's free samples? It is an intangible item with as many "copies" as needed to serve everyone. An OTA signal isn't limited to serving "200,000 free copies" and when those are gone the signal magically doesn't work for viewer 200,001. :nono2:


True... but some similar principles are still in play.

I get all of my OTA with an indoor antenna that is more than paid for by the previous Dish $5 per month charge for locals after about 6 months!

One of my local stations (WRAL) has been giving away free outdoor antennas since the beginning of the transition time to digital OTA several years ago!

Many people could put up a good outdoor antenna and have solid OTA reception for around 2 year's worth of the typical LiL charge...

Of course there are people who can't get OTA.... but there are people who don't have a Target or a Best Buy in their town... or a grocery store within walking distance... or good public transit.

There are people who can't get cable either... and every once in a while we find people who don't have line-of-sight to get Dish satellite. Now what? What do you propose people are entitled to receive their local channels in those scenarios?

I hear a lot (in this thread especially) about how people are entitled to free OTA via satellite or cable... but what about the people who can't get it that way too? Where does the entitlement end?


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

> So for LiLs... I strongly suspect Dish includes the uplink/collection facilities in their other costs of doing business... because people who live in areas where Dish does not carry their locals are certainly not being charged less anymore... and some markets also have a lot more locals than others but the same general cost appears to be in the package fees.


Actually this example shows that the locals are provided at no extra cost. If they are available in your area, Dish changes nothing extra for them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> #1. The law is the law. It can perhaps be changed, but whatever the law is now is how it will and should be enforced until an effort to change it succeeds.


That doesn't mean we can't complain about the laws and push for a change. Obviously OTA broadcasters pushed for the changes that were made in the past. It is time to push back.

The carriage laws were written at a time when, in most cases, a (singular) cable system had a monopoly control over the distribution of the signal to each subscriber. A monopoly only broken by OTA coverage. Broadcasters convinced Congress that is was unfair that cable systems could pick and choose the channels they carried (perhaps excluding their channel) even to the extent of requiring carriage on cable based on OTA reception (Significantly Viewed stations forcing their way on to systems). Plus laws were added to prohibit carrying competing signals (protecting the local station's market). If a station said no carriage they wouldn't be carried - and no PayTV could provide their signal to that customer.

With several "cable" options now available stations are abusing the law. They are pitting carrier vs carrier with the threat of withholding signals if the ransom isn't paid. It is an endless cycle around the carriers - raising rates as each carriage contract expires to extort more money from carriers (and their customers). The option for stations is no longer "will we be on PayTV or not" but which PayTV companies will we be on and how much money can we make reselling our content.

Too much power has shifted to the broadcaster. It is time to shift some of that power back.



> #2. Regardless of what the law is or isn't... what do the people believe the law should be? IF the belief is different than the current law, then will there be enough effort to effect the change.


Perhaps making consent to carry universal (all PayTVs get the signal or no PayTVs get that station's signal) with a statutory license to cover the "copyright" claims? That would work to level the playing field.



> So... my assumption is that whatever it would cost Dish to support infrastructure of LiLs would be part of that cost-of-doing-business that I'm already paying in my monthly fees.


If you totally ignore what parts of that infrastructure exist ONLY to provide LiLs. The former "line item" for providing locals ($5.99 or $5 if added to a regular package) would come nowhere NEAR covering the millions of dollars spent on extra infrastructure. DISH alone has probably gone over the billion dollar mark if you total all of their capital investments - let alone the monthly costs of the connections, uplink centers and staff involved.



> In some ways, that appears to be what Dish and DirecTV are doing now by not itemizing the locals anymore and saying they are "included" with the monthly packages.


It also allows them to charge EVERYONE for locals instead of allowing people to opt out. With all 14 million/19 million customers chipping in to cover the cost it makes it more cost effective.



> ...because people who live in areas where Dish does not carry their locals are certainly not being charged less anymore...


No such people exist. DISH carries locals in 100% of markets. The only locals they do not carry are stations that refuse to offer a fair price for retransmission.



