# Sinclair Stations vs DISH (Off for 25 1/2 Hours)



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

*DISH urges FCC to take immediate action to protect millions of innocent consumers from unlawful negotiating tactics of Sinclair*

_DISH notifies FCC that Sinclair has threatened largest blackout in U.S. retransmission consent history to intentionally exploit millions of innocent consumers to gain negotiating leverage_
_DISH asserts Sinclair is violating FCC good faith negotiation requirements mandated by Congress_
_Complaint states Sinclair is attempting to negotiate illegally on behalf of 32 stations it doesn't control_
_DISH requests that the FCC grant preliminary injunctive relief to protect consumers_
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Today, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a Verified Retransmission Complaint asserting, among other things, that in direct violation of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules mandated by the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. is refusing to negotiate with DISH for retransmission consent for Sinclair's stations unless DISH also agrees to allow Sinclair to negotiate for 32 stations that Sinclair does not control and are in the same markets as Sinclair stations.

The retransmission consent contract between DISH and Sinclair expires tonight at 11:59 p.m. EDT.

DISH also charges that in violation of FCC regulation, Sinclair has assumed a unilateral stance to its negotiations, including the refusal of a contract extension so the parties can explore alternative paths toward an agreement.

"We're asking the FCC to act on behalf of consumers to bring Sinclair back in line with the law," said Jeff Blum, DISH senior vice president and deputy general counsel. "Sinclair's 'take-it-or-leave-it' posture is in direct violation of federal regulations - they have offered a single path and are threatening that any deviation from that path will lead to a consumer blackout."

DISH and Sinclair have been making steady progress in their recent negotiations, and DISH was hopeful that mutual agreement would be reached to renew carriage of the Sinclair local stations in due course. In that spirit, DISH offered a short-term contract extension to Sinclair that would include a retroactive "true-up" when new rates were agreed upon, and would preserve the ability of DISH customers to access the Sinclair local stations while negotiations continued. The "true-up" would ensure that Sinclair was made whole at the new rates for the period of the contract extension.

Instead of accepting DISH's good faith offer, Sinclair is threatening the largest local channel blackout in retransmission consent history, which would block DISH customers' access to 153 local channels in 79 markets. Rather than negotiating in good faith as required by law, it is clear from these actions that Sinclair is seeking to intentionally harm and exploit millions of innocent consumers to gain negotiating leverage.
"Since we offered to retroactively true them up when new rates were agreed upon, Sinclair had nothing to lose and consumers had everything to gain from an extension of our existing contract that would allow negotiations to continue," added Blum. "Instead, Sinclair has rejected our offer and has chosen to use innocent consumers as pawns to gain leverage for the economic benefit of Sinclair, while causing substantial harm and disruption to the lives of those very same consumers who ultimately will bear the brunt of the unfair price increases sought by Sinclair."

DISH is asking the FCC to immediately grant preliminary injunctive relief while the Commission considers the complaint, and to require Sinclair to negotiate in good faith for the stations for which it has control under FCC rules.

The formal complaint can be read here: https://dishnetwork.newshq.businesswire.com/document-library/verified-retransmission-complaint-dish-network-llc-against-sinclair

*About DISH*
DISH Network Corp. (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiaries, provides approximately 13.932 million pay-TV subscribers, as of June 30, 2015, with the highest-quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value. Subscribers enjoy a 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 is a Fortune 250 company. Visit www.dish.com.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150815005012/en/

Source: DISH Network L.L.C.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Weird that this press release is the first I'm hearing of this... I have a couple of Sinclair-owned local affiliates (CW and MyNetwork) and I was even watching something on one of them earlier this week and don't remember seeing any carriage warnings.

I know Sinclair has been a pain to negotiate with in the past... but the idea of them trying to negotiate on behalf of someone else too? That seems odd.


----------



## 4bama (Aug 6, 2006)

My local CW channel 68 (WABM) has crawler urging customers to call Dish Network because their contract ends tonight and Dish Network will not carry this station starting Sunday, August 16...The crawler says Dish will be the only local provider that does not carry CW-68..


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I am glad KATU (Sinclair) got the digital translator going. Now we will not lose the signal.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

I'm on Directv right now, but I'm seeing the crawlers on the Sioux City IA CBS and Fox stations. This happened when I was with Dish, with these two channels, not very long ago at all.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I don't see a big issue with Dish adding the 32 channels as the viewer will have more variety. Unless the bill goes up a lot for Dish. Adding the channels is a plus for the view in those markets.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Not fair, Sinclair -

If YOU are the owner - then you negotiate for them. Otherwise - no dice. Sinclair should get hammered by the FCC for this. Let's see if Tom Wheeler (current FCC chairman) actually has the guts to do something about this...

Also - doesn't really affect me - I don't watch our 2 Sinclair stations much if at all, and if necessary, I can receive them just fine OTA if I do have a hankering to watch them...


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

mwdxer said:


> I don't see a big issue with Dish adding the 32 channels as the viewer will have more variety. Unless the bill goes up a lot for Dish. Adding the channels is a plus for the view in those markets.


You don't understand this - it's not adding different channels - it's negotiating for channels that are probably already on Dish.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

They're most likely referring to the channels that Sinclair operates via a LMA, but don't actually own.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I've got a couple of their stations in my mix. Fox is the big one. Fortunately I have Hulu Plus so I won't miss much if they go dark after the season starts. If they go dark right now I won't miss anything at all even if I didn't have Hulu!! 

I'm still of the opinion that broadcast channels and their owners were chartered as a free television service in their markets with all profits to come with advertising. If they cannot make it that way they should change to cable channels and give up their spectrum.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I've got a couple of their stations in my mix. Fox is the big one. Fortunately I have Hulu Plus so I won't miss much if they go dark after the season starts. If they go dark right now I won't miss anything at all even if I didn't have Hulu!!
> 
> I'm still of the opinion that broadcast channels and their owners were chartered as a free television service in their markets with all profits to come with advertising. If they cannot make it that way they should change to cable channels and give up their spectrum.


True, but it's not fair for people who get paid to provide the channels to viewers to be able to broadcast their content for free. They also insert their own commercials into the mix.

But this has gone to far too often. We need the FCC to step in and set up a standard fee, based on some kind of measurables (measured independently) and prevent these hostage situations. I'm sure they have the power/authority to do that if they want.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

fudpucker said:


> True, but it's not fair for people who get paid to provide the channels to viewers to be able to broadcast their content for free. They also insert their own commercials into the mix.
> 
> But this has gone to far too often. We need the FCC to step in and set up a standard fee, based on some kind of measurables (measured independently) and prevent these hostage situations. I'm sure they have the power/authority to do that if they want.


The only way to fix this is for the carriers to stand their ground and let the stations go dark. Eventually they'll get it or go out of business. The providers won't. FCC mandated pricing would not be good for anyone involved at all.

