# Sinclair may pull locals from Dish on 8/16



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

See http://www.nasdaq.com/article/sincl...th-dish-scheduled-to-terminate-20120813-01154



> Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. (SBGI) on Monday announced that its retransmission consent agreement with Dish Network (DISH), pursuant to which Dish carries 70 stations Sinclair owns or provides services to, is scheduled to terminate at midnight on August 15, 2012.


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

RAD said:


> See http://www.nasdaq.com/article/sincl...th-dish-scheduled-to-terminate-20120813-01154


*I guess by Wed. Night a lot of TV antennas need to be connected if 70 stations will be affected.:hurah::hurah::hurah:*


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I say give 'em the Rainbow treatment. Jerk 'em off and let 'em squirm for cash.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Does anyone know which stations we are talking about?

It looks like another case of third-graders on the playground--I'm mad at you, so I'm taking my marbles and going home.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Last I was aware... in my DMA Sinclair owned the local CW and MyNetwork affiliates.

While I'm not in favor of the channels in these negotiations usually... and I'll side with Dish to keep costs down...

I am crossing my fingers that a new deal with Sinclair might also mean at least my CW in HD on Dish.

I watch some CW and lack of CW via Dish satellite is keeping me from even considering the Hopper right now because I need OTA for my local CW in HD. Also some local sports sometimes on My Network so I wouldn't mind that.

Also would be really cool if not only we got our CW in HD...but if Dish expanded the Hopper PTAT to include PBS and CW in those nightly recordings... that would sell me on a Hopper upgrade..

_edit:_ literally seconds after I posted, I got the press release email about this!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

*Sinclair Broadcast Group Calls for Massive Price Increase for DISH Customers*
*Local Programming Access for DISH Customers in 45 Markets Threatened*

ENGLEWOOD, CO -- (Marketwire) -- 08/13/12 -- Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. has threatened to block DISH customers' access to television stations in 45 cities across the country unless DISH accepts a massive price increase. The retransmission consent agreement between DISH and Sinclair expires August 15. If the companies fail to reach an agreement on price, DISH will no longer be allowed to carry Sinclair's signals.

"We carry more than 1,800 local broadcast stations nationwide. Sinclair is asking for more than any other station anywhere in the country," said Dave Shull, senior vice president of programming for DISH. "This goes beyond pure corporate greed -- it's profoundly insensitive to the needs of the public."

DISH has worked on retransmission contract negotiations with Sinclair for months, but Sinclair is insisting on a rate increase that would force DISH to pay more for those ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC channels than DISH pays to any other broadcaster. Sinclair also owns numerous stations such as CW and MyNetwork affiliates.

Higher costs will translate into higher fees for customers.

"We hope Sinclair will soon embrace a more reasonable attitude about price increases, so we can keep those channels on DISH," said Shull. 
This year, broadcasting companies across the country have blacked out more than 50 channels on various pay-TV companies at various times. An industry watchdog group, American Television Alliance, recently called for U.S. Congress to "revamp the out of date rules" that favor those blackouts.

To learn more about DISH Network's negotiations with Sinclair Broadcasting, visit www.IControlMyTV.com.

_About DISH 
_DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides approximately 14.061 million satellite TV customers, as of June 30, 2012, with the highest quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value, including HD Free for Life. Subscribers enjoy the largest high definition line-up with more than 200 national HD channels, the most international channels, and award-winning HD and DVR technology. DISH Network Corporation's subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., delivers family entertainment to millions of customers around the world. DISH Network Corporation is a Fortune 200 company. Visit www.dish.com.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Does anyone know which stations we are talking about?


http://www.sbgi.net/business/television.shtml


----------



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

It's hard not to support the providers here. Sinclair is the most poorly run stations in our market. Both CBS and Fox affiliate are run and/or owned by Sinclair. Horrible news, horrible tech issue, etc. They are greedy and provide nothing worthy of the fees they get. Much less more $$$$.


----------



## dstout (Jul 19, 2005)

If I lose the MLB playoffs and NFL football I will not be pleased. I can't get the channels with an OTA antenna either.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

This may not be as simple as, say, AMC Networks. According to Wikipedia Sinclair owns stations affiliated as follows...








...including the following stations:








Those missing 19 Fox, 11 ABC, and 9 CBS stations would be significant.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

odd that Dish hasn't come out with something like "Sinclair is demanding a 1000% increase in rates," and Sinclair hasn't said, "surely our channels are worth a half-penny more a day..." sort of statements. 

Maybe those press releases will hit tomorrow.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

In my market - I'll never miss them....( My network and the CW).

besides - I get them great OTA (and in HD).


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

phrelin said:


> This may not be as simple as, say, AMC Networks.


Yeah it is. The affiliates are the ones who will take the hit, so they can whine to the Sinclair Honchos.

I still say they should be paying to be carried, not getting paid for increasing their viewership.



scooper said:


> In my market - I'll never miss them....( My network and the CW).
> 
> besides - I get them great OTA (and in HD).


Me too. The one station listed for my area I get OTA/HD and I almost never watch it anyways, even free.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

You really think the broadcaster is going to pull that many stations during the Romney moneybags ad space buy season?


----------



## strikes2k (Dec 10, 2008)

Funny. For the first time that I can remember DISH set up a website about the dispute.


----------



## StringFellow (Jan 6, 2012)

If this new dispute goes through and doesn't get resolved quickly I will be going back to cable. Losing AMC and now possibly Fox and CW (Baltimore). This will be the last straw. 

What group of channels will be next?? 

I completely understand Dish's approach to try and keep prices low, but at some point I will still be paying the same amount but with a lot less channels. If they drop channels, my bill needs to go down as well.

We lost AMC, where is my compensation? Dish's cost went down when they stopped broadcasting AMC but my bill didn't.

I was with cable for 4 or 5+ years and no issues. Joined Dish and within weeks threats of channel disputes and the lose of AMC. And my TV bill isn't that much cheaper than cable, my $10/month less.


----------



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> You really think the broadcaster is going to pull that many stations during the Romney moneybags ad space buy season?


Yes, I absolutely do. This is Sinclair. They yanked their stations during BCS bowl games and NFL playoff, and MLB playoff more than once. They use them as leverage.


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

Sinclair's list of all markets with their stations & network affiliations:

http://www.sbgi.net/business/all.shtml


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Those in affected markets may wish to look for channels 3 or 37. I believe there is a special message there.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The complexity of the situation is the contrast between
a. the fact that nobody cares about the 20 My Network TV stations (nor the 6 This TV stations) and The CW's prime audience are so internet oriented the network caters to them by immediately streaming everything (though that won't please the employees at the 14 Sinclair-owned stations)

_versus_

b. the fact that the viewers of the 19 Fox, 11 ABC and 9 CBS stations will be very displeased if this goes on into the September Fall Season premiers.​Dish doesn't have to worry much about The CW and My Network TV channels in Las Vegas, but the ABC channel in St Louis and the Fox channel in Pittsburgh could be a problem.

