# Raycom stations may drop from Dish at midnight (and now back on Dish again)



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

I hadn't seen this mentioned here except for the KAIT thread. I ran into it on the site for KLTV (Tyler TX) and also saw it at WBRC (Montgomery AL). They all say that they may go dark on Dish when the deadline hits at midnight tonight, July 31. I'm guessing this is for all Raycom stations; the proof is left as an exercise for the reader. :grin:

Once again: Yadda yadda free over-the-air yadda profiting from someone else's content yadda. With a fresh helping of yadda Aereo yadda Congress yadda Hopper. Does that cover everything?

Personally, when Dish had a dispute with one of my local stations, I broke down and installed a serious rooftop antenna. That was one of the best purchases I've made. Here's hoping more viewers in the affected areas discover all the interesting sub-channels they'll get over-the-air.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Like I said on that thread (http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/206171-dish-please-drop-kait-ch-8-in-jonesboro/#entry3163987) Drop 'em.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

FTA Michael said:


> I hadn't seen this mentioned here except for the KAIT thread. I ran into it on the site for KLTV (Tyler TX) and also saw it at WBRC (Montgomery AL). They all say that they may go dark on Dish when the deadline hits at midnight tonight, July 31. I'm guessing this is for all Raycom stations; the proof is left as an exercise for the reader. :grin:
> 
> Once again: Yadda yadda free over-the-air yadda profiting from someone else's content yadda. With a fresh helping of yadda Aereo yadda Congress yadda Hopper. Does that cover everything?
> 
> Personally, when Dish had a dispute with one of my local stations, I broke down and installed a serious rooftop antenna. That was one of the best purchases I've made. Here's hoping more viewers in the affected areas discover all the interesting sub-channels they'll get over-the-air.


Yep roof top antenna, one of the best investments I ever made. But honestly I've just come to the point where anytime we lose a channel for any reason, I just look at it along the lines of ya know I have dozens of other choices and usually more than I can watch at any given time on my DVR. Sure it sucks when it's a channel that I like but hey sometimes shows I like get canceled too and that sucks but somehow there's always something else to watch. I just figure it's in a channel's best interest to make sure they keep themselves in front of my eyeballs, because you know what, there's not a single one of them that's irrereplaceable and if I don't have one there's plenty of others to take it's place.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

+1

I've got so much recorded with more coming now that when CBS and CW go dark from the Raycom/Dish drama that I won't even miss them! Heck, until today I didn't even know they were owned by Raycom!


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Biggest issue is the convenience of a DVR, but with Windows Media Center and other options, that's an easy workaround.

I don't have locals anyways, so I really don't care.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> Biggest issue is the convenience of a DVR, but with Windows Media Center and other options, that's an easy workaround.
> 
> I don't have locals anyways, so I really don't care.


Don't Dish have certain DVR's or an add on for OTA?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Dish does have OTA available either built-in or as an add-on depending on DVR.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

Thanks for the heads-up!

I've got 2 Raycom stations in my market (CBS & MyNet). No problemm getting them OTA, I live in the antenna farm. The only bad thing is losing the EPG. I wonder if the subchannels EPG (which actually have correct data for the Raycom station's MeTV (on 19) and Bounce (on 43).

I went to their website and found this:
http://www.19actionnews.com/category/265597/attention-dish-subscribers


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

No one has been able to answer why Dish drops the guide information OTA when they drop a station. They license the guide data from Tribune and not the station.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Dish Network, Raycom squabble blacks out local channels in 36 markets

Apparently it's the season for issues between networks and pay-TV distributors, as Dish Network customers in 36 networks are missing some of their local channels as of late last night. Dish and Raycom Media has failed to reach an agreement, so stations the network owns including ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, CW and MyNetworkTV stations in 36 markets stretching from Cincinnati to Honolulu have gone dark.

Here is the full list of which ones, and as usual both sides are claiming the other is to blame for not wanting to reach a fair agreement. Your guess is as good as ours as to when the tiff will be resolved, however so far, unlike CBS vs. Time Warner Cable neither side is suggesting Aereo as a replacement.