To me this is playing out completely different than their fight with turner last year. I hope they don't fold and let the stations go dark.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Instead of accepting DISH's good faith offer, Sinclair is threatening the largest local channel blackout in retransmission consent history, which would block DISH customers' access to 153 local channels in 79 markets.


Sinclair's website (ttp://sbgi.net/) claims 162 channels in 79 markets. How one company ever got that big should be an embarrassment for the FCC. I realize that the standard is percent of media control in each market ... but that is too many stations (in my opinion).

Here is a link to their station map:
http://sbgi.net/tv-stations/


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

fudpucker said:


> But this has gone to far too often. We need the FCC to step in and set up a standard fee, based on some kind of measurables (measured independently) and prevent these hostage situations. I'm sure they have the power/authority to do that if they want.


I recommend statutory fees such as the ones paid for distant stations. While I prefer $0 to the stations for extending delivery of their signals to additional viewers in their markets, if there is a fee it should be set by the copyright office. And it should apply to ALL broadcast stations, not just the huge chains with major network signals that can demand more money each negotiation cycle by threatening to not allow their signals to be carried.

These carriage rights negotiations are legalized extortion. It shouldn't be legal.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I'm in favor of abolishing all retrans fees everywhere.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> I'm in favor of abolishing all retrans fees everywhere.


I don't think Dish or Directv should be able to sell the network channels to consumers without paying the local network owners. Now - if they tell everyone they'll give you the networks for free, with no other programming or fees required, that would be different. But they make money selling local network programming. I changed from Directv to Dish in 2009, after having been with DTV since 1995, purely because Dish, at the time, did not provide the locals in HD and Dish did.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

It's incredibly obvious to anyone who has taken a look at this that the current situation benefits no one except the stations. It, doesn't even pretend to be fair to paid TV providers and consumers.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I think at one time the OTA stations carried, there was no fee. The station wanted better coverage and had Dish & Direct carry them. This "fee" thing has created a monster that has to be controlled as it doesn't really matter who is at fault, the consumer is the one that loses. I watched the KATU-2 news over a local translator a while ago and on the local news, the message was given that KATU will no longer be on Dish after Midnight. But she added that most places in Oregon has an OTA translator to watch their programming. It also is not the fault of the station, it is Sinclair vs Dish. The engineer from KATU was repairing the system today on Megler Mountain as there were a lot of glitches in the OTA and now the signal is really good. Plus OTA we have what Dish doesn't have, the sub channels METV & Get TV. So there is a real plus in having that OTA antenna.
When Fisher owned KATU, they were off Dish for 6 months several years ago. Viewers were really ticked. Sinclair owns a lot more stations than Fisher owned. They also have the Univision station in Portland. Also KOMO and Univision in Seattle. Who knows how long this will last. Often it seems the the disputes with OTA channels, getting them back is a lot longer. When a viewer loses something like CNN, the corporations are forced to make a deal as they lose too much.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't watch MyNetwork at all... but I do watch quite a bit of CW programming, especially once the fall seasons starts. During the summer it's just been Whose Line is it Anyway on CW for me, so maybe that's how I've missed any local info... but I didn't even see anything on my local station's Web site today after getting the press release email from Dish.

I thought FOX was playing dirty pool when they were holding FOXNews "hostage" to force Dish to pay more for other channels already under contract... but if Sinclair is threatening to withhold channels it owns if Dish doesn't pay for channels Sinclair doesn't own... that will take the cake. I don't even know how Sinclair could think that's a good idea to try. Even worse with Dish going public with a promise to retroactively pay any higher-negotiated rates if Sinclair agreed to keep the channels on the air during negotiation.

Dish isn't the bad guy in this one.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

fudpucker said:


> Now - if they tell everyone they'll give you the networks for free, with no other programming or fees required, that would be different.


That is an impossible request. At some point some money needs to go DISH's way to obtain the equipment and set up the service. If you are asking for free locals for anyone who buys their own equipment and self installs (or uses old owned equipment) you are getting closer. But DISH cannot spend money giving something away for free.

I doubt you will get the $1 per month (or higher) stations to agree to such carriage. Consent to carry still applies even on free re-transmissions. Sinclair and the other large operators like their pound of flesh.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

It is the same song and dance. But I wonder if Dish could go back in offering locals separately. They could have a price per market. If one market costs more to deliver the channels, then the amount is higher to the customer. If that was the case, there would be none of this dropping the channels. If the price is higher, then so it is. The customer than wanted locals could pay the price. Some markets may be lower and others higher. That way, Dish could not to accused of anything. If the viewer has the problem with the price, then let them complain to the local stations. In fact Dish could sell each local separately. Let's say ABC in a market is $1, NBC $1, CBS $1, but lets say the FOX station wanted more, so Dish sells FOX for $2. That way everyone wins, as the channel is not removed. If the stations do not like it, they can put up with it, or not be on Dish. I think Dish, Direct, & cable should do that. Right now the station has the upper hand. This should stop.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH cannot sell the locals separately. Under the current Federal law, carriage must be offered to all stations in markets where they carry any station. DISH (and any other satellite/cable) cannot offer some locals at one price and other locals in the same market at another price.

DISH is obligated to offer locals in all markets in order to be able to offer distants anywhere. DISH currently uses distants to fill in markets that are missing a major affiliate. If they chose not to offer any market they would lose the ability to carry those fill in channels everywhere in the country.

DISH could charge extra for locals ... but the reception, backhaul, uplink and satellite costs remain the same whether one person in a market is subscribed or every person in that market is subscribed. Having every subscriber pay helps cover their costs. Plus they are competing against cable where locals are "included". (Actually required by law to be part of every package.) There are enough "extra fees" involved in a satellite/cable subscription. DISH is trying to get away from that (their current two year price freeze offering with no DVR fees for example) not add another fee that competitors can use as a negative.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I wondered why things didn't go dark after midnight... and then this just appeared in my emailbox...

*DISH and Sinclair extend contract talks*

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DISH Network L.L.C. and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. have agreed to a short term contract extension as they continue to negotiate a new retransmission agreement. The current agreement was set to expire at 9:59 p.m. MDT last night.

The extension preserves DISH customer access to 153 local channels in 79 markets nationwide.

DISH is asking the Federal Communications Commission to stay action on its Verified Retransmission Complaint and Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief as the two parties continue to negotiate.

"We appreciate that we have mutually created time to try to find the right path to serve consumers," said Warren Schlichting, DISH senior vice president of programming.

*About DISH*
DISH Network Corp. (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiaries, provides approximately 13.932 million pay-TV subscribers, as of June 30, 2015, with the highest-quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value. Subscribers enjoy a 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 is a Fortune 250 company. Visit www.dish.com.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150816005016/en/

Source: DISH Network L.L.C.