The fact that it's an election year does create some advertising revenue pressure on Sinclair but the political pressure will fall heavily on Dish. The latter is particularly significant in Ohio, for instance.

And then we have the whole problem of the Sinclair package - again who gives a crap if they permanently lose The CW and My Network TV in the Raleigh-Durham DMA? But in Syracuse the Fox and My Network TV channels are a package. And, in fact, it's all a package deal.

It's not as simple as, say, the AMC Networks fight. The impact can be reduced if Dish helps folks get OTA reception. But many in these DMA's don't get OTA, Hoppers owners seem a bit short on OTA and if they did get it they couldn't use PTAT - in short, Dish can't give away a few Roku's to solve the problem.

I wish they could....


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

DirecTV had the same problem with Tribune back in may. A good 30+ markets had channels pulled plus the national WGN channel. I think it took 4 days of black before they got a deal.

I'm siding with Dish on this one though, just like I sided with DirecTV. It has been noticed that in recent years, programmers have been asking for extreme price increases or unrealistic "all or nothing" carriage deals, such was the case with the recent Viacom/DirecTV dispute.

I say drop em for a week. They won't be able to last for much longer than that, and Dish will have a good deal. I guarantee you, people aren't fleeing anywhere the first week. Not even the second week.... so Dish (and DirecTV) will lose a LOT, LOT less than these stations will in advertising income that they now can't show to millions of Dish viewers in a variety of regions.

So even though I am not a Dish subscriber, I stand with Dish. Suck it, Sinclair!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> And then we have the whole problem of the Sinclair package - again who gives a crap if they permanently lose The CW and My Network TV in the Raleigh-Durham DMA?


Hey! I resemble that remark... 

But seriously...

I'm in a weird boat on that.. being in that DMA. I actually don't care if they drop the SD feeds (all they currently have) because when I watch either of these I watch them OTA for HD.

BUT... if the new agreement would include carriage of the HD feeds... then I care.

I mostly care about CW in HD... but if MyNetwork was in HD I would watch sometimes because they have some local and college sports at times.

So... the current threat to drop doesn't bother me since I don't watch those SD channels... but I would like the HD feeds.

To that end... I actually took some time earlier and visited the Sinclair Web site and told them just that... that I didn't care much for the negotiating over price part of the conversation... but that I cared more about if they would get carriage of their HD feeds on Dish. I told them I wanted to watch the HD feeds on Dish, but didn't care otherwise.

Not that it will make a difference... but I can hope!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> BUT... if the new agreement would include carriage of the HD feeds... then I care.


That is the good news for viewers when it comes to these mega owners. The importance of affiliates in bigger markets to the providers means that "package deals" that lead to carriage or better carriage of co-owned stations in other markets can be written. The down side is the markets that lose a major network while the owner plays chicken with a provider in order to get more money or better carriage. Most conflicts end in some carriage arrangement.

Here are two examples of arrangements that worked out better for the viewers in my market:

The first is WSBT, a CBS affiliate which at the time they were negotiating carriage had the UPN network on a sub-channel. DISH agreed to carry the sub-channel in order to get the major network ... and although UPN is long gone and the WB station became The CW, carriage of that sub-channel continues years later.

The second example is Weigle Broadcasting. In my market they own three low power stations ... which cannot exert a right to carriage. But they also own major network stations in other markets ... so since DISH wants the big stations elsewhere they ended up carrying all three of the low power stations (one of them being our ABC affiliate).

I am looking forward to the next contract fight with Weigel. I expect that will lead to CW in HD and carriage of the low power sub-channels for THIS, MeTV and Telemundo.

I do NOT support local stations holding out for money ... but I do support local stations and satellite carriers partnering together to get all the feeds carried via satellite. (I would not mind seeing the PBS channel carried in HD along with their channel's SD subfeed, but as a non-commercial channel they don't have the negotiating pull of the commercial channels.)


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

This could get very ugly. I remember the battle a few years ago between a rural community cable system and Sinclair over retransmission of the Peoria, IL station. Again Sinclair wanted an outrageous increase. The cable system eventually countered by asking its customers to contact the station's advertisers and warn them they would no longer patronized them. It dragged on for months before Sinclair backed down enough for them to reach an agreement.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

Sinclair owns MyTv, which is worthless and they own the ABC station in Asheville, NC. I do watch certain shows on ABC. I'm not in favor of the Fed's stepping in but something needs to be done about these providers wanting outrageous fees. IT WILL take an act of Congress to change things.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

If we do lose local channels could Dish carry the networks from other areas to make up for the loss?


----------



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

dakeeney said:


> If we do lose local channels could Dish carry the networks from other areas to make up for the loss?


No, that's the part the providers like dish want the FCC to change. If these stations are going to charge for retrans I think they need to loosen up the law. Those laws were bases on free over the air model.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

As long as it gets settled by 9/9 (first Packer's game on FOX47).

If not, I go buy an antenna.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

tsduke said:


> No, that's the part the providers like dish want the FCC to change. If these stations are going to charge for retrans I think they need to loosen up the law. Those laws were bases on free over the air model.


I think it's time the FCC stepped in and give permission for Dish to go ahead and be able to do this with federal mediation being allowed.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

free OTA modules for the Hoppers!!


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

scooper said:


> In my market - I'll never miss them....( My network and the CW).


Ditto for me. Two stations I NEVER watch.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

How about Dish carrying the Distant Network Stations?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Retransmission fees need to be banned.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

And it's time for me to steer clear of the Dish Facebook page again. This is going to get ugly.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Good thing that the deal for Sinclair to buy 6 stations from Newport won't close until December. That would have added 5 more major networks, including CBS in Cincinnati. Hopefully a deal will be made well before then.


----------



## StringFellow (Jan 6, 2012)

"dakeeney" said:


> free OTA modules for the Hoppers!!


And what about us rural folk??


----------



## Santi360HD (Oct 6, 2008)

as a subscriber to D* I am in full support of the clique that has E* and their channel negotiations..

But one has to ask...If DISH is REALLY looking out for us?? you guys with E* I mean.. (which every provider says during an outage or alleged pull) *how come contracts cannot be negotiated if all subscribers do is pay their bills?*

I can understand the hand in my hat mentality if there were delinquent people across the board not paying their monthly tabs at DISH and had to pull said channels because people aren't ponying up their bills...but its getting a bit tired now in that any provider cannot negotiate because 1 strong arms the other...they make *plenty* of money from the subscribers...WHERE IS IT ALL GOING???? that we have to have more ridiculous threats of channel pulls??


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

StringFellow said:


> If this new dispute goes through and doesn't get resolved quickly I will be going back to cable.


Cable is not immune to this. It's happening to CATV subs around the country as you are reading this reply.......

It's the new reality given the economy we are in coupled with all of the new technology the content providers are dealing with.

