# Local channels running ads on dropping out of Dish offerings



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

In Iowa, and very recently at least two of our local affiliates (CBS and Fox, Sioux City) are running ads saying that Dish either has to drop their demands or they will be off of Dish. 

I can't imagine how Dish would allow this, as most people I know will switch to DirectTV rather than have satellite without networks.

How has this worked in other localities? Has Dish ever lost local network coverage over such a dispute?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

What "demands" are Dish making? Ive heard of the affiliates making demands for ridiculous amounts of money, but never heard of a cable/dish provider demanding something from the affiliates.

Edit: I found it. Its the STATION that is demanding more money from Dish subscribers. Same old story, different market. Usually always involving FOX.

http://www.kpth.com/story/16110494/special-notice-for-dish-network-subscribers


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

fudpucker said:


> I can't imagine how Dish would allow this, as most people I know will switch to DirectTV rather than have satellite without networks.


I've never had local on satellite and never will. That's why they make antennas.



> How has this worked in other localities? Has Dish ever lost local network coverage over such a dispute?


Frequently. Read back through some previous threads. Some are lost for a few days. Some for weeks. Some longer. If and when they come back, the public never knows who gave in.

Most often, it is the local stations making unreasonable demands, so you should direct your ire at them, not either Dish or Direct.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> I've never had local on satellite and never will. That's why they make antennas.
> 
> Frequently. Read back through some previous threads. Some are lost for a few days. Some for weeks. Some longer. If and when they come back, the public never knows who gave in.
> 
> Most often, it is the local stations making unreasonable demands, so you should direct your ire at them, not either Dish or Direct.


Well, we can't pick up the locals with an antenna here, so that's not an option.

Thanks for the links, we'll let the locals know that we will hold them accountable if they drop out of Dish.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Yea,they make it sound like "Pennies a day"...poor us, we only want 2 cents...

What they arent telling you, is that is 2 cents per day in addition to what they already get. 2 cents per day is 62 cents per month more that they are getting now. Then they go on to complain about what you are already paying DISH monthly for service. It you divide those 200 channels by your bill, you will see the average per channel. 

In my case, my average per channel (I get ~250 of em) is .0116 cents per day.

So that affiliate is wanting an INCREASE of over TWICE what I already pay per channel on top of what they get now. And how much actual network programming does that station provide? 4 maybe 5 hours a day?

Its a total scam we have to pay ANYTHING for advertising supported channels, let alone them claiming they need MORE.

As for the antenna, unless you are behind a mountain, or live over 65 miles from the station, you should be able to get it with a $50 antenna on your roof.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Davenlr said:


> Yea,they make it sound like "Pennies a day"...poor us, we only want 2 cents...
> 
> What they arent telling you, is that is 2 cents per day in addition to what they already get. 2 cents per day is 62 cents per month more that they are getting now. Then they go on to complain about what you are already paying DISH monthly for service. It you divide those 200 channels by your bill, you will see the average per channel.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Just for general interest, I wrote the manager of the local channels (they own the CBS and Fox affiliate, and are threatening to take them both off the air.) I told him that if they dropped out of Dish because they couldn't get more money, we would simply watch the CBS and Fox shows via sources that did not involve his network- that I would not switch from my Dish to DTV or cable. His response:

"I appreciate you writing Jeff. We have attempted in good faith to negotiate an agreement with DISH but have met with some bad faith on their side. We have been attempting to arrive at a solution for some time. Would it surprise you to know that DISH pays more for you to receive the Food Network and the History channel than they do for your local stations? I was surprised by that information. It is the unfortunate state of the TV industry today that we have to receive these retransmission fees to literally survive. Our own networks (CBS and FOX, as well as NBC and ABC for the other local stations) now charge us fees to carry their programming. At the end of the day I am not suggesting that anyone drop a service they enjoy like DISH or DirectTv. I am simply asking viewers to let those services know that as a local viewer they value their local TV stations. I really have no choice with a deadline looming other than to ask my friends, neighbors and fellow Siouxlanders for their help. After all, if DISH maintains their unfair position, some folks that really do enjoy our news, NFL football, CBS prime time, Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, American Idol, Terra Nova, Big Bang Theory, 30 Rock, etc. and all of the value we bring to them would lose out on that. I need their help in letting DISH know there is value to them in getting KMEG-14 and FOX 44. Frankly, the best and really only avenue I have to do that is with our own air.