----------



## Blowgun (May 23, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't watch MyNetwork at all... but I do watch quite a bit of CW programming, especially once the fall seasons starts. During the summer it's just been Whose Line is it Anyway on CW for me, so maybe that's how I've missed any local info... but I didn't even see anything on my local station's Web site today after getting the press release email from Dish.


Two days ago our local Fox station was running a repeating crawl saying that Dish customers would no longer be able to watch after the deadline. Last night our local NBC spent a couple of minutes during the news explaining how you would still be able to watch their wonderful NBC programming on DirecTV, Cable or _free_ OTA. I very rarely watch anything on MyTV, but I'm sure they were probably warning the public that the sky was falling, too.

Well, it's midnight, the three stations continue to be listed in the EPG and are available on DISH at a touch of a button. I doubt DISH would forget our market in this affair, so I guess something changed and the asteroid will not be destroying the earth at this time.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Dish isn't the bad guy in this one.


Agreed.


----------



## Blowgun (May 23, 2008)

I had NBC on in the background so I could watch the transition from network programming to DISH explaining their side of the story. Wasn't paying that much attention to it, but at 54 minutes past the deadline the following crawl appeared on the screen:

"_Attention DISH Network Subscribers - At the end of the day on Saturday August 15th, we expect DISH to stop carrying this station. The station will still be available on DirecTV, your local cable provider, and for free over the air. DISH Network subscribers will be the only viewers that lose access to this station's great programming. DISH Network can be reached at (8xx) 318-0572. We apologize for any inconvenience._"
That's the same generic Sinclair message they showed Yesterday. It still has that aroma of desperation, only now it is showing up late. Not sure who the target audience is suppose to be. If I didn't have OTA capabilities I wouldn't see it. If I did have OTA capabilities I would be chuckling that Sinclair removing the station from DISH didn't affect me in the least and if I saw that message from a different provider, I probably wouldn't care.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Glad they got the extention. Maybe they can work things out. It sounds like both sides want to resolve this.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Thanks for clarification. I guess Dish has their hands tied by FCC rules then. Unless things change, this roller coaster will continue forever and the subscriber is the loser. One way out of it for the subscriber is to subscribe to two carriers. That way if one loses a channel, you have the other to fall back on, but that would be expensive. OTA at least is free, if one is available.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Again, somehow I think the FCC needs to get involved. Do Dish and ATT/Directv and the cable owners not have enough lobbyists in Washington to get Congress to do something about this crap?


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

NAB created this monster; Congress endorsed it and the FCC is stuck with it. I am surprised the NAB does not force people to pay for OTA signals.



fudpucker said:


> Again, somehow I think the FCC needs to get involved. Do Dish and ATT/Directv and the cable owners not have enough lobbyists in Washington to get Congress to do something about this crap?


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

They are going cry "Free Enterprise" again, so nothing will be done. They will state that consumer does have the freedom to go elsewhere, which they do.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

nmetro said:


> NAB created this monster; Congress endorsed it and the FCC is stuck with it. I am surprised the NAB does not force people to pay for OTA signals.





fudpucker said:


> Again, somehow I think the FCC needs to get involved. Do Dish and ATT/Directv and the cable owners not have enough lobbyists in Washington to get Congress to do something about this crap?


Lets not give the NAB any ideas. If all the lobbyists in Washington lost their jobs, the lines at the unemployment offices would be enormous and throw use into a worse depression. :eek2:


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The broadcasters can scream 'free enterprise' all they want, but the deal that they made to get the spectrum meant that they should be supported only by ads since they are using 'our' spectrum.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> The broadcasters can scream 'free enterprise' all they want, but the deal that they made to get the spectrum meant that they should be supported only by ads since they are using 'our' spectrum.


That "deal" was made a long time ago, before a plethora of other pay providers started providing their product to their own customers. There's a supply and demand issue here (and for the record I think these station owners, or a lot of them, are asses and no one should be able to own as many stations as some of them do) - Directv and Dish and Time Warner and Comcast,etc. are not required in any way to provide their customers with local networks. They could simply be providers of all the non-OTA channels. So there is a value to Dish (and others) to be able to offer customers the local networks, and I don't believe they should be able to sell them to their customers while they get them for free. The question is more what is a fair price.

Of course, we the customers always end up being the ones hurt, whether it is from a blackout or our increased prices for the service (because Dish or Directv is just going to pass the costs along to us.)


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

Sinclair never should have been allowed to get away with setting up hack companies to get around ownership limits. For example, in Baltimore, Sinclair owns one station (WBFF, their flagship station) and has a "local marketing agreement" with the owners of the other two stations (WBFF & WUTB); so they control three out of the six commercial TV stations in Baltimore. One of these companies is owned by the children of the CEO. The owners of all of Sinclair's hack companies gives Sinclair permission to run their TV stations and I'm guessing Sinclair gets almost all of the profits.

The FCC is just starting to act on Sinclair ever since they bought WJLA & NewsChannel 8 in DC. I hope they continue it with Dish's complaint. 

I'll call Dish to support them in fighting Sinclair. I get all three stations OTA anyhow, so it won't affect me too much, but I wish Dish would retain the guide data for the stations that it drops. I'll have to move my DVR timers over to the DC stations that I get OTA (although not as reliably).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

fudpucker said:


> (because Dish or Directv is just going to pass the costs along to us.)


If I asked you to pick up a newspaper and deliver it to me would you do that for free?
If it were a free newspaper that you had to pay for the trip to pick up would you deliver it for free?
If you had to pay for that newspaper would you still give it to me for free?

We buy cable and satellite from for profit companies. Perhaps they make "too much" profit but if that annoys us as consumers we are free to choose a company that is less profitable. But while complaining about their profit one must keep in mind what they would do in the place of the carrier.

I doubt if you would go out of your way to deliver a free newspaper to my home without some compensation. You certainly would not pay for that newspaper and then go out of your way to give it to me without any compensation. Yet that is what you are asking satellite providers to do.

And if you are willing to deliver content for free I look forward to not paying for "fudpucker's free satellite service". Good luck keeping that service running.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Even though I moved from Dish to Directv last year, I sent an email to the owner of our local Fox and CBS (both of which were threatened by this) and most importantly, we watched the local news and other shows and made a list of the biggest local advertisers. We then found email addresses for the owners of as many of these businesses as I could find, and copied them all on the email. The email said, basically, we're tired of being held hostage to these threats, after doing a lot of research we have determined it is Sinclair that is acting in bad faith, listed the reasons why, etc. The email went on to say that if the stations go dark for one minute, we will switch all of our local news and programming viewing to their competitor stations, and will spend all of our money at the advertisors on these other local networks. I also said a copy of this email will go to everyone I know at work (a very large company in the area) as well as anyone else I could think to send it to. At the end, a statement of "please don't repeat the B.S. that Dish is being unfair, we've done our homework and research and this is clearly a greedy money grab on your part, you tried this very recently, and we have decided to no longer be held hostage to these games."