Here in Boston, the ABC affiliate (Channel 5) was down for weeks on Time Warner Cable.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

Nothing in California plus OTA reception is great here.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

RAD said:


> See http://www.nasdaq.com/article/sincl...th-dish-scheduled-to-terminate-20120813-01154


I hardly watch local channels much and there not any Sinclair stations here. I'm sorry for people in those cities.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

StringFellow said:


> If this new dispute goes through and doesn't get resolved quickly I will be going back to cable. Losing AMC and now possibly Fox and CW (Baltimore). This will be the last straw.
> 
> What group of channels will be next??
> 
> ...


Cable companies give in easily. Thus your go up more.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

I just sent an email to Sinclair corporate and told them what they could do with their stations and their greed. I told them to pull their stations and screw their local stations out of ad revenue. I feel better although it won't do any good.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

Sadly it looks like all Sinclair stations will be gone by tomorrow. Hope they're back by fall premiers.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

dakeeney said:


> Sadly it looks like all Sinclair stations will be gone by tomorrow. Hope they're back by fall premiers.


Looks like your email didn't work after all....... :grin:


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

Athlon646464 said:


> Looks like your email didn't work after all....... :grin:


I didn't expect much from my email. I guess I'll just check back thru the weeks to see if there's any progress being made in negotiations. :nono2:


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Unable to come to terms on a new distribution deal, it is very likely that Sinclair Broadcast Group, the largest owner of TV stations in the United States, will pull its signals from satellite broadcaster Dish Network on Wednesday.
> 
> That means Dish subscribers in the almost 50 markets where Sinclair owns stations will be without programming from Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC and the CW Network.
> 
> ...


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-dishsbg-20120814,0,800350.story


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Interesting that there's a preponderance of Fox and CBS, while NBC has but one station involved with Sinclair. Must be some reason(s) for that tilt. Also no stations in CA. 

I am hoping for the right outcome for my brethren at Dish.....


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> Retransmission fees need to be banned.


Yes, that would end all this nonsense. The FCC has pretty much made satellite carry the locals. (For instance carry one carry all) Now tell the networks they can not charge because they are protected from competition, and all but forced to be carried on the Sats. And in today's world, with far less antennas up and so many people living far from the transmitters, they need satellite to carry them.


----------



## packerfan31 (Oct 14, 2008)

chance sinclair channels restored?


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The FCC is a regulatory agency, and it only can act under authority given it from Congress. The latest version of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, passed by Congress and signed into law in 2010, governs the reception of distant network stations by satellite. I don't believe that there is any authority Congress gave to the FCC to modify the circumstances under which distant network stations may be viewed. Therefore, if a station is dropped from Dish because the station withdraws its retransmission consent, Dish cannot provide a distant replacement station except to those viewers who are in the market but cannot receive a signal from the local station with a rooftop antenna. So basically the subscriber must get a rooftop antenna if he/she wants to continue to view the local. There are some exceptions and the law states things more specifically than I have, but this is basically it.

So an act of Congress is required to allow satellite to carry distants when the locals are withdrawn due to lack of retransmission consent. I don't think that is likely to occur.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

It would also be a problem for people in those areas with only the Hopper/Joey receivers since it does not yet have OTA capability.


----------



## dstout (Jul 19, 2005)

I can't get locals ota. Would I qualify for distant nets?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> Retransmission fees need to be banned.


Wait until the new NFL rights contract goes into effect in 2014, with CBS, Fox (broadcasting) and NBC having committed to pay 61% more annually for the rights. (Which they were "forced" to do so b/c of ESPN's 5+/sub revenue stream).

Many will ask Congress to ban retransmission fees, and the affiliates will claim that they can't, given the contracts they have signed. The affiliates will claim that they assumed substantial hikes in retransmission fees when they agreed (late in 2011) to the new NFL contract.

Ideally, at that point, Congress will act. But it will act against ESPN, mandating that all TV distributors MUST enable all PayTV subscribers to opt out of sports programming.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

dstout said:


> I can't get locals ota. Would I qualify for distant nets?


Call AAD and ask. You might. Dish isn't offering distants at this time, as far as I know. AAD may offer you distants in SD, and if you can't get locals ota, AAD can continue to provide distants to you even if you receive locals from Dish.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

packerfan31 said:


> chance sinclair channels restored?


99.99% These markets are too large to miss locals in and say they won't ever come back. The churn once they start to go dark will be substantial especially with college and pro football going on now. Sinclaiir can also level the AMC loss in telling people to leave DISH because they'll point that DISH has a "history" of not renewing stations. This one will get ugly fast if they go dark. Sinclair will level sports in the big markets and DISH will leverage price but sports will win with most people impacted by cox/cbs and Sinclair knows it. Hopefully this gets resolved fast for the consumers as I don't see DISH holding their ground long on this one. Maybe with the loss of AMC they can shift some of that into this deal and still come out ahead.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

"dstout" said:


> I can't get locals ota. Would I qualify for distant nets?


Almost certainly not.

This one is tough. We went through this last year when the guy who owned our Fox and CBS affiliates (and others in the state) threatened to pull them if he didn't get an increase. While I felt like he was asking too much and sent emails and letters to all of the local advertisers I could find on his networks and copied him, I also knew that I wasn't going to go any extended time with a provider who didn't carry two of the major networks. So if they did go dark and stay dark, I'd have felt forced to switch providers.

We can't get the networks OTA very well here, so the options were pretty much switch providers or go without. Had no interest in trying to find the shows online via other boss, etc. plus many of our favorite shows were not available online. Dish told us no options for out of market networks.

The problem for Dish is that so many people effected are only going to care that suddenly their Fox or ABC or CBS channels will be dark. They won't give a crap whose fault it is they will just want their TV shows back. Most people have no desire to get in the middle of fights etc they just want to come home, turn on their TV and watch their favorite shows.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Question for all those saying they'll quit if they don't get their locals .......

What did you do before Dish started carrying locals? It's really a fairly recent practice after all; probably less than 5 years in many markets.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

"SayWhat?" said:


> Question for all those saying they'll quit if they don't get their locals .......
> 
> What did you do before Dish started carrying locals? It's really a fairly recent practice after all; probably less than 5 years in many markets.


I actually switched from DirectTV after 15 years with them to Dish when we moved here a few years ago because DirectTV wasn't carrying the locals here.

I have known a LOT of people when we lived in areas where satellite didn't carry locals (we have moved around a lot) who just wouldn't move from cable to satellite until satellite carried the locals. In this area, no one would subscribe to DirectTV until they carried the locals, since Dish and cable did carry them.

In the old days (I've had satellite since 1995) if DirectTV didn't carry your locals they gave you both east coast and west coast networks which was cool because it was time shifting before TiVo. We carried very basic cable just to watch the local news.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> Question for all those saying they'll quit if they don't get their locals .......
> 
> What did you do before Dish started carrying locals? It's really a fairly recent practice after all; probably less than 5 years in many markets.