The action affects viewers of various ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC-affiliated stations in the following markets: Cleveland, Ohio (CBS); Panama City, Fla. (Fox); Montgomery, Ala. (NBC); Knoxville, Tenn. (Fox); Savannah, Ga. (CBS); Toledo, Ohio (CBS, Fox); Columbus, Ga. (ABC); Richmond-Petersburg, Va. (NBC); Cincinnati, Ohio (Fox); Jonesboro, Ark. (ABC); Tyler-Longview, Texas (ABC); Biloxi-Gulfport, Miss. (ABC); Paducah, Ky. (CBS); Honolulu, Hawaii (CBS and NBC); Tucson, Ariz. (CBS); Shreveport, La. (CBS); Baton Rouge, La. (CBS); Charlotte, N.C. (CBS); Charleston, S.C. (CBS); Ottumwa-Kirksville, Mo. (Fox); Birmingham, Ala. (Fox); Dothan, Ala. (Fox); West Palm Beach, Fla. (Fox); Augusta, Ga. (Fox); Lubbock, Texas (NBC); Lake Charles, La. (NBC); Huntsville-Decatur, Ala. (NBC); Albany, Ga. (NBC); Louisville, Ky. (NBC); Hattiesburg-Laurel, Miss. (NBC); Wilmington, N.C. (NBC and Fox); Evansville, Ind. (NBC); Columbia, S.C. (NBC); Jackson, Miss. (NBC); Florence-Myrtle Beach, Fla. (NBC); and Memphis, Tenn. (NBC).

Also affected are various CW and MyNetworkTV channels in five markets: Baton Rouge, La.; Cleveland, Ohio; Honolulu, Hawaii; Paducah, Ky.; and Richmond-Petersburg, Va.

Full Story Here


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Wow, that "Commentary" by the VP was hilarious mudslinging.


----------



## Conway (Oct 29, 2002)

Yes the local channels OTA.. shows same guide and locals on dish.. but this morning since WBTV out of charlotte has gone dark the channel OTA has the same see info guide so we loose the guide data. I can get WIS tv10 out of Columbia to as well and it has lost the guide data to


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I loathe congressional involvement in most things, but is it time that Congress steps in to empower the FCC to stop this fee fight crap? Should *SOME*thing legislatively be done, or is it really best to maintain the current free market environment here? Just wondering.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> I loathe congressional involvement in most things, but is it time that Congress steps in to empower the FCC to stop this fee fight crap? Should *SOME*thing legislatively be done, or is it really best to maintain the current free market environment here? Just wondering.


I think history shows the market will usually keep prices lower for consumers as long as government prevents monopolies.

By the same token, history shows that when government gets directly involved in pricing, prices go up.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Lord Vader said:


> Should *SOME*thing legislatively be done,


Ban retransmission fees. If you have an FCC license, once the signal leaves your tower, you have no say over what happens to it.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Ban retransmission fees. If you have an FCC license, once the signal leaves your tower, you have no say over what happens to it.


+1


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Fortunately, I get all the Charlotte locals on my TiVo Premiere via OTA, so I'm not really affected. I use my Dish Hoppers and Joeys for all other reception.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> Biggest issue is the convenience of a DVR, but with Windows Media Center and other options, that's an easy workaround.
> 
> I don't have locals anyways, so I really don't care.


I hardly watch my locals also. My roommate just watch local junk. To each their own I guess.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> Ban retransmission fees. If you have an FCC license, once the signal leaves your tower, you have no say over what happens to it.


That might be an acceptable "solution" to this whole mess.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Lord Vader said:


> That might be an acceptable "solution" to this whole mess.


You receiving the signal OTA for free is much different than a company picking up the signal for free and selling it to you for a profit.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I'm not necessarily advocating such a ban; I'm just throwing this out there for discussion.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Ban retransmission fees. If you have an FCC license, once the signal leaves your tower, you have no say over what happens to it.