I have already received responses (sent the email Thursday) from 6 of the owners of the companies that advertise on the local CBS and Fox thanking us for copying them on the email, after doing their own research they have reached the same conclusions, and they are also registering their displeasure to the Sinclair ownership. Two of them stated they will not renew their current advertising with the channels.

It's just a tiny voice, and I know the Sinclair head honcho doesn't give a damn. But it felt good.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> If I asked you to pick up a newspaper and deliver it to me would you do that for free?
> If it were a free newspaper that you had to pay for the trip to pick up would you deliver it for free?
> If you had to pay for that newspaper would you still give it to me for free?
> 
> ...


And where did I say I blamed Dish or Directv for charging us for their services? I'm just stating that we are ultimately the losers in these battles. Do you disagree? I don't begrudge satellite or cable companies for charging me for the local networks any more than I do them charging me for ESPN or TNT or CNN, etc. And i don't expect the local network owners to give them for free the rights to sell their product to us.

Where you are misunderstanding, perhaps, is when I said it would be different if they DID provide the locals for free. Then I might reconsider my position that the satellite companies should pay a fair fee for the right to provide the locals to their customers.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

The consumer is the loser here. I have always believed that. With what I had read, Dish or Direct has to purchase the channels a certain way, have little control on how they sell it. I do not agree with that. Then when they try to make a deal, the only thing Dish can do is to drop the channel, if they cannot agree. I am a business man and I am sure glad I do not have to be controlled like that. Canada now sells ala carte but I really doubt we will ever see that here. The programmers and TV stations have way too much power. Where is the free enterprise?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Free enterprise let the marketplace decide. The marketplace went with tiered packages. While there are some channels that allow their content to be sold a la carte for a high price separate from the tier level they negotiated, the free enterprise driven marketplace decided on tiers.

As far as carriage of locals go ... the major networks and their affiliates sued to prevent satellite from rebroadcasting their stations. They won and Congress stepped in to write laws that allowed carriage on certain terms despite their objections. The law protected the station's right to choose whether or not to be carried but (unfortunately) introduced the ability for stations to negotiate their own terms for carriage.

Free enterprise allows a popular station to withhold their signal unless paid while a less popular station must choose $0 compensation lest they not be carried at all. If the issue was all about copyright fees (as it should be) every copyright owner would be paid a reasonable fee. The fee would be compensation not a source of additional income.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Fact is, if you cobbled together a 1 watt nothing radio station, the FCC SWAT team (and, sad to say, yes, the FCC has a SWAT team) would hunt you down and drag you away.

Yet Sinclair owns more than 1 of the big 4 stations in one-fourth of the country's markets. Which is an open violation of the law.

Go to Sinclair HQ. Arrest everyone in the building. Confiscate every license over the limit, rebid those, use money to reduce taxes. Fin.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

There is no free enterprise when it comes to the rules regarding satellite carriage laws. Big business rules the roast. The consumer is shuck with what they are left with . "If" and I say "If" the TV station in your area has OTA coverage, you are lucky. Fortunately for us, the majority of the Portland stations support the viewer on the Oregon Coast with most of the main OTA channels, covered with HD translators. It is so nice to have them. Only CW 32 and ION 22 do not have translators here. The Portland stations spend millions on translators in Oregon in most rural areas. Only 20-30% watch OTA these days, so again I have very pleased the Portland stations covering us. Going from analog to digital, we now have a lot of OTA variety with 11 TV and 3 radio channels. Not bad for a county with 45,000. There is also no direct shot from the Portland West Hills, where the towers are, to us. They have to bounce the signal again from another closer mountain, so they have to pay for that too. Not cheap. Plus add to that all of the cost of up-keeping with all of out years storms. We have KATU(ABC), KOIN (CBS), KGW (NBC), KOPB (PBS), KPTV (FOX, and (KPDX (MYTV), plus their sub channels.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

fudpucker said:


> Even though I moved from Dish to Directv last year, I sent an email to the owner of our local Fox and CBS (both of which were threatened by this) and most importantly, we watched the local news and other shows and made a list of the biggest local advertisers. We then found email addresses for the owners of as many of these businesses as I could find, and copied them all on the email. The email said, basically, we're tired of being held hostage to these threats, after doing a lot of research we have determined it is Sinclair that is acting in bad faith, listed the reasons why, etc. The email went on to say that if the stations go dark for one minute, we will switch all of our local news and programming viewing to their competitor stations, and will spend all of our money at the advertisors on these other local networks. I also said a copy of this email will go to everyone I know at work (a very large company in the area) as well as anyone else I could think to send it to. At the end, a statement of "please don't repeat the B.S. that Dish is being unfair, we've done our homework and research and this is clearly a greedy money grab on your part, you tried this very recently, and we have decided to no longer be held hostage to these games."
> 
> I have already received responses (sent the email Thursday) from 6 of the owners of the companies that advertise on the local CBS and Fox thanking us for copying them on the email, after doing their own research they have reached the same conclusions, and they are also registering their displeasure to the Sinclair ownership. Two of them stated they will not renew their current advertising with the channels.
> 
> It's just a tiny voice, and I know the Sinclair head honcho doesn't give a damn. But it felt good.


Awesome! I salute you!

Dish & Direct should do the same in every market where they have a dispute (I wonder if they do). Advertisers have a right to know how their advertisements are distributed and when their advertisement won't be accessible to a portion of a station's viewers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hmmmm ... a huge Uplink Report on a Tuesday - is your local Sinclair station still on the air?

(No press release from DISH yet ...)


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Mine isn't. I've emailed both the local Fox station and Sinclair about my displeasure.

The problem for Sinclair right now is there is so damned little of interest on Fox right now and won't be until around 9/21/2015. IMO, if it isn't settled by 9/21/2015 start of the new season, I won't be watching Fox except to find out who locally is advertising on them and emailing them about the rip off.

In an earlier post you made what I considered a very apologetic post about the issues local broadcasters are facing. My opinion? Tough, they signed up to use the spectrum WE own and for that they were supposed to provide their programming and local access with no fees to US. If they now don't want to do that, then they are perfectly free to take their antennas down and give up the spectrum and try to make it as a pure cable/sat deal. Of course they won't, they'll cry some sob story about how tough business is and all that. In the meantime, get out your checkbook for the bigger check you get to write to get what is supposed to be FREE!


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

well - mine are gone....(My TV and CW)


----------



## Ozz666 (Aug 25, 2015)

NBC & CW gone here in Vegas. The guide currently shows the Dish announcement then shows normal programming in a few hours. Does anyone know if this blackout affects the national programming as well ?