Valid question. I think a partial answer is getting digital channels is more challenging than getting analog. When I am in Eastern Ct, in the past I was not able to get distants for anything except ABC, WTNH channel signal barely reached. Now, I get all of the networks from AAD, because I am not expected to get any of them in Ct,. ( I can get Springfield Mass)

When in Tampa, it took a better antenna, put higher to get all the networks.

Also in the past, you would get distants if in a white zone. Still can with AAD but that means spending more and in SD only. Even if Dish gave distants, they (or Direct) can't anymore if they give your locals.(Due to law change) Being in a dispute of course does not change that they give your locals.

So with those changes alot more people can't get an OTA signal, and have no recourse if they are in a white zone, except AAD. I will just say, to fill in if you are going to lose a local for awhile, you can at least get it in SD from AAD, if you know how.....


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

If there is no settlement by Thursday this WILL get real ugly real fast as there will be no justification in letting networks go dark in 45 markets. Could Dish have a contingency plan? We'll know very soon. I don't think any kind of streaming will help this one.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

cpufixer said:


> This is why I am a DISH customer. They stand up to these broadcasters. Pull the plug. It's summer time and no one is watching anyway.


:welcome_s to DBSTalk!

Lots of good reason to be a Dish customer, but not particularly that one!

:welcome_s


----------



## bigdog9586 (Jan 17, 2008)

I for one am sick and tired of Dish screwing its customers. First AMC and related channels, now lots of us are going to lose some or all their networks because of the narrow minded administrators at Dish. You can bet the CEO of Dish isn't taking a cut in pay, maybe he should and then there would be money to purchase our channels. I would like all of us to call and cancel service when they shut off our networks and put a hold on our credit cards and hit them in the billfold. They can't sue all of us and I'd like to see what a judge would rule if we pushed it. Maybe a class action law suit.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

bigdog9586 said:


> I for one am sick and tired ...


If'n ya'll wanna git uppity, direct it at the right place ... in this case Sinclair.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

:new_popco


SayWhat? said:


> If'n ya'll wanna git uppity, direct it at the right place ... in this case Sinclair.


Grab some popcorn and let the waiting game begin.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Ira Lacher" said:


> "Let the government ..."
> 
> "Congress should ..."
> 
> Where are all the small-government or no-government advocates now?


One of the few times I have to say government should step in. The bandwidth that over the air stations use was given to them for the public interest. They have IMHO no right to demand money for retransmission to the same area as their signal should be available via over the air antennas. Because then suddenly they are charging us even though the bandwidth was given to them with the expectations and agreement that the public would never have to pay for the programing.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

BigDog, You have to remember a lot of us aren't affected by this Sinclair Power play. You are however free to move to Direct, Comcast or any other provider if you feel that Dish doesn't meet your needs. That is what free market is all about. 

On another note,
I do think government needs to be involved in regulating the airways and think that Sinclair with owning stations from multiple networks in the same DMA should be required to Divest itself so that they only have one major network in any DMA. No different than regulating monopolies. Requiring Sat companies to carry locals and then allowing those locals to come back and raise fees is a serious problem as we are currently seeing. I am sure that Dish is slicing and dicing the numbers of each DMA to see just what their exposure is. Charlie has a financial model that keeps him competitive and he is not likely to dump the apple cart in a case like this.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

It's gotten to the point where I just don't care. There's hundreds of channels and my DVR is always full of stuff I don't have time to watch. If one channel disappears oh well, I have no problem finding other things to watch on other channels. If one of the channels that goes away has one of my favorite shows, that kind of sucks but oh well, it's much like when one of my favorite shows gets canceled, it's gone so I find something else. For me anyway it really behooves the channel to keep itself in front of my eyeballs on my chosen provider because for me it's out of sight out of mind and if they decide they can't play nice then as far as I'm concerned they cease to exist. I'm not going to make any special effort to chase after any particular channel, it's just not that important.


----------



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

Ira Lacher said:


> "Let the government ..."
> 
> "Congress should ..."
> 
> Where are all the small-government or no-government advocates now?


To address this issue would be removing current regulation. That I advocate.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Ira Lacher said:


> "Let the government ..."
> 
> "Congress should ..."
> 
> Where are all the small-government or no-government advocates now?


I was thinking the same thing. The anti-government advocates are always anti-government--until they're not. Funny how people who hate the police always manage to call 911 when someone is kicking in their door.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> One of the few times I have to say government should step in. The bandwidth that over the air stations use was given to them for the public interest. They have IMHO no right to demand money for retransmission to the same area as their signal should be available via over the air antennas. Because then suddenly they are charging us even though the bandwidth was given to them with the expectations and agreement that the public would never have to pay for the programing.


Well... no bandwidth was given to local stations... they do have to pay for those broadcast licenses, right? Similar to how companies like Dish and DirecTV have to pay for their orbital locations and frequencies...

But I don't hear anyone realistically trying to argue that Dish and DirecTV should be free because the FCC is "giving" them the right to broadcast on public airwaves.

It kind of is the same argument.

There are qualifications to the local broadcast FCC licenses... and as long as they meet those requirements, there is nothing that says they can't protect their retransmission rights or charge for that.

I remind people again that years ago (in my market anyway) our local stations wanted to give their signal to cable customers for free but the cable company wanted to charge for the service... so the local channels gave them the option "either give our channels free to your customers as you get the signal free from us OR pay us for retransmission rights to re-sell them"... and ultimately the cable company chose to pay.

So... at least in my market, there was more interest in trying to resell and potentially profit from carrying locals than there was in keeping the channels free... so PayTV providers kind of created this beast in my opinion.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

I think you are making a big leap by trying to bundle anti big goverment into No Government. I haven't heard anyone putting forth that position. 
3 branches of Goverment--Yes
Government Court System--Yes
Government Parks- Yes
Streets and Highways -Yes
Police and Fire--Yes
Social Security buying 174,000 rounds of hollow point bullets--Uh..No
NOAA purchasing 46,000 rounds of hollow points and paper targets..No Again
Regulation of Airways from a frequency assignment basis-- Yes


The list can go on but would drift too far into current politics, but getting back on topic, Sinclair has an unusual advantage in this particular situation that even though I am not affected, I think it should be reined in.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

Stewart and I were posting at the same time and I have to say I agree with his statements on who created this and that being the infant Cable companies at the time well before we had the 300+ channels out there competing for eyeballs.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Stewart - I don't know if you mis-typed but the local broadcasters paid NOTHING for their bandwidth. They demanded that they be GIVEN the DT frequencies just as they were given the analog slots "back in the day". They said it was the only way they could afford to upgrade their equipment.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Can you publish a link to the coverage maps?


http://transition.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

tsmacro said:


> It's gotten to the point where I just don't care. There's hundreds of channels and my DVR is always full of stuff I don't have time to watch. If one channel disappears oh well, I have no problem finding other things to watch on other channels. If one of the channels that goes away has one of my favorite shows, that kind of sucks but oh well, it's much like when one of my favorite shows gets canceled, it's gone so I find something else. For me anyway it really behooves the channel to keep itself in front of my eyeballs on my chosen provider because for me it's out of sight out of mind and if they decide they can't play nice then as far as I'm concerned they cease to exist. I'm not going to make any special effort to chase after any particular channel, it's just not that important.