In this case I completely agree. They got the bandwidth for free off taxpayers and now they want to charge us if we use a cable or sat service to watch tv instead of using a roof antenna? Pure hogwash IMHO.

I will laugh if/when dish and dtv and all the cable companies make a deal with aero for delivering all locals and then dump the locals so they don't have to pay any fees.


----------



## bigglebowski (Jul 27, 2010)

Yay! Another dispute where the paying customer loses. Meanwhile non paying customers are not affected. Don't you love pay tv!


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Curtis0620 said:


> You receiving the signal OTA for free is much different than a company picking up the signal for free and selling it to you for a profit.


Yes it is different, the station gets more customers who can see their signal clearer over a wider area and what does this cost the station? Oh yeah nothing, the satellite and cable companies make all the infrastructure investments pay for the manpower to do it and maintain it. So the station gets the benefit of being able to claim more potential eyeballs to advertisers without having to make any investment of their own. Who should be paying who here? Honestly they should just call it wash, the cable & satellite companies get more customers because they carry the locals and the locals get more eyeballs everyone wins. If only it should be so simple.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

tsmacro said:


> Yes it is different, the station gets more customers who can see their signal clearer over a wider area and what does this cost the station? Oh yeah nothing, the satellite and cable companies make all the infrastructure investments pay for the manpower to do it and maintain it. So the station gets the benefit of being able to claim more potential eyeballs to advertisers without having to make any investment of their own. Who should be paying who here? Honestly they should just call it wash, the cable & satellite companies get more customers because they carry the locals and the locals get more eyeballs everyone wins. If only it should be so simple.


ok how about this?

Satellite or cable can rebroadcast the signal for free if they do not allow recording or commercial skipping. Got to pay the bills somehow.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^^ If you can record and skip with OTA, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to with cable or satellite.

I don't believe Dish or anyone else really makes any profit on locals. There is a great deal of expense involved and I'm not sure the $5 or so covers it.

It's more of a convenience for viewers in outlying areas that can't get a good signal or those who choose not to have an outside antenna. As noted above, those are viewers the locals wouldn't otherwise have. And that's why I still say the locals should be paying to be carried instead of getting paid.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Then why should any station with commercials get paid to be on cable or satellite?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

OTA stations should not. Closed distribution networks don't have FCC licenses or any revenue stream outside cable and satellite (and now some web streaming outlets).


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> OTA stations should not. Closed distribution networks don't have FCC licenses or any revenue stream outside cable and satellite (and now some web streaming outlets).


They don't have advertisers? Just like OTA networks? And what if the big 4 networks discontinue OTA broadcasts?


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Why should cable get NBC for free but have to pay for MSNBC?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Curtis0620 said:


> Why should cable get NBC for free but have to pay for MSNBC?


Because nbc is free to anyone with an antenna and they where given the right to broadcast and the bandwidth to do it with the expectations and agreement that in exchange for the billions of dollars they'd have to had to paid for the bandwidth and such they'd simply supply the programing for free. Now they are charging companies who want to make it easy for the customer to not have to change inputs on their tvs. That's not acceptable. Period.

No such agreement was ever made for msnbc and they where never given billions of dollars with of bandwidth for free by you and me, taxpayers, represented by the government.

We paid for the channels already when we gave them the bandwidth for over the air channels. That didn't happen when they started a cable channel. They paid for everything to build that.

Add in the fact that over the air networks get billions more money in ad fees than cable channels do in general.

That's why.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Ok, NBC will forfeit the bandwidth and be a cable channel.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Curtis0620 said:


> Ok, NBC will forfeit the bandwidth and be a cable channel.


And how many millions of viewers will they lose that don't have cable or satellite?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

OTA broadcasts are free to the consumer... put up an antenna and enjoy them for free.

IF you want them any other way (like via satellite) then you might have to pay... and if Dish charges you to get them via satellite, then the OTA station has a right to get some of that money too.

I keep repeating this... years ago, in my DMA... the local channels banded together and said that if cable companies would give their signals for free then they would grant them retransmission rights for free... BUT if they wanted to charge, then they needed to pay.