----------



## ClimateHawk (Oct 21, 2013)

ABC 45 (WXLV) and My 48 (WMYV) gone in Triad (Greensboro, NC area). Thankfully I have OTA so it's not a big deal. Only bad thing is that the guide info is gone even for the OTA channels.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

I lost two channels, and guide data for a few more channels that I receive OTA.

In Baltimore, I lost WBFF (Fox; owned by Sinclair) and WNUV (CW; owned by Cunningham (which is owned by the CEO of Sinclair's kids) and LMA with Sinclair). I'm not sure why I didn't lose WUTB (My; owned by Deerfield and LMA with Sinclair).

I still haven't figured out why they block the guide data for the OTA versions of the stations. That would make it easier for the customers who don't need sat. delivered locals.


----------



## Blowgun (May 23, 2008)

Sinclair pulled my local Fox and MyTV. So far NBC is untouched. On the pulled channels DISH is running a 3 minute looped message from Warren Schlichting Senior Vice President of Programming of DISH Network explaining DISH's side of the issue. Mr Schlichting called this "the largest broadcaster blackout in history" and said that Sinclair "needs to renew agreements with other pay TV providers similar to DISH". "If they are willing to blackout DISH customers, Sinclair is likely willing to blackout other customers very soon", he said.

Because I anticipated this would happen, I already moved the few affected timers I had to use the OTA tuner. The downside is no EPG, the upside is improved picture quality.


----------



## Blowgun (May 23, 2008)

Ozz666 said:


> The guide currently shows the Dish announcement then shows normal programming in a few hours. Does anyone know if this blackout affects the national programming as well?


Here, both affected channels have their respective EPG listings marked as "(_call letters_) removed (_station name_)" throughout the entire guide. The only thing that appears to be normal is the space (ie: 30 minutes or 1 hour) that each program would have taken up in the guide.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

*Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Chooses to Initiate Largest Local Channel Blackout in History of Television and Intentionally Exploit Millions of Innocent Consumers, Says DISH*

_Sinclair attempts to gain negotiating leverage for carriage of unrelated cable channel that the broadcaster hopes to acquire but does not own today_
_DISH confirms that DISH and Sinclair agree on rates and all other terms for carriage of Sinclair's local channels, but Sinclair blacks out customers to gain leverage for carriage of unrelated cable channel it hopes to acquire but does not own today_
_Sinclair rejects DISH offer of an additional extension of the existing local channel contract, with retroactive "true-up" for new rates, which would keep local channels up for benefit of consumers while negotiations continue_
_DISH Reignites Call for FCC Action_
ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Despite reaching an agreement on rates and all other terms for the carriage of the Sinclair local stations, DISH said that this afternoon Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. chose to begin the largest local channel blackout in the history of television, blocking DISH customers' access to 129 local channels in 79 markets across 36 states and the District of Columbia, and intentionally harming and exploiting millions of innocent consumers to gain negotiating leverage for carriage of an unrelated cable channel that it hopes to acquire but does not own today.

"We have agreed to rates and all terms to carry Sinclair's local stations," said Warren Schlichting, DISH senior vice president of programming. "But Sinclair is blacking out 129 local stations in an effort to negotiate a carriage agreement for an unrelated cable channel that it hopes to acquire, but does not own today."

Schlichting continued: "Sinclair rejected our extension offer and has chosen to use innocent consumers as pawns to gain leverage for the economic benefit of Sinclair, while causing substantial harm and disruption to the lives of consumers."

DISH and Sinclair had been making steady progress in their recent negotiations, and DISH was hopeful that they would come to a mutual agreement to renew carriage of the Sinclair local stations. In that spirit, DISH offered another short-term contract extension to Sinclair that would include a retroactive "true-up" when new rates were agreed upon, and would preserve the ability of DISH customers to access the Sinclair local stations while our negotiations continued. The "true-up" would ensure that Sinclair was made whole at the new rates for the period of any contract extension.

Rather than accept DISH's good faith offer, Sinclair Broadcast Group chose to begin the largest local channel blackout in the history of television, blocking DISH customers' access to 129 local channels in 79 markets, and intentionally harming and exploiting millions of innocent consumers to gain negotiating leverage for carriage of an unrelated cable channel that it hopes to acquire but does not own today.

"Since we offered to retroactively true them up when new rates were agreed upon, Sinclair had nothing to lose and consumers had everything to gain from an extension of our existing contract that would allow negotiations to continue," said R. Stanton Dodge, DISH executive vice president and general counsel. "Instead, Sinclair rejected our offer and has chosen to use innocent consumers as pawns to gain leverage for the economic benefit of Sinclair, while causing substantial harm and disruption to the lives of those very same consumers who ultimately will bear the brunt of the unreasonable terms sought by Sinclair."

DISH Network L.L.C. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH).

*DISH Re-ignites Call for FCC action*
DISH filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Aug. 15 urging the FCC to intervene to protect consumers from the actions of Sinclair.

The formal complaint can be read here: http://about.dish.com/document-library/verified-retransmission-complaint-dish-network-llc-against-sinclair

DISH intends to amend the complaint to include allegations stemming from Sinclair's decision to blackout local channels to millions of innocent consumers to gain negotiating leverage for carriage of an unrelated cable channel that it hopes to acquire but does not own today.

"Sinclair is holding consumers hostage in order to force our hand in unrelated negotiations regarding a cable channel that Sinclair hopes to acquire but does not own today," added Dodge. "We've asked for swift action from the FCC to stop Sinclair's anti-competitive behavior."

DISH extended its contract with 23 local non-Sinclair controlled stations for which Sinclair had been attempting to negotiate.

"We appreciate that we have mutually created time to try to find the right path to serve consumers for these 23 stations, but we hoped Sinclair would have chosen that same path," added Schlichting.

*Broadcaster Blackouts Punish Consumers*
"Sinclair's decision to cut ties with DISH customers is a prime example of why Washington needs to stand up for consumers and end local channel blackouts," said Dodge. "Broadcasters like Sinclair use their in-market monopoly power to put profits ahead of the public interests they are supposed to serve."

DISH has appeared on behalf of pay-TV consumers before the FCC, as well as U.S. Senate and House hearings, to encourage regulators and lawmakers to update existing video laws and reform the current system that allows these blackouts to occur.

"Broadcasters like Sinclair are blacking out content, effectively forcing consumers to switch to other pay-TV providers - providers that may soon face a blackout due to their own set of unreasonable broadcaster demands," added Dodge. "The system treats viewers as negotiating chips instead of consumers."

*Rising Retransmission Rates*
Each year, the cost to carry local broadcast stations rises far beyond the rate of inflation, leading to blackouts across the country that affect millions of subscribers of various pay-TV companies. According to SNL Kagan, a media industry source, broadcast fees burdening pay-TV consumers were as low as $215 million in 2006, soared to $4.9 billion in 2014 and are expected to more than double to reach $10.3 billion in 2021.