And that's the risk the locals playing these games risks. I admit there are a handful of shows that I really do look forward to seeing. If I can get it OTA I will, but that's about as much effort I will go to. You make a great point - sometimes my favorite show gets cancelled, this is much like that. If I can catch up at some point online that is an option, but losing a channel just isn't going to be a big deal.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

DoyleS said:


> BigDog, You have to remember a lot of us aren't affected by this Sinclair Power play. You are however free to move to Direct, Comcast or any other provider if you feel that Dish doesn't meet your needs. That is what free market is all about.
> 
> On another note,
> I do think government needs to be involved in regulating the airways and think that Sinclair with owning stations from multiple networks in the same DMA should be required to Divest itself so that they only have one major network in any DMA. No different than regulating monopolies. Requiring Sat companies to carry locals and then allowing those locals to come back and raise fees is a serious problem as we are currently seeing. I am sure that Dish is slicing and dicing the numbers of each DMA to see just what their exposure is. Charlie has a financial model that keeps him competitive and he is not likely to dump the apple cart in a case like this.


What's really crazy, is at least in Columbus, they own the local CBS and operate Fox. They don't actually own it, but it's still covered under this contract. The FCC is requiring that they sell the channel they own in Cincinnati to buy our CBS. But they will still operate it. Not sure what the point is in making them sell a network if for all intents and purposes of the public, they still own it.

Of course the other problem is, these disputes are increasing. Time Warner recently had one, DirecTV has had local disputes and of course recently with Viacom. This problem isn't going away, and it doesn't matter the provider.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

How about Congress stepping up and telling local broadcasters that they cannot charge for carriage in their own DMA AND telling the carriers satellite, cable, whatever, that they cannot charge their customers for those locals either.


----------



## dstout (Jul 19, 2005)

> What's really crazy, is at least in Columbus, they own the local CBS and operate Fox. They don't actually own it, but it's still covered under this contract. The FCC is requiring that they sell the channel they own in Cincinnati to buy our CBS. But they will still operate it. Not sure what the point is in making them sell a network if for all intents and purposes of the public, they still own it.


Wow! No NFC or AFC in Columbus if this thing goes on into September.

I am disgusted to think I may not get the World Series(WZTV-Fox Nashville).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

djlong said:


> Stewart - I don't know if you mis-typed but the local broadcasters paid NOTHING for their bandwidth. They demanded that they be GIVEN the DT frequencies just as they were given the analog slots "back in the day". They said it was the only way they could afford to upgrade their equipment.


I think we're having a disconnect in logic here somehow... I know you aren't meaning to say that the local broadcasters pay nothing for the license to broadcast OTA. Are you?

I know some deals were cut during the transition to digital to help stations convert... but local broadcasters can't just request a frequency and put up a tower and broadcast... they have to apply to the FCC for a license, and that license has to be renewed yearly (I believe it is yearly renewal)... and it costs money for that license to broadcast.


----------



## energyx (Aug 8, 2011)

dpeters11 said:


> What's really crazy, is at least in Columbus, they own the local CBS and operate Fox. They don't actually own it, but it's still covered under this contract. The FCC is requiring that they sell the channel they own in Cincinnati to buy our CBS. But they will still operate it. Not sure what the point is in making them sell a network if for all intents and purposes of the public, they still own it.
> 
> Of course the other problem is, these disputes are increasing. Time Warner recently had one, DirecTV has had local disputes and of course recently with Viacom. This problem isn't going away, and it doesn't matter the provider.


They actually own ABC 6 and LMA Fox 28, which is actually owned by a spinoff company. CBS (10) is owned by Dispatch Broadcast Group, which is a local company.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Jim5506 said:


> How about Congress stepping up and telling local broadcasters that they cannot charge for carriage in their own DMA AND telling the carriers satellite, cable, whatever, that they cannot charge their customers for those locals either.


*Stations should not be able to charge in their own DMA.

*Carriers should be able to charge a nominal amount to cover their technical costs.

*Customers should be able to choose to receive distant DMS of their choice for which those distant stations could charge a reasonable fee.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If there must be payment I'd support "statutory licensing for all". Pay the stations the same way distant stations are paid for their feeds ... based on a nationwide formula - not the whims of local stations. I would also make all stations "must carry" and require satellite carriers to deliver stations to any subscriber who is in the station's coverage area (as defined by the FCC's coverage maps) extended out to the DMA lines as needed to cover white areas.


----------



## broeddog (Sep 12, 2009)

When they pull the CBS local in Grand Rapids in about an hour and a half I will be disappointed. I won't really miss watching preseason football but once the regular season starts it will be a different story. When I do watch network shows they are generally all on CBS so I hope this gets resolved quickly. There is only one CBS affiliate in this market it would be nice if it could be substituted with the national CBS channel but that won't happen, such is life I guess.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> *Carriers should be able to charge a nominal amount to cover their technical costs.


I disagree on this point, and I'll tell you why.

IF Dish, for example, pays to carry a local then they have the right to resell that local and profit if they wish. That's our democracy and capitalism at work.

But... if they were in a must-carry scenario, and did not pay the locals for retransmission rights, then I don't think they should even be able to charge a nominal fee for the equipment necessary to rebroadcast.

Why, you ask?

It's complicated to explain... but I'll try.

In business there are lots of costs to doing business. Some of those (perhaps most) you can pass to your consumers, but there are sometimes costs you cannot pass to the customer.

Dish has to spend millions of dollars to build and launch a satellite... but they can't just ask their customers to pay that cost up front. Instead, Dish has to divide that cost over years (amortization) because if customers had to pay the full cost of a satellite launch each time, their bills would have gone up too fast for Dish to have grown as a business when they first got started.

Launching a satellite was a necessary cost of doing business... and one that Dish would recoup over time... but not something they could just lump in to the monthly bill and divide out to their small customer base in the beginning.

Now... what does that have to do with locals?

Dish has to pay for some equipment and probably someone to monitor from time to time, in order to retransmit those locals. It isn't free, but it isn't anywhere near the same expense as the cost of launching a satellite for any given DMA. Arguably, if you add up the cost of all the DMAs you might be in the same equivalent neighborhood, though.

But... like the cost of the satellite launch, the cost of retransmitting locals is a cost of doing business.

In the early days (and now) being able to carry locals was a HUGE boon for Dish. That's why they bragged each time they added a new DMA's locals. If Dish doesn't carry your locals, you probably are looking at DirecTV or cable... Dish knows that... so Dish gains untold amounts of customers because of having those locals.

No locals = no customer in many DMAs... so the minimal cost in that DMA to have locals (the equipment, not the fees to the stations) pales compared to the money made on those customers if Dish entices them by having those locals.

Locals were a carrot dangled to sign customers up for other more profitable packages.