We can agree or not over whether any particular case is greed vs business or whatever... but conceptually, the notion of OTA being free is not even arguable. OTA is free as long as you get it via OTA. Nobody has a right to OTA... you just are allowed to get it free via OTA... but if you can't get it because you are too far out or obstructions are in the way or whatever... then nobody owes you those OTA signals via some other way.

I sympathize with people losing their locals... I have lost locals before too... but my stance/opinion is the same now as it was then.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

In the case of one of the two Cleveland Raycom stations satellite helps get their signal out to areas that otherwise could not receive their OTA signal. None of the other Cleveland OTA's suffer from the poor coverage, only "CBS 19 WOIO" whose RF channel is 10. There is a ch 10 across Lake Erie in London, Ontario (110 miles north with 60 miles of lake, i.e. no terrain obstruction + water reflection) that virtually wipes out the northeast counties of the DMA, especially in the summer months. The local cable systems in those counties must also have a hard time getting the signal (unless they make a deal with one of the satellite providers or use terrestrial microwave). They are operating at lower power until the Canadian issue is rectified (fat chance Canada will budge, they were on ch 10 first).

Bottom line they need Dish & Direct to provide coverage to that part of the DMA (or risk losing those counties to Erie PA or Youngstown OH DMA's).


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

RasputinAXP said:


> Wow, that "Commentary" by the VP was hilarious mudslinging.


He must have been reading from a script provided by the home office. If you watch the video on the link I provided, the WOIO message was almost identical.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> and if Dish charges you to get them via satellite, then the OTA station has a right to get some of that money too.


Is Dish even really selling them anymore? They used to charge a $5/mo fee if you wanted locals. As I understand it now, local are included in all packages in most markets. So, are they charging for them, or just passing on the retrans fees? If there were no retrans fees, would they be charging anything?

Kind of one of those chicken and egg things.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Ok, NBC will forfeit the bandwidth and be a cable channel.


Ha! You are funny! If they did then fine, I wouldn't have an issue with them asking for money for carriage. But that's not the case!


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Here in the Toledo market we lost two channels, channel 11 and 36.

No big deal right now. Come September? A big deal. With college football, the NFL, and new shows starting up, I hope they come to an agreement.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

It seems to me that a better solution than banning retransmission fees might be to separate the network from the local channel. Let the Sat and Cable companies make national deals with the network and the local stations can cut their own deal for local shows. We'd see how valuable the local news was then.


----------



## bnewt (Oct 2, 2003)

Louisville, Ky lost the NBC station...............& I do care.........because again I am paying for something that I am not receiving.........bet Dish doesn't reduce my monthly bill


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I've always preferred network feeds. Locals screw up the schedules too much. The local Raycom station here runs MyTV on their .2 channel but they share it with CW in the evenings and a bunch of other stuff during other hours. It ends up being about 50% MyTV and 20% CW.

I was never really into C-Band for various reasons, but I've heard lots of stories about the raw network feeds of the big 3 national networks back then.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

bnewt said:


> ..bet Dish doesn't reduce my monthly bill


What do you want? 3 cents a month? That's about all it costs them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Curtis0620 said:


> Ok, NBC will forfeit the bandwidth and be a cable channel.


NBC doesn't "own" most of the bandwidth they would forfeit ... their affiliates own most of it. And they are being paid by their affiliates to provide programming to them for OTA broadcast.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

bnewt said:


> Louisville, Ky lost the NBC station...............& I do care.........because again I am paying for something that I am not receiving.........bet Dish doesn't reduce my monthly bill


They might. In the past they have given a $1 credit per network channel lost in a dispute.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Part of the argument for retransmission consent is that cable and satellite dilute an OTA station's drawing power. They simply must compete with more channels on those services than they would if people only had OTA. There is no question that retransmission fees have become a significant part of the broadcast stations' revenues, and if they were to lose those revenues they would need to be replaced elsewhere. The replacement would be in the loss of quality programming, since they couldn't raise their prices elsewhere. Advertisers won't pay more just because the networks aren't getting money from cable and satellite. In many smaller markets, you might even see stations go belly-up.