We are continually negotiating these agreements with big cable companies and satellite providers all the time. If we were unreasonable, wouldn't it make sense that you would probably see these pleas on our air all the time? The reason you don't is because we are being reasonable in what we ask from everyone we negotiate with. It should be fairly telling that you only see us asking for help with the DISH negotiation. If you do value us and want to see DISH continue to carry us I would only ask you to call them and let them know that. I have not asked anyone to threaten DISH with cancellation and would not ask anyone to do that. "

Dave Shull VP of programming @ 303-723-1515.

Or Call DISH NETWORK at 1-800-333-3474

TELL THEM TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WATCHING KMEG-14/CBS KPTH/FOX 44 on DISH. 

Sincerely-

Steve"

Frankly, in spite of what I told him, this does suck. For various reasons, putting an antenna on the roof and running the line to the 3 locations where we have our Dish receivers is not a viable option (and for whatever reason, the OTA reception is not reliable here) plus, my receivers do not have OTA capability so we would lose our DVR capability. 

It sounds like both sides have painted themselves into a corner in the negotiations. Going without CBS and Fox is not an option. I'm not sure what we'll do if they do indeed pull their programming.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

Its no wonder some people find ways around certain 'locals'. Sooner or later these greedy local stations are going to find that the network doesn't need them anymore. Just ask Nexstar, they've lost FOX in 4 places and probably a few more.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

From a right or wrong point of view, I've gotten emails from both places, making their case, and I don't know who's right and who's wrong. But frankly, for us and many, it doesn't matter. If we had to pay an extra dollar a month, OK, we already have a bill of over $100 per month anyway. But going without the local CBS and Fox is not an option and an antenna is not an option.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

fudpucker said:


> and I don't know who's right and who's wrong.


The locals are wrong. Period. Hands down.

They should not be able to charge carriers to carry their signals. If anything they should have to pay the carriers who get their signals to thousands of additional viewers which in turn allows them to increase their ad rates.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

You think you KNOW of a station that is INCREASING their ad rates?:lol:

Most are just trying to hang on to what they've got. And, the satellite and cable companies, the Spectrum Grabbers, and the FCC aren't helping much.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> The locals are wrong. Period. Hands down.
> 
> They should not be able to charge carriers to carry their signals. If anything they should have to pay the carriers who get their signals to thousands of additional viewers which in turn allows them to increase their ad rates.


Actually, there was an article a few months ago in the business pages of a state newspaper on the local TV and radio stations and their financial status. They are indeed under financial strain, ad rates are under pressure as more and more local advertisers are turning to the internet and also feeling that the popular use of DVRs is making local TV ads not as effective as in the past, and the fees the local affiliates have to pay the networks has gone up. In addition, more and more people, especially younger (they quoted stats for the 18-34 age range) are watching TV on their computers these days.

So I'm not as convinced it is as black and white as you may think.


----------



## Orion9 (Jan 31, 2011)

We lost a local for a bit. I think it was only two or three months and then it was back. Not a big deal really. Our Dish bill is already $50 and I am in favor of keeping that from going higher so we just watched some of the other dozens of channels we had.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

The local affiliate system is outdated, and demanding more and more money to attempt to keep them viable is going to eventually fail.

The ONLY purpose of the local affiliates in this period of time, is to provide a few 30 minutes newscasts, and provide as needed weather information. Everything else could easily be done with a single nationwide channel.

So. basically, the station is correct. It is strapped for cash. That is because it is a totally outdated format hanging on for dear life. I see the day when the "Big 4" will go to a single distribution channel like all the other cable channels, and all the "locals" will combine into one 24 hour news/weather/local info channel using one transmitter, and the government will sell the rest of the spectrum off to the cell and broadband companies who provide the bandwidth for the content in the way people are migrating to...the internet.

Continuing to pour money into an outdated business model isnt going to do anything but make your wallet emptier.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

The way my family watches TV, going 2 or 3 months without 2 of the 4 major networks would be a big deal. And yeah, the local affiliate system may be going the way of the brick and mortar bookstores, but today it is the option we have and frankly we're more interested in watching TV than worrying about the future delivery models, i.e. when there are other options we'll consider them the same way we did 16 years ago when we got rid of cable and got DirectTV. Although I would not be happy if the locals went away, as we enjoy the local news and sports coverage and other types of other local coverage.