Yes, locals gain somewhat in that some customers can't get OTA and those eyes can be counted via Dish... but Dish gains FAR more by having locals that your local gains by being carried.

So back to my original thoughts...

IF the locals want carriage for free then Dish should give carriage and not charge customers. Dish wins customers by having the locals, the locals win by having those viewers. Each has to invest something to make it happen and profits more as a result.

But if the local wants to charge... then Dish gets to charge... and more importantly, vice-versa... If Dish wants to charge, then they should have to pay.

I would prefer free all-around... but as I said earlier... years ago that battle was fought and lost with locals vs cable in my DMA and I suspect others. The locals in my area were fine with free-to-cable retransmission IF cable (Time Warner in this case) would give those channels to customers. But Time Warner wanted to charge... so the locals said IF you're going to sell it, then you have to pay for it.

Oh, and FYI... For years (maybe they still do, I don't know) a local station WRAL was giving away FREE OTA antennas to anyone who filled out a form and mailed it in and asked... so WRAL was doing their part as a local station to get you the ability to have their OTA signal for free... and those antennas cost money... so that's why I'm deaf to the "but Dish has to spend money to uplink the channels" argument...

IF WRAL could afford to give away antennas to any customer who asked in this DMA... then Dish can afford to set up a couple of antennas and uplink equipment for the locals.

Ask yourself... if Dish dropped all of your locals, would you stay with Dish or leave for DirecTV or cable? If your answer is "I'll stay" then your locals don't matter and Dish shouldn't be paying for them... if your answer is "I'll leave" then obviously Dish needs your locals to keep the rest of your business, so the investment for one-time antenna equipment + upkeep semi-regularly is worth it to keep you as a customer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But... if they were in a must-carry scenario, and did not pay the locals for retransmission rights, then I don't think they should even be able to charge a nominal fee for the equipment necessary to rebroadcast.


What is the difference?

DISH charged a nominal $5 for locals ... that is now built in to the published package prices. DirecTV once charged a nominal $3 for locals. Was it cheaper for them to provide locals? Or did they just bury more of the cost in the rest of the bill?

If both DISH and DirecTV announced tomorrow that they no longer charged for locals ... but left their package prices the same as the current with locals price what difference does it make? They are making money off of having locals in their packages as well as spending a lot of money to be able to carry all the local channels in the country.

It sounds like you are arguing over an accounting method.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

The problem is this is system has become backwards.

Local stations use the national companies programming as the hostage. They are also required to pay their national affiliate a fee now to help them recoup the costs of things like NFL contracts and shows. This makes companies have to deal with both the national and local aspects of the company. 

There should be a retrans fee for the corporate affiliate such as NBC, FOX, CBS, ABC, and there shouldn't be any fees for the local stations. The local station should live off of it's add revenue and pay a set % of that to the affiliate for appropriate franchise and license fees. Local stations should never be allowed to choose to be blacked out and the costs for these stations should be a set cost for all providers per subscriber in each DMA.

Now some people will say this gives too much power to say FOX who could then nationally pull FOX but they would lose millions in fees which would make them think twice where a local station may only lose a few thousand in ad revenue or gifting depending on the market. A national blackout would also get the attention of the FCC and Congress which no one wants in the industry at this point but is getting more evident that they will be soon.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Now some people will say this gives too much power to say FOX who could then nationally pull FOX but they would lose millions in fees which would make them think twice where a local station may only lose a few thousand in ad revenue or gifting depending on the market. A national blackout would also get the attention of the FCC and Congress which no one wants in the industry at this point but is getting more evident that they will be soon.


Taking Fox as an example, the problem is Fox owns the Fox station in the following DMA's:

Atlanta
Austin, Texas
Boston
Chicago
Dallas - Fort Worth
Detroit
Houston
Los Angeles
Memphis
Minneapolis - St. Paul
New York City
Ocala - Gainesville, FL
Orlando - Daytona Beach - Melbourne
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Tampa - St. Petersburg - Sarasota
Washington, D.C.
So like all the networks, when we talk affiliates we're generally talking about smaller DMA's. When Fox in 2010 told their affiliates that the going rate for the network's share of the retrans fee was to be $1 per subscriber per month, some balked. They lost their affiliation. The rest have to collect that $1. Some have up to 5 years in order to allow retrans contracts to be renegotiated and there is for most a three year phase in.

This dispute with Sinclair includes its 19 Fox affiliates. Before they collect a dime for themselves they have to get $1 for Fox. It's not like we didn't know this was coming. See the thread News Corp. To Pursue Fox Retrans Fees.

If the affiliate would like some money, say 50¢ per subscriber per month, that runs the bill to $1.50. There's four large nets, so that starts things out at $6.00. Other locals want something. So in an area that has 8 HD locals, were going to start out at $10. Then Dish has to uplink these stations located all over the map.

It won't be long before locals will be at least $12 to the consumer with say $2 going to Dish to uplink to an expensive satellite, maybe $7 going to national programming providers and $3 divided up among the local stations.

I have said it before, but I'll point out that the national broadcast networks should be forced to have national feeds just like their cable sister stations. Let them compete on an even playing field. There really is no need for local stations that can't survive on their own. It is the 1958 broadcast TV economic model in 2012.

Of course, I'm not sure NBC could succeed as a cable channel. Could they negotiate 10¢? I have a hunch if they disappeared from a signal provider few would care enough to put up with the hassle of changing providers....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> It sounds like you are arguing over an accounting method.


To some degree I probably am... but it really is a principle we are debating here anyway... of whether or not to pay for locals at any level.

Some thing locals shouldn't be paid... others think we shouldn't have to pay for locals.

The smarter business move is to bury your cost of delivery into your base package price because people have to subscribe to a base package and you give them locals anyway, so bury your expenditures like you bury everything else.

As much as people think they want itemized bills... nobody truly wants that.

You don't want to know that 5 cents of your bill went to paying the CSR that took your order... you'd haggle that you ordered online so why are you paying 5 cents for a service you didn't use.

We could beat line items to death.

So... it's smarter if Dish needs to recoup costs for ANY cost of doing business like launching satellites, maintaining uplink locations, putting up antennas for locals, etc. etc.

If they do that... then they wouldn't be charging for retransmission per se and we could get back to the must-carry argument and Dish could say they don't charge for locals so why do they have to pay... and then there would be a stronger case to be made.

If only the cable companies had seen it that way back in the day and instead of opening the floodgates for paying for LiL retransmission they had opted for must-carry across the board back when that option was on the table.

Everybody pass on free locals back in the day because they knew customers wanted locals and knew they could charge for them because people would pay... so the precedent has been set.

Being a family forum I have to censor the joke... but it's like the joke that goes...

Guy: How about $20?
Gal: Who do you think I am?
Guy: We've already established that, now we're just negotiating the price.