Along with other pay-TV companies and public interest groups that form the American Television Alliance, DISH has called for the FCC and U.S. Congress to revamp the out-of-date laws and to reform the system that favor these high fees and unnecessary blackouts.

DISH customers can visit DISHPromise.com for more information and to ask Congress to end TV blackouts.

Sinclair's action affects viewers of various ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, CW, MyNetwork, Univision, Telemundo, Azteca and Estrella stations in 79 markets. For a list of affected stations, visit https://dishnetwork.newshq.businesswire.com/document-library/sinclair-stations.

*About DISH*
DISH Network Corp. (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiaries, provides approximately 13.932 million pay-TV subscribers, as of June 30, 2015, with the highest-quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value. Subscribers enjoy a 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 is a Fortune 250 company. Visit www.dish.com.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150825006382/en/

Source: DISH


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I got the press release email a little before 10:30pm EDT just after I had noticed my CW station was gone. Weird that we didn't hear anything for a while and then ZAP today... I wonder what the "channel" that Dish is referring to Sinclair wanting to negotiate for carriage in the press release is...


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

KOMO is gone here too.


----------



## Jon W (Jan 27, 2004)

Wondering if any Hopper owners affected have had any luck getting Dish to throw in the USB OTA tuner for free or a reduced price? I remember some people even managed to get Rokus back when AMC went dark.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Wonder what station they are talking about that they don't own yet. 

And I hope with this press release no one calls and complains and blames dish. Assuming it's true everyone should call the stations and Sinclair. 

I think they didn't wait because they don't want the stations off the air during football season so thought they could go dark now and force dishes hand. If they wait till football starts it would hurt their ad dollars and such a lot more.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

The interesting thing is here that my OTA tuner in the 211k does not show the guide for KATU, yet it does show the guide for KATU's sub channels. KATU is there with programming via the translator, but for the OTA guide, I have to go to either the TV or a 24 hour guide on my Ematic converter box.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The sub-channel guide, especially for channels that Dish doesn't actually carry, is handled differently... they have specific EPG data uplinked for such channels, whereas for the stations that Dish carries via SAT, the OTA EPG is a link to the EPG for the SAT-delivered version... which is also why when they lost the LiL, they lose the EPG for OTA on that channel as well.

As long as this is sorted before the CW new season starts (Arrow, Flash, Supernatural, and a few others) I'll be fine... right now all I'm watching is Whose Line is it Anyway and that's easy enough to catch via OTA or online.

But from the beginning, when the first threat was leveled (Dish asking the FCC to get involved) this seemed squarely like a Sinclair-created mess, and I've seen nothing, even Sinclair spin, that changes that. Hopefully this gets resolved sooner rather than later, and without Sinclair getting what they want out of this deal beyond what Dish had already agreed to give.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Thanks. That explains it. Much appreciated. One other question, why doesn't Dish ever get into disputes with PBS stations? Are they handed differently?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

mwdxer said:


> Thanks. That explains it. Much appreciated. One other question, why doesn't Dish ever get into disputes with PBS stations? Are they handed differently?


Just a guess... but I'd say the owners of PBS stations are not looking to make a huge profit, so the negotiations would likely go much easier. I'm not saying making a profit is bad, but if you have less motive to make profit, you're probably easier to negotiate with from Dish's perspective.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

*DISH Reignites FCC Complaint Against Sinclair, Calls for Immediate Action to Protect Millions of Innocent Consumers from Sinclair's Unlawful Negotiating Tactics*

_DISH introduces new facts to assert Sinclair is violating FCC good faith negotiation requirements mandated by Congress_
_DISH confirms that Sinclair launches largest channel blackout in U.S. history_
_DISH has agreed to all rates and other terms needed to carry Sinclair local stations_
_Sinclair attempting to gain negotiating leverage for carriage of unrelated cable channel that Sinclair hopes to acquire but does not own today_
_DISH requests that the FCC grant preliminary injunctive relief to protect consumers_
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DISH Network L.L.C. renewed a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) accusing Sinclair Broadcasting of failing to negotiate in good faith as called for by Congress. DISH accuses Sinclair of orchestrating the largest blackout in U.S. television history as a means to force DISH to carry a cable channel Sinclair hopes to acquire, but does not even own today.

On Tuesday afternoon, Sinclair blacked out DISH customer access to 129 stations serving 79 markets in 36 states and the District of Columbia as a contract extension between the two parties expired.
"We are calling on the FCC to intervene in Sinclair's senseless blackout that needlessly punishes consumers despite an agreement on rates and all other terms for Sinclair's local stations," said Jeff Blum, DISH senior vice president and deputy general counsel. "Sinclair rejected every opportunity to serve viewers including our extension offer, which featured a full true-up, and has instead chosen to use innocent consumers as pawns to gain leverage for a cable channel it hopes to acquire but does not own today."

Per DISH's amended complaint, Sinclair has demanded that, as a condition to signing the retransmission agreement, DISH agree to terms and conditions for future carriage of a cable network that Sinclair hopes to acquire, but does not own today. DISH is contending that by forcing bundling, Sinclair's unilateral bargaining is a _per se_ violation of the Commission's good faith rules and is a violation of U.S. competition law.

Amended formal complaint can be read here: https://dishnetwork.newshq.businesswire.com/document-library/2015-08-26-verified-amended-and-restated-retransmission-complaint-dish-network-llc

DISH is asking the FCC to immediately grant preliminary injunctive relief while the Commission considers the amended complaint, and to require Sinclair to negotiate in good faith.

DISH had first filed the Verified Retransmission Complaint August 15 originally asserting, among other things, that in direct violation of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules mandated by the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Sinclair had refused to negotiate with DISH for retransmission consent for Sinclair's stations unless DISH also agreed to allow Sinclair to negotiate for 32 stations that Sinclair does not control and are in the same markets as Sinclair stations.

DISH also originally charged that in violation of FCC regulation, Sinclair has assumed a unilateral stance to its negotiations, including the refusal of a contract extension so the parties can explore alternative paths toward an agreement.

*About DISH*
DISH Network Corp. (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiaries, provides approximately 13.932 million pay-TV subscribers, as of June 30, 2015, with the highest-quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value. Subscribers enjoy a 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 is a Fortune 250 company. Visit www.dish.com.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150826005424/en/

Source: DISH Network L.L.C.


----------



## satexplorer (Feb 6, 2007)

DISH is protecting innocent consumers from syndication or dangerous advertisements. So I saw a Paintball training ad on a Sinclair station out of Milwaukee.