----------



## Orion9 (Jan 31, 2011)

If it happens, I think you'll find it's not that big of a deal. I say IF because your local affiliates are trying to scare up some support for their side because they probably don't want to test how easily viewers can wean themselves off their programming any more than you do.


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

fudpucker said:


> Would it surprise you to know that DISH pays more for you to receive the Food Network and the History channel than they do for your local stations?


Well, since I cannot put an antenna to receive either the Food Network or the History Channel, this does not surprise me at all. I have one option to receive these and other similiar networks...a pay tv provider.



> It is the unfortunate state of the TV industry today that we have to receive these retransmission fees to literally survive.


So if no one in the area has a pay tv provider and they were only getting your signal via OTA, then you would not survive? If that's the case then you have to change your business model to survive. It would seem to me that some money (from pay tv providers like Dish) is better than no money. And it also seems that you are making the pay tv subscribers responsible for supporting and maintaining your business model.

Again this is nonsense. Dish has probably paid to put the system in place to retransmit the local signal - thus costing them money. The station is probably counting the Dish subs when calculating market penetration and ad rates, thus boosting station income. And still, they want more money from the pay tv service that already is helping them survive. Utter nonsense.

I've got an idea, how about a telethon, like PBS, but only your OTA viewers can contribute. How would you think that would work out?


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

cariera said:


> Well, since I cannot put an antenna to receive either the Food Network or the History Channel, this does not surprise me at all. I have one option to receive these and other similiar networks...a pay tv provider.
> 
> So if no one in the area has a pay tv provider and they were only getting your signal via OTA, then you would not survive? If that's the case then you have to change your business model to survive. It would seem to me that some money (from pay tv providers like Dish) is better than no money. And it also seems that you are making the pay tv subscribers responsible for supporting and maintaining your business model.
> 
> ...


I assume you are replying to the station manager I quoted and not to me, i.e you're not looking for me to answer your questions.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

fudpucker said:


> Snipped
> Would it surprise you to know that DISH pays more for you to receive the Food Network and the History channel than they do for your local stations? I was surprised by that information. It is the unfortunate state of the TV industry today that we have to receive these retransmission fees to literally survive. Our own networks (CBS and FOX, as well as NBC and ABC for the other local stations) now charge us fees to carry their programming.
> 
> We are continually negotiating these agreements with big cable companies and satellite providers all the time. If we were unreasonable, wouldn't it make sense that you would probably see these pleas on our air all the time?
> ...


well I see what could be some half truths there. With regards to the Food & History fees is he using per subscriber or total dollars. Keep in mind that those channels have many more subs than two locals do.

Truth in that FOX network is being very greedy to their own affiliates.

These type of fees that are being asked for could be new to these stations and most likely there will be more fee disputes going forward. With both satellite carriers and cable companies.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

It is the American public that has systematically allowed themselves to be painted into this corner, despite the ongoing best efforts of Dish Network and Charlie Ergen to prevent the march of retransmission fees.

Let's get a couple of FACTS straight in this discussion. Here's the last full listing publicly available for cable channels average monthly per subscriber retrans charges to cable and satellite companies:








Admittedly, this list is two years old, but the History Channel was getting 22¢ a month and the Food Network was getting 8¢ a month. These averages likely have increase somewhere around 10%.

News Corp dba Fox Network this past year simply said to their local affiliates that for each and every cable and satellite subscriber to the local affiliate, Fox would be paid $1 per month. The affiliate was free to add to that for its own coffers, of course.

Those affiliates that indignantly refused to agree lost or will soon lose their franchise. Fox even said it would directly feed the signal to the local cable companies where the affiliate was dropped and no other local station could be found to be an affiliate.

CBS and the other networks have so far not charged any number like $1 even though CBS's average ratings are higher than Fox ratings in the two hours Fox provides programming while CBS provides three hours a night to their affiliates.

But, many viewers are simply stupid. It would never occur to them while they are screaming at Dish or Direct or the local cable company over the loss of their favorite show that five years ago no locals charged and because of pressure from customers Dish or Direct or the local cable company will have to charge them around $8 a month above the cost of having uplinks for each of those channels in every podunk town to retransmit locals.

The fact that in some towns multiple stations have a single owner is the result of Congress allowing weaker restrictions on ownership, most notably at the behest of none other than News Corp.