So... back in the day, paytv providers established that they wanted to charge for locals... now they have to haggle over the price of doing business that way.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> I have said it before, but I'll point out that the national broadcast networks should be forced to have national feeds just like their cable sister stations. Let them compete on an even playing field. There really is no need for local stations that can't survive on their own. It is the 1958 broadcast TV economic model in 2012.


I don't disagree with you in principle... in fact most of what you say aligns with my thoughts as well.

The only thing that I think we diverge on... is I think I value my local channels and local content more perhaps than it appears you do.

I grant you that CBS, FOX, ABC, NBC (probably even in that order) have the most important content that I watch... so if they went national with their programming I would get most of what I view regularly that way.

But... I do like my local news and weather and sports... and I do like some of the other things my local channels do for and in the community... and if you take away the network affiliation and content... most of the local stations would fold, I fear.

CBS, for example, wouldn't fill the rest of the day with quality content... they would just have infomercials and junk content I'm sure... in place of where my local stations would have had time for their content, on the national feeds... but my locals wouldn't be able to fill all that empty network content time.

I see a lot of people who want to choose their local from another market... but they fail to consider that the local from that other market only exists for the same reason the local they don't want exists!

I think people would miss the local content of their LiLs more than they suspect if the model folded as we know it.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Are they dark?


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

phrelin said:


> If the affiliate would like some money, say 50¢ per subscriber per month, that runs the bill to $1.50. There's four large nets, so that starts things out at $6.00. Other locals want something. So in an area that has 8 HD locals, were going to start out at $10. Then Dish has to uplink these stations located all over the map.


And this makes an excellent argument for making locals an a la carte option again, and releasing a dual-tuner OTA module for the Hopper. People who have no choice in how they get their locals, due to their location, will still be able to get their locals through satellite (or cable, which presumably will have to collect the same retransmission fees.) And people who want to and can, will set up antenna systems and happily send $0/month to their locals.

I find the HD LiL picture quality on Dish to be severely lacking. I expect to get a Hopper OTA module as soon as one becomes available. I wish it was dual-tuner, because then I'd never need the HD LiL. But with a single-tuner, there will be times when I have to pick and choose which program I want to look best and which one can suffer from severe color quashing and macro-blocking. It is irksome to me that even with an OTA module, I'll still have to pay for locals through Dish.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

:scratchin


SayWhat? said:


> Are they dark?


some are posting on Sat Guys that their Sinclair stations are saying no deal was reached then some of the staions went off and then were back on twenty minutes later. Who knows what's happening. I guess we're on 'a need to know bases'.


----------



## dstout (Jul 19, 2005)

The Nashville Sinclair stations are on this morning.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

DISH comes through AGAIN...DEAL DONE!

http://www.multichannel.com/article/488547-Dish_And_Sinclair_Reach_11th_Hour_Retrans_Agreement.php


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

:goodjob:


dstout said:


> The Nashville Sinclair stations are on this morning.


Sat Guys is reporting that a deal was reached between Sinclair and Dish.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

dakeeney said:


> :goodjob:
> 
> Sat Guys is reporting that a deal was reached between Sinclair and Dish.


uh me too the post just before yours...Link and all! 

http://www.multichannel.com/article/488547-Dish_And_Sinclair_Reach_11th_Hour_Retrans_Agreement.php


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

rtd2 said:


> uh me too the post just before yours...Link and all!
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/488547-Dish_And_Sinclair_Reach_11th_Hour_Retrans_Agreement.php


Yep you are.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

Now we need to jerk AMC back into line.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

dakeeney said:


> now we need to jerk amc back into line.


100% with you on that!


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Time for a mod to post this news on the front page...


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

That brings us back to about 2-3 three years ago when Dish quit letting new customers turn down there locals. You had to take them no matter what. Then they woiuld trick customers into having them. Make a change in programming. Guess what you now have locals. Please take locals back off. I sorry no can do, computer won't let me. Humans are suppose to control the computer not the other way around. When the pulled the bait and switch on me I did cancel Dish. To much lying coming out of there (DISH'S) nouth.
So who is more greedy (Dish or Sinclair)?


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> http://transition.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/


Thank you.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> The companies agreed Thursday to extend their existing deal by two weeks to give time to iron out a final agreement.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...AnvI-g?docId=2beba7c98d23408c853d55bb4e1b6b0e


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Dave said:


> That brings us back to about 2-3 three years ago when Dish quit letting new customers turn down there locals. You had to take them no matter what. Then they woiuld trick customers into having them. Make a change in programming. Guess what you now have locals. Please take locals back off. I sorry no can do, computer won't let me. Humans are suppose to control the computer not the other way around. When the pulled the bait and switch on me I did cancel Dish. To much lying coming out of there (DISH'S) nouth.
> So who is more greedy (Dish or Sinclair)?


As you might recall, in 2006 Dish lost its lawsuit over distant stations and was ordered to shut down all distant services. In a last-ditch effort to settle the matter, after Dish had already lost on appeal, Dish tried to settle with ABC, NBC, and CBS. Fox wasn't part of the "settlement," which was rejected by the courts anyway. But part of the settlement was that Dish would basically force all customers to take locals. Locals would be added to all customers who didn't already take them, and would not be removed unless the customer specifically requested removal. Although the "settlement" never went into effect, that was the beginning of Dish basically requiring all customers to purchase locals.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

And now the Tribune stations are off CableVision according to the crawl on the bottom of News 12 due to a dispute. 

They just keep coming everywhere anymore. 

Either Congress will step in, sooner or later or people will get disgusted and go OTA & streaming only.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> Either Congress will step in, sooner or later or people will get disgusted and go OTA & streaming only.


In these cases where we are talking about disputes with local channels... going to OTA wouldn't punish anyone but the customer.

If your local demands more money, Dish says no... and you go to OTA to "teach them a lesson"... to whom have you taught the lesson? You will have punished Dish for trying to keep prices down, and rewarded the channel that threatened and took itself off the air. That seems backwards to me.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> In these cases where we are talking about disputes with local channels... going to OTA wouldn't punish anyone but the customer.
> 
> If your local demands more money, Dish says no... and you go to OTA to "teach them a lesson"... to whom have you taught the lesson? You will have punished Dish for trying to keep prices down, and rewarded the channel that threatened and took itself off the air. That seems backwards to me.


I never mentioned teaching anyone a lesson. I also did not say I would leave. What I was trying to say is that I believe many pay TV subscribers will eventually get disgusted and call down a Biblical style plague on the channels and the providers and leave.

This is true and not true as I see it. If you go OTA the channel gets no more fee from the provider, Satellite or cable. So both will lose in that scenario. The provider more so of course.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...AnvI-g?docId=2beba7c98d23408c853d55bb4e1b6b0e


Now everyone in those cities can watch the network junk again:lol::lol::lol: I'm not a fan.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> I never mentioned teaching anyone a lesson. I also did not say I would leave. What I was trying to say is that I believe many pay TV subscribers will eventually get disgusted and call down a Biblical style plague on the channels and the providers and leave.
> 
> This is true and not true as I see it. If you go OTA the channel gets no more fee from the provider, Satellite or cable. So both will lose in that scenario. The provider more so of course.