----------



## festivus (Nov 10, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The sub-channel guide, especially for channels that Dish doesn't actually carry, is handled differently... they have specific EPG data uplinked for such channels, whereas for the stations that Dish carries via SAT, the OTA EPG is a link to the EPG for the SAT-delivered version... which is also why when they lost the LiL, they lose the EPG for OTA on that channel as well.
> 
> As long as this is sorted before the CW new season starts (Arrow, Flash, Supernatural, and a few others) I'll be fine... right now all I'm watching is Whose Line is it Anyway and that's easy enough to catch via OTA or online.
> 
> But from the beginning, when the first threat was leveled (Dish asking the FCC to get involved) this seemed squarely like a Sinclair-created mess, and I've seen nothing, even Sinclair spin, that changes that. Hopefully this gets resolved sooner rather than later, and without Sinclair getting what they want out of this deal beyond what Dish had already agreed to give.


This is the most bothersome thing for me. In my Columbus market, both the FOX and the ABC locals are gone because of Sinclair's stupidity. I have an antenna in my attic for OTA but as you note the guide does not list the programming for the *.1 channels. Fall shows are coming which means I'll have to set up manual timers to record them. And check for conflicts.

The ONLY reason I still have Dish (or any sat or cable carrier) is convenience. A single integrated DVR/tuner. Something that my wife can easily operate. Having to set up manual timers blows. Reminds me of the days of VCRs.

It would be really cool if Dish could somehow have the EPG data uplinked for these channels until the dispute is solved.


----------



## LJR (Nov 2, 2005)

Mine is gone too! I immediately ordered an OTA antenna for my Hopper...but now I'm guessing that it won't work?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mwdxer said:


> Thanks. That explains it. Much appreciated. One other question, why doesn't Dish ever get into disputes with PBS stations? Are they handed differently?


PBS are non-commercial and cannot charge retransmission fees. By definition non-commercial stations are "must carry" stations.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

LJR said:


> Mine is gone too! I immediately ordered an OTA antenna for my Hopper...but now I'm guessing that it won't work?


The USB tuner will work if you can receive an OTA signal. The guide data will not be available for .1 stations that are off the air.


----------



## LJR (Nov 2, 2005)

James Long said:


> The USB tuner will work if you can receive an OTA signal. The guide data will not be available for .1 stations that are off the air.


So there goes setting any timers!

Thanks James.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

LJR said:


> So there goes setting any timers!


Manual timers can be set.


----------



## LJR (Nov 2, 2005)

James Long said:


> Manual timers can be set.


OK, thanks. Just one more question: If I connect the OTA antenna to my Hopper, will the Joeys be able to access the channel?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

LJR said:


> OK, thanks. Just one more question: If I connect the OTA antenna to my Hopper, will the Joeys be able to access the channel?


Yes...


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Though not affected now, I was when Gannett pulled the plug on KUSA, and CBS did as well. OTA seems to work fairly well here even with mountainns, hills and mesa in teh way. I am glad I added this capability; I did just to get MeTV. I never knew I woudl need it for local TV carried by DISH.

The FCC, Congress and NAB created a huge mess by allowing commercial TV stations to force carriers to pay for their signals. I guess they do not air enough 30 minute or "ask you doctor" commercials.

Most people just see DISH, DirecTV or their cable company are the cause, because how many of them even know about retransmission agreements? They just want their programming, without a need for an antenna.

I hope what Sinclair is doing puts an end to what amounts to extortion. Certainly knocking TV stations off DISH, in 79 markets, will be noticed.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

FCC calls emergency meeting to deal with record-sized Dish-Sinclair blackout.
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/dish-loses-153-sinclair-tv-stations-after-retrans-negotiations-fail-produce/2015-08-25?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

One question, what cable channel is Sinclair planning to purchase and wanting DISH to carry?


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

When these disputes happen and the viewer loses the OTA channel, Dish should be able to fill in a distant station to fill the void. If it is ABC, then find another ABC station that Dish is not having the dispute with. But again, with the power the local stations have over their DMA, I doubt it would be allowed. Too many rules and not in favor of the viewer. The Canadian system is much better in this regard. I have a friend in Canada that has Shaw and this never happens up there.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

After DISH getting in trouble with the FCC over distant networks, and the power of the NAB, DISH cannot do the logical solution.

Today, FOX and ABC are out in Columbus, Ohio, for example. On the same spot beam are Dayton, and Cincinnati. So, technically, DISH could activate ABC and FOX from either city and feed it to the Columbus DMA, but politically they can't. NAB, and companies like Sinclair know this, and why these type of disputes keep escalating.



mwdxer said:


> When these disputes happen and the viewer loses the OTA channel, Dish should be able to fill in a distant station to fill the void. If it is ABC, then find another ABC station that Dish is not having the dispute with. But again, with the power the local stations have over their DMA, I doubt it would be allowed. Too many rules and not in favor of the viewer. The Canadian system is much better in this regard. I have a friend in Canada that has Shaw and this never happens up there.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

mwdxer said:


> The Canadian system is much better in this regard. I have a friend in Canada that has Shaw and this never happens up there.


Canada is a different country with different laws. They have laws mandating which broadcast and cable stations must be carried by all providers. The bulk of the local stations are owned by the network so they don't have to deal with competing rights of various owners. They also program their stations 24/7 and don't have to deal with syndication rights.

Several local stations shutdown entirely a few years ago while others turned into straight up simulcasts of the station in a bigger city. The regional stations in the martimes and northern Ontario dropped local newscasts and only do a regional newscast that cover a wide area. Think of it like if the region from Baltimore to Maine were served by one newscast that rarely covered anything but NYC, Philly and Boston.

CBC/Radio-Canada shutdown their entire transmitter network and only converted the primary signals for the major cities to digital, so there's ZERO OTA coverage in smaller cities and rural areas.

Only certain US affiliates are allowed to be carried in Canada. On cable you only get one market for the east coast and another for the west coast. For US networks there's a thing called simsub where the US network is replaced by the local Canadian channel's feed when shows air at the same time. (i.e. CTV airs Ellen at 4pm and CTV Two airs Ellen at 10am to cover the common times that the US affiliates available in Canada air them) So no matter what, you're still seeing the ads and promos for the Canadian channel.


----------



## garn9173 (Apr 4, 2005)

I live in a $inclair market, no big loss for me. If there's anything I need to watch on the local Fox affiliate, I have a little HDTV hooked up to rabbit ears on my computer desk for the METV's of the world.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

For anyone who didn't read the full complaint along with the e-mail exchange in the Exhibits:

Dish contacted Sinclair on June 9th to start the renewal, exactly one month later, Sinclair responded on July 9th. Which gave them a little over a month for actual neogitations
After Dish's lawyer pointed out multiple times the rule that states Sinclair cannot negotiate on behalf of the JSA stations, Sinclair set up someone else to represent them. They came to an extension for those stations until August 31, so more channels could go dark if they don't come to a deal by then.
Dish asked the person representing those LMA/JSA stations a number of questions to verify that they are not violating the rules by coordinating with Sinclair in negotiations, they have yet to respond to it
Yesterday the original extension expired, Sinclair refused to grant another one unless Dish agreed to all of the terms including the LMA/JSA stations and the non-owned cable channel.