If there is an "evil force" behind this dastardly theft of your important TV show, it is Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp empire which will lie, cheat, hack into private email accounts, and otherwise manipulate facts to make that extra buck.

It will suck to lose a local channel showing your favorite show. But there are alternatives. You can stream many of them for free. You can pay for many of them via Hulu, Netflix and Amazon. You can temporarily get the minimum package from your cable company. And for many lucky folks, an antenna will work because these channels are licensed by your Government to be on the public's airwaves available to anyone within signal range.

Or you can pressure your signal provider to kick your monthly cost up for local affiliates of ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, The CW, My Network, Telemundo, and whatever else. It's only money out every month and you'll only have to pay for all or none, though five years ago you paid no retransmission fees for locals.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Ya know, I get what you're saying. I can understand local affiliates getting squeezed between the networks charging them feed fees and advertiser rates dropping etc. and I can understand companies like Dish and DirectTV and the cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner getting hit with transmission fees.

But I think calling the average viewer "stupid" is out of line. Ignorant, I could agree with. The average viewer has a job, a family, bills to pay, the daily drama's that come from their job and family and whatever else, many worrying about the security of their jobs or finding a new one or wondering how they will retire with their 401K crashed, etc. and they just want to watch TV. They don't spend time on forums like this, they don't spend any time investigating the politics between their provider and networks and affiliates, and they have no desire to do so. They just pay their cable or satellite company their monthly bills and expect to watch TV. It would be hard to convince the average viewer who is paying, say, Dish around $100 a month that Dish is being crunched financially. And, for whatever complaining they may do, if their provider raises their bill $5 a month or whatever, they just pay it and don't worry a lot about the details behind it.

I have dug more into the details than I frankly wanted to, and at the end of the day, I also just want to be able to turn on the TV at the end of the day with the family, watch the shows we want to watch together, many of them recorded so we can watch what we want when we want. I don't give a damn if I have to pay Dish an extra dollar a month to watch the networks. But workarounds are not acceptable to us if we lose Fox and CBS. A majority of our TV viewing is the networks, and losing 50% of them pretty much screws what we do in terms of our viewing habits. None of the workaround let us use our DVRs. 

So yeah, it may be the affilliates who are more in the wrong, and Dish may be fighting the good fight, but if Dish isn't able to provide my networks, it is not able to provide the service we want and need for our TV viewing. I switched to Dish from DirectTV when we moved here, after being with DirectTV for about 18 years, and happy with them, solely because DirectTV did not carry the local networks and Dish did. So, in the end, we'll drop Dish if they can't provide what we want, the same way I'd switch phone or internet providers if they, for any reason, suddenly could not provide the service I am paying for. With no malice towards Dish at all, and I hope they resolve things before the 11/30 deadline.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

fudpucker said:


> So yeah, it may be the affilliates who are more in the wrong, and Dish may be fighting the good fight, but if Dish isn't able to provide my networks, it is not able to provide the service we want and need for our TV viewing. I switched to Dish from DirectTV when we moved here, after being with DirectTV for about 18 years, and happy with them, solely because DirectTV did not carry the local networks and Dish did. So, in the end, we'll drop Dish if they can't provide what we want, the same way I'd switch phone or internet providers if they, for any reason, suddenly could not provide the service I am paying for. With no malice towards Dish at all, and I hope they resolve things before the 11/30 deadline.


I'm not going to make anyone read my rant below, but here is the point I keep trying to make here about the retransmission fees issue.

Assuming you live in the NW part of Iowa in the new 2012 Congressional District 4, take 10 minutes to send an email to Representative Steve King, point out how your "family" is stressed by Congressional policy on television as eloquently as you have here. It's an election year. He's a family values guy. This is something that actually is a matter for Congress and it actually affects families in his district.

You could also send something similar to your U.S. Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, though neither term is up next year.

Now a rant about my use of "stupid" which everyone can ignore.

:rant:


> But I think calling the average viewer "stupid" is out of line. Ignorant, I could agree with. The average viewer has a job, a family, bills to pay, the daily drama's that come from their job and family and whatever else, many worrying about the security of their jobs or finding a new one or wondering how they will retire with their 401K crashed, etc. and they just want to watch TV. They don't spend time on forums like this, they don't spend any time investigating the politics between their provider and networks and affiliates, and they have no desire to do so....