> There are people who can't get cable either... and every once in a while we find people who don't have line-of-sight to get Dish satellite. Now what? What do you propose people are entitled to receive their local channels in those scenarios?


We can't solve all of the world's problems. That inability should not stop us from solving the problems we can solve.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

In keeping with this thread - one thing I think needs added is the ability for cable / DBS to "import" neighboring markets IF the station's broadcast signal is predicted and /or shown to be received at a location. There maybe additional considerations (such as spotbeams that don't cover) that may stop them, but the basic idea is sound, IMHO.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^^ That's what I was saying above (or was it in another thread ?) I can get good signals from 3 DMAs with a decent antenna and rotator. There is no valid reason why I should not be able to get all 3 DMAs on Dish if I choose to.

I'm not the least bit interested in whether the local stations think I should or not.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

For those who like to know what these disputes mean beyond causing you to miss a few episodes or games, from the Evening Bridge:


> LIN Media's 1Q11 net revenue was up 1% y/y. "Digital revenues, which include Internet advertising revenues and retransmission consent fees, increased by 31% to $17.2 million, compared to $13.2 million for the first quarter of 2010."


LIN provides no breakdown sufficient to determine what portion is retrans fees. What they did report is:


> Core local and national advertising sales combined, which excludes political advertising sales, decreased by 2% to $82.5 million, compared to $84.3 million for the first quarter of 2010, which included the benefit of advertising during the 2010 Winter Olympics. The automotive category, which represented 23% of our local and national advertising sales for the quarter, increased to $19.4 million, compared to $19.3 million for the same quarter in 2010.


Here's a summary of what we know:

Net revenue is up 1% or $0.8 million over the same quarter last year.
Ad sales decreased by 2% or $1.8 million, exclusive of political ad revenue.
Digital revenues, which include Internet advertising revenues and retransmission consent fees, increased by 31% or $4 million.
For FY 2010 LIN had a net income of $36.5 million which basically came from political ads.
One might conclude that retrans fees are the only option for a consistent profit increase.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

"One might conclude that retrans fees are the only option for a consistent profit increase."

It just may be time for regional networks. With the Digital system that would be possible. In my area for instance, let the NY stations serve NJ/CT/NY, and use the sub channels for local CT News, one for NJ News, etc...
Let the Boston stations cover the rest of New England in a similar way.

And thank-you for putting the information together!


----------



## bigrich (Jan 3, 2006)

It's payback time for LIN. I have been selected as a Neilson Family. I remember to well the stunt LIN pulled. Therefore I have multiple Network Affilates and I will not watch a LIN station for the entire ratings sweep. Their local news and advertising fees will be affected. I realize I am just one person, but I promised payback to the GM of one of my locals.


----------



## parmm (Apr 28, 2011)

bigrich said:


> It's payback time for LIN. I have been selected as a Neilson Family. I remember to well the stunt LIN pulled. Therefore I have multiple Network Affilates and I will not watch a LIN station for the entire ratings sweep. Their local news and advertising fees will be affected. I realize I am just one person, but I promised payback to the GM of one of my locals.


With you one hundred percent!!! Dish provides a expanded advertising outlet the the local stations. I live just far enough away from the Buffalo WIVB transmitter that their signal is undependable. None of the Buffalo stations are dependable when it comes to their signals reaching me, so I use Dish Network to receive those signals. But I shop in the Buffalo metro area and at those station's advertisers. And did they ever get a earfull from me during the LIN blackout. There were only two programs, plus the local news, that were affected by the blackout as far as I was concerned. Will see them during the re runs. The local news, well I switched to another local station. And I am not happy with LIN and what they have done to the local station. Getting rid of old news anchors and the like. But it is not just LIN, it is all of them in the Buffalo, NY area. These big media companies have ruined the local news outlets. Buffalo stations use to be a stepping stone for moving up, but now it seems to have reversed and we are getting the crumbs of the industry.


----------