Also the non-sinclair owned cable channel they're talking about was redacted, so Sinclair wants to negotiate for a channel they don't own yet, but won't let Dish say what it is. Which likely means they're in early stages of buying a channel and have yet to publically announce their intentions to buy it, but are negotiating for it anyway.


----------



## allargon (May 3, 2007)

We lost a CBS and Telemundo station here in Austin, TX. However, I have rabbit ears going into my Hopper OTA module, so I'm semi-okay. It does suck setting timers blindly. Ironically, for some shows I can still just set a DVR timer--nothing manual needed.

I will give them one more day before I call Dish to demand something.


----------



## martzta (Aug 29, 2002)

This would not be that big of a deal for me but lost ABC and not in range for OTA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

KyL416 said:


> Also the non-sinclair owned cable channel they're talking about was redacted, so Sinclair wants to negotiate for a channel they don't own yet, but won't let Dish say what it is.


I thought the redactions in the documents published by DISH were done by DISH to protect information that would be considered confidential. They left in the parts of the documents that demonstrate their claim that Sinclair was illegally coordinating with stations in markets that Sinclair serves. Rates and other details that would not be confidential between the two parties would not be redacted in their original emails and correspondence.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Just a guess... but I'd say the owners of PBS stations are not looking to make a huge profit, so the negotiations would likely go much easier. I'm not saying making a profit is bad, but if you have less motive to make profit, you're probably easier to negotiate with from Dish's perspective.


NO -
PBS stations are REQUIRED to be Must Carry - no retrans consent


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Large Uplink Activity ... It looks like the stations are back.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*DISH and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Finalizing Long-Term Deal; Stations to Be Restored*

Parties agree to short-term contract extension as long-term agreement is finalized
Sinclair restoration on DISH underway
DISH requests stay on Verified Amended Retransmission Complaint from FCC

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DISH Network L.L.C. and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. have reached an agreement in principle that will form the basis of a long-term retransmission consent agreement for carriage of Sinclair's local channels in 79 markets nationwide. Restoration of Sinclair signals to DISH's system is underway.

"We are grateful for the FCC's work on behalf of consumers to actively broker a productive path forward," said Jeff Blum, DISH senior vice president and deputy general counsel.

Additionally, DISH is asking the Federal Communications Commission to stay action on DISH's Verified Amended and Restated Retransmission Complaint and Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief as the long-term agreement is being finalized.

Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

About DISH

DISH Network Corp. (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiaries, provides approximately 13.932 million pay-TV subscribers, as of June 30, 2015, with the highest-quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value. Subscribers enjoy a 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 is a Fortune 250 company. Visit www.dish.com.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

""We are grateful for the FCC's work on behalf of consumers to actively broker a productive path forward," said Jeff Blum, DISH senior vice president and deputy general counsel."

Wonder how hard the FCC slapped Sinclair?

"Knock it off or we'll pull all of your broadcast licenses" ??


----------



## LJR (Nov 2, 2005)

Thank you FCC!! 
http://deadline.com/2015/08/dish-network-sinclair-blackout-new-deal-retransmission-fcc-1201506836/


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This all happened/resolved while I was out... so you're welcome everyone!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

LJR said:


> Thank you FCC!!
> http://deadline.com/2015/08/dish-network-sinclair-blackout-new-deal-retransmission-fcc-1201506836/


"On behalf of more than 5 million consumers nationwide, I am pleased DISH and Sinclair have agreed to end one of the largest blackouts in history and extend their negotiations," said FCC Chair Wheeler today. The talks are set to go another two weeks on what is currently an evolving new contract. "The FCC will remain vigilant while the negotiations continue," added Wheeler.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> There have been 145 blackouts to date in 2015 as opposed to 107 last year and 12 in 2010, according to the American Television Alliance.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/08/26/sinclair-stations-go-dark-dish-customers-retransmission-contract-talks-fail/32414095/


----------



## festivus (Nov 10, 2008)

Sinclair is scum. Wait, scum rises to the top...

Glad this has been resolved, for now. Can't wait for the next money grab, the next outage, and the next fee increase.


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

Ho hum. I watched the local news last night OTA because of the outage. My wife mentioned she did not get Kelly and Michael yesterday because of the outage (timer didn't fire). She said they're doing repeats anyway and I told her the outage would probably not go on until the new CBS season starts in a few weeks. Now I see they're back on. Barely had time to miss them really.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

The old adage is true, you don't know what you got till it's gone. And in my case, it was gone and had come back before I even noticed. WJLA apparently went dark for me here in DC, but I didn't even notice it till after it was restored yesterday and the guide data was a lil messed up. Course it wasn't really gone for me as I get ABC-7 in OTA, as well as ABC-2 in Baltimore. I also noticed the guide data was missing for WNUV & WBFF Fox-45 which I only receive OTA anyway, so I guess those didn't really affect me too much.

But it is nice this outage was dealt with and resolved quickly, as I, as a customer (am I'm sure I'm not alone on this), never really noticed the outage to begin with.

However, as a vip922k user, I'm not able to create "manual timers" so the lack of guide data, has a more profound affect for me.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I also did not lose ABC as I have it OTA. The Dish guide was gone for the 25 hours, but I have one OTA anyway that goes out 24 hours, so no biggie. Often there are ways around the inconvenience. But the sub's that lives out miles from no where without a translator are the ones that suffer. I am glad this was resolved quickly.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

Hmmm, Why is Dish the only one who keeps losing channels?

I feel sorry for Dish customer with there maverick owner playing hardball all the time and the customers suffer.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Blitz68 said:


> Hmmm, Why is Dish the only one who keeps losing channels?


They're not. DirecTV has a potential upcoming dispute with Media General:
http://directvpromise.com/2015/09/22/media-general-station-updates/

They also lost Bonneville for a few weeks about a month ago.

CBS and Time Warner Cable had a big dispute last year.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

As stated everyone has disputes at times. There are two choices. the carrier pays what the programmer demands and the bill to the consumer goes up to cover it, or the carrier fights the increase. With that at times the subscriber does lose the channel(s). With Sinclair we were fortunate as the courts stepped in to stop the loss. I wish that would happen every time.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I saw a scroll across my local NBC affiliate the other night about DirecTV... must have been Media General related.

Also... this particular dispute resolved a month ago, so... not sure why it was dredged up again, especially since Sinclair was the aggressor here, trying to force Dish to negotiate for channels Sinclair didn't even own! The FCC stepped in, at Dish's request, to help get this settled.

Sinclair would have pulled the same crap with DirecTV or cable too, without the FCC involvement.


----------