Well, I'll stand by my use of the word "stupid." I equate "stupid" with choices people make, acting without information. "Ignorance" is simply being without information.

I understand what you're saying. But I get irked when people who have choices - and we have a lot of choices because of the nation we live in - make a choice every two years to vote (or not to vote) in ignorance.

Ultimately in the past 40 years Congress has "deregulated" these "private" businesses that make up broadcast TV.

Except that these "private" businesses were built on exclusive licenses granted by the government to these businesses, businesses that simply could not exist without them.

And "deregulation' didn't mean eliminating the license system and opening the frequencies up to competition. "Deregulation" meant eliminating most of the obligations of these stations and their parent networks to the public. "Deregulation" meant eliminating the limits on who can own the licenses and how many, whether they could own not only the local TV station but also the local newspapers allowing single source news in many communities, etc.

If one is on this Forum or a similar one, votes every Congressional primary and general election, and votes without knowing what the candidates stands are on the TV and broadband issues, then the vote is cast in ignorance which is a "stupid act" by my definition. I don't expect people to vote on one issue, but a smart vote surely reflects policy issues that impact.

Judging by the reactions when DirecTV was facing the loss of Fox sports channels, every member of Congress should be near socialists on the TV issue. But they aren't. So the American public - the public that goes berserk when channels may disappear - acts in a stupid manner very two years or they just like going berserk.

The issue isn't Rupert Murdoch or NBCU who I pick on. It isn't the owner of the channels. It isn't even the FCC. It is elected members of Congress who spend time "reaffirming" the established legal status of "In God We Trust" while when it matters vote the interests of Comcast/NBCU and Fox. If voters vote based on federal policy on "gays" while getting extremely upset that their access to their favorite TV show or sporting event may away, they are acting stupidly.

We can't live in a democratic Republic, not pay attention to facts and details, and not expect that lack of attention to impact on us.



> ...I don't give a damn if I have to pay Dish an extra dollar a month to watch the networks. But workarounds are not acceptable to us if we lose Fox and CBS. A majority of our TV viewing is the networks, and losing 50% of them pretty much screws what we do in terms of our viewing habits. None of the workaround let us use our DVRs.


 That would be my choice also, to pay one extra dollar.

But Fox wants a dollar. CBS is going to say, hey if they get a dollar, we want one too. And the two affiliate channels are going to say, hey, we provide the signal so we also each want a dollar. That's $4 and there are several other networks.

In my area CBS owns the affiliate and The CW affiliate. You may think that's not relevant to you. But up to this point, Dish and DirecTV divide the cost of all locals everywhere among the entire customer base. So if the CBS affiliate gets a buck for itself and a buck for CBS, in my area CBS will want $4, one each for the CBS local and network and one each for The CW local and network. As the average DMA local costs rise, _all our costs will rise_.

The public issues here are

just how expensive is it going to get,
who and how many of our fellow citizens will no longer be able to afford access, and
how much of our money are we going to be willing to let be transferred to GE (49% owner of NBCU)
all because of licenses to use "the public's airwaves" issued pursuant to federal statute.
:rant:


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Just so you know in many ways we may be violently agreeing, I have sent emails to my Reps and Senators.  

The problems, of course, are who puts the most money in the pockets of the people in Congress. That's who they support. I still hold that the public is ignorant, rather than stupid, because to most the issue of TV today falls way down the list on their worries. So they have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. But if all we disagree on is semantics, we're doing pretty good.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

fudpucker said:


> Just so you know in many ways we may be violently agreeing....


!rolling
Great description!



> I have sent emails to my Reps and Senators.
> 
> The problems, of course, are who puts the most money in the pockets of the people in Congress. That's who they support. I still hold that the public is ignorant, rather than stupid, because to most the issue of TV today falls way down the list on their worries. So they have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. But if all we disagree on is semantics, we're doing pretty good.


I don't disagree that the issue of TV is far down the list for most families today including my own kids (all over 50) and their families.

I just wish people would understand what's happening when the cable company in New York City doesn't carry the Superbowl and that they would complain to the right people - their Representatives and Senators in Congress, not the channel or the satellite/cable company.