I wasn't speaking to you specifically, but to the concept.

I can see where leaving the provider might make sense... but if you still patronize the OTA channel that started the mess in the first place, then you aren't punishing the right entity. That was the point I was making.

When McDonald's gives you consistently poor service... you stop going there and go to Burger King... you don't just stop using the McDonald's drive-thru but keep eating in the restaurant! That wouldn't make sense. It only makes sense if you take your business elsewhere.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> but if you still patronize the OTA channel that started the mess in the first place, then you aren't punishing the right entity.


Watching (or not watching) a station OTA is not punishing or rewarding anyone since no one really knows who is watching and who isn't. When you subscribe to locals via a carrier, they pay the local accordingly. You don't subscribe, they don't get paid, but you can still watch OTA.

Customer gets programming.

Provider gets squat.

Carrier saves (since we suspect the carrier actually loses money in the long run by carrying locals).

I'd rather pay to put up a better antenna than pay any carrier for any locals.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> I'd rather pay to put up a better antenna than pay any carrier for any locals.


DISH has paid for a fiberoptic network linking every television market to their network of uplink centers. DISH has 10 uplink centers around the country that exist only to uplink local channels. (Two additional centers uplink the national feeds.) DISH has designed and purchased more expensive spot beam satellites to receive those uplinks and downlink the channels to the appropriate markets.

There are costs involved in getting a local TV channel on the satellite service. As long as there are costs for the carrier there will be a charge to the customer. If you are paying ANY satellite or cable system for service, you are paying for locals.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

We need to lobby for congress to require free carriage of locals in DMA or neighboring DMA if there is a missing netwoek affiliate AND bar carriers (satellite and cable) from charging subscribers for locals.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

Go ahead and drop 'em. My OTA antenna can pick them up just fine. 

Sinclair owns too many TV stations. I wish they never relaxed the ownership laws. It's ridiculous that they own (or "operate") three stations in some markets. 

Also, this company forces its stations to air "Documentaries" promoting their political views, even if the local station managers protest. I'm sure they will be airing another "documentary" smearing Obama as the elections draw closer.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Watching (or not watching) a station OTA is not punishing or rewarding anyone since no one really knows who is watching and who isn't. When you subscribe to locals via a carrier, they pay the local accordingly. You don't subscribe, they don't get paid, but you can still watch OTA.
> 
> Customer gets programming.
> 
> ...


Actually, the provider still gets advertising revenue, they just don't get their bonus retrans fee from you.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Interesting, is it not, that Dish's stock price dropped on the news of the deal?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sregener said:


> Interesting, is it not, that Dish's stock price dropped on the news of the deal?


DISH's stock closed Friday at the highest point for the month. The highest point since early May.

Stocks fluctuate. Anything "lost" has been more than made up.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> I never mentioned teaching anyone a lesson. I also did not say I would leave. What I was trying to say is that I believe many pay TV subscribers will eventually get disgusted and call down a Biblical style plague on the channels and the providers and leave.
> 
> This is true and not true as I see it. If you go OTA the channel gets no more fee from the provider, Satellite or cable. So both will lose in that scenario. The provider more so of course.


If your purpose is to teach the local a lesson about being greedy do it through their advertisers. Let the largest advertisers know you are not happy with what the local is doing and will no longer purchase from companies who advertise on the channel. You as an individual won't make a difference, but if enough others do the same the station will get the message in their wallet. As posted early in this thread, I saw this happen during a local vs cable company dispute. It works.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Be interesting to know who caved the most in the agreement.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

fudpucker said:


> Be interesting to know who caved the most in the agreement.


Technically speaking, nobody has officially caved yet... since they said it was a 2 week extension for an "agreement in principle"... IF they truly agreed, it would be a done deal and not a 2 week extension... so I'm kind of half-expecting in another week to see another round of "Dish is going to drop us" warnings form Sinclair.


----------



## hasbeen29650 (Mar 25, 2012)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Technically speaking, nobody has officially caved yet... since they said it was a 2 week extension for an "agreement in principle"... IF they truly agreed, it would be a done deal and not a 2 week extension... so I'm kind of half-expecting in another week to see another round of "Dish is going to drop us" warnings form Sinclair.


I would not be surprised either since football will be starting then and a lot more people will be upset to lose their locals. Might have been a real smart delay by Sinclair.


----------



## bigdog9586 (Jan 17, 2008)

So according to my math the two weeks are up. Any new word?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

bigdog9586 said:


> So according to my math the two weeks are up. Any new word?


Time for new math 

Stations were due to drop on 8/16... two weeks from that would be 8/30...

But, aside from the nitpick, you're right. No new info, but things must be going well or surely we would have started hearing the ranting from Sinclair about "losing your favorite programming" by now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't expect a direct reply... but I sent a note to Sinclair and asked for an update... and echoed my hope that this negotiation also included HD retransmission for channels not already carried in HD by Dish.

Original drop-dead date was 8/16... then we got an "agreement in principle" and a 2 week extension under the old contract.

So... either a new contract starts tomorrow (maybe 9/1 if they move it to a calendar month being so close) OR we are still on the chopping block.

I take the lack of "Dish is dropping us" messages lately to be a positive sign that the agreement in principle is becoming final... but I still would like to see official word AND hope for a positive spin on my local CW and MyNetwork affiliates.

I just read on another forum that DirecTV added MyNetwork (they already had CW) and another local (our local spanish channel) in HD this week... so that's more pressure in my market for Dish to step up with more HD LiL feeds.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I just read on another forum that DirecTV added MyNetwork (they already had CW) and another local (our local spanish channel) in HD this week... so that's more pressure in my market for Dish to step up with more HD LiL feeds.


With the number of markets involved one needs to look at the bigger picture.

As far as HD carriage ... carry one/carry all HD is in full effect in February. Only the primary HD feed must be carried from each channel, but channels can negotiate carriage of sub channels and second HD feeds. And barring any nasty surprises DISH's new satellite will be up and running at 61.5 in plenty of time to serve all of the HD local channels in Eastern Arc. At least, all of the channels that agree to be carried.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> With the number of markets involved one needs to look at the bigger picture.
> 
> As far as HD carriage ... carry one/carry all HD is in full effect in February. Only the primary HD feed must be carried from each channel, but channels can negotiate carriage of sub channels and second HD feeds. And barring any nasty surprises DISH's new satellite will be up and running at 61.5 in plenty of time to serve all of the HD local channels in Eastern Arc. At least, all of the channels that agree to be carried.


I wasn't meaning to complain so much as... if they are in a negotiation with Sinclair anyway, it just seems like now would be the time to negotiate the HD LiLs too. So I keep hoping anyway


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Word from the trenches is the deal is done.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

coldsteel said:


> Word from the trenches is the deal is done.


I'm guessing since the channels didn't go dark, all is well... but really odd not to have seen a more official announcement by now.


----------