Obviously the main difference between us is situational in that my wife and I can stream our shows if we lose a channel since we are retired and have all the time in the world ... well, that's tempting fate ... let's just say we normally have plenty of time to go through the hassle of streaming.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

fudpucker said:


> (and for whatever reason, the OTA reception is not reliable here)


I assume you're in that station's DMA and the station was granted license to serve that DMA. They probably also vigorously defend their exclusivity despite their lack of investment in broadcast equipment adequate to reach viewers they won't release to anyone else. Then rather than paying to pay-TV providers to do that for them, they expect the cable/sat operators to pay them for the privilege of increasing their viewership.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

The White House, Congress and the FCC are currently working very hard to eliminate the "Licensed in the Public Interest" broadcasters, and leave you with only three options:

1) Pay for Cable TV

2) Pay for Satellite TV

3) Pay the Cable TV company, the Satellite company, or the Phone company, for your Internet service, and watch TV on that.

(Option 4 is "Do Without TV").

:eek2:


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

> my receivers do not have OTA capability so we would lose our DVR capability.


Time for an upgrade! If your DVR does not have an OTA tuner it's one of the older SD models. I went "HD" years ago just to get the OTA feature - and I still have only SD CRT TV's to watch. The HD DVR's picture blows away the SD channel's pictures even on my lowly 27" CRT's.

BTW The OTA tuner on my 622 is excellent - I get an out-of-market station 24/7 from 57 miles away with an indoor antenna! That is a big improvement over my original 921's OTA tuner which had a hard time with weaker signals. But I hung in there all these years and now enjoy both satellite and OTA TV integrated into one DVR. I even get the subchannel networks integrated in the guide (except for Antenna TV and Living Well but that is a different thread's issue).


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Hmmm. I have a 722 and a couple of 612s, all HD with HD DVRs. But I thought, for example, only the 722k had the OTA capability, and the 722 does not?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

The 622/722 has a single OTA tuner. The 722K / 222K / 922 do not come with a builtin OTA tuner, but you can get a module that has 2 OTA tuners that integrates seamlessly.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

So, the guy who owned the affiliates (he was "bargaining" for 4 cities around here) was running ads up to the very last minute (literally) saying "If you don't call Dish and tell them to give me more money Dish will pull your channels off the air at midnight tonight" (paraphrasing, but not by much.)

As I dug deeper into both sides, it was clear that Dish was indeed on the "righter" side here. The affiliate owner was using language like "Dish will pull your channels" - no, Dish wasn't the one that would be pulling the channels. Dish actually agreed to his demands on networks (which were a bit over the top to begin with) and then he raised his demands in an all or nothing posture. 

So after digging in and determining exactly what was going on, I wrote the CEO of the affiliates an email. I also copied the email addresses of a number of their key advertisers in the area. I basically told him that those of us who were Dish subscribers did not like being held hostage in his game to force Dish to get him more money, that it showed a total lack of respect for us as viewers, that we (I managed to get a good number of Dish subscribers in my area on board and included their names in the email, around 120) felt that we were being used, that the information he was splashing on screen was incomplete at best and dishonest at worst, and that his actions had caused us to switch our viewing of as much as possible to the other networks, and in particular we would no longer be watching any of his newcasts. We stated that we assumed he would now be asking less money from his advertisers (again, copied on the email) with the new windfall he would be receiving in Dish fees. We also told him this has incentivized us, his viewers, to find other ways to view CBS and Fox programs in this area, such as online, and we would be reducing our viewership as much as possible, as well as sharing our outrage over being held hostage in his money grab to as many people, Dish viewers and people who received his channels otherwise. Oh - also copied the people at Dish on the email, the people whose email and phone numbers he was plastering on TV non-stop. I found out for that one of the contacts at Dish, he had not only shared her work phone number but also her personal cell phone.

EDIT: Oh yeah. Even though he was plastering banners on the CBS and Fox stations saying "Unfortunately due to Dish's unwillingness to be fair with us, you will no longer be able to view this channel as of midnight tonight" followed by the phone #s and emails of a couple of Dish people, the next day the channels were still up and contract signed. The Dish person that I spoke with apologized for viewers being dragged into the middle of all of this and said he was never going to actually pull the channels, which turns out to be true.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

We see this all the time - local network affiliate blowing hard about how unfair Dish / DirectTv / cable company is. In some cases, it has actually come down to the station being off the pay-tv provider for a couple days (in some cases weeks). 

The best thing you can do is either nothing or do like you did. It will blow over eventually. Just don't panic about it... There's plenty of other crap to watch (and in the case of a local affiliate - you can often get them with an antenna).


----------