The digital transition really put the squeeze on a lot of stations' budgets. A 50kw lo-VHF analog station didn't use nearly the power a 1000kw UHF one does to cover a slightly smaller area. And thanks to the fact that analog was variable in power usage (white used 0 power, black 100%) the actual electrical usage was lower. Now, the power usage is pretty constant thanks to digital, and lo-VHF was found to be inadequate for digital coverage for many people.

I don't like these disagreements. I wish they didn't happen. But getting two people to agree can be hard enough when they have common interests. Getting two companies to agree when their interests are in opposition is even harder. My bet is this will resolve in a week or two, and all the terms will be confidential.


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

sregener said:


> Advertisers won't pay more just because the networks aren't getting money from cable and satellite.


But the Satellite companies have to? I understand times are tough. Why do we have to pay more because they have to compete with cable? Why do we always hear things like "Broadcast Co. A is seeking a 500 per cent increase" from the cable & sat companies and "we're only asking for what amounts to pennies more per subscriber for our valuable programming that Satellite Co. A is charging their customers extra for" from the broadcasters? I hate government intervention, but these things are already regulated by the government and a "fair set rate" by FCC for all stations for retransmission might, while costing us a bit more overall, end the constant interuptions.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

James Long said:


> They might. In the past they have given a $1 credit per network channel lost in a dispute.


The Raycom sites list an 800# to call to ask for a rebate from Dish. It's not the main Dish 800#, I wonder who set it up? I would not want to give my account information to someone who turns out not to be genuine Dish staff.



> WOIO is no longer available on Dish Network *but you're still paying for it*.
> CALL DISH NETWORK 800-823-4929
> Get a rebate or credit!


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

david_jr said:


> But the Satellite companies have to? I understand times are tough. Why do we have to pay more because they have to compete with cable?


You don't have to pay more. Cut the cord.

The FCC set up a system whereby stations could require compensation for the carriage of their signal. It's called "retransmission consent" and it is a negotiated contract between the station and the multi-channel provider (cable/satellite/whatever) that sets the terms and conditions at whatever the two parties agree to. There is a second system called "must-carry" where a station can insist that the cable companies carry their channel, but then they get nothing for it except their channel is distributed to more homes. Each station gets to choose which of these they want. If broadcasters wanted to increase their market share, they would choose must-carry because that would increase their exposure. However, these channels are now too popular for anybody not to carry, so the broadcasters can demand compensation for retransmission.

Essentially, it is all tied back to copyright. The copyright holder gets to choose how to distribute their product, under what terms and conditions they will sell it, etc. Putting the signal out on the public airwaves does not negate the copyright holder's rights. Simply put, you do not have the right to take someone else's property and distribute it without their permission.

However, I believe the fundamental shift is only now beginning. See paragraph 1 above for what will ultimately end the blackmail.


----------



## fpembleton (Jun 19, 2005)

The NBC affiliate in Columbia, SC is affected - as far as I am concerned, they can leave it off. I rarely watch the networks.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Athlon646464 said:


> I think history shows the market will usually keep prices lower for consumers as long as government prevents monopolies.
> 
> By the same token, history shows that when government gets directly involved in pricing, prices go up.


What examples can you think of for the latter?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> What examples can you think of for the latter?


I'll give you the big three......

Food prices, energy prices, health care.......

Government policies have contributed to increases in all three areas. There are always exceptions, of course, but in general when government tinkers, prices rise.

For example, subsidizing farmers to grow biofuels (which have debatable positive effects and/or public demand), while sounding positive and therefore a 'good/nice thing to do' politically have had the unintended consequence of lowering some other types of food supplies and therefore price increases for those foods. You've seen it in the grocery store over the last few years even though there is no inflation right now. Most stores are charging the same but the portions are smaller.

Government has also messed with gas prices. Four years ago gas was below $2 a gallon. I don't have to tell you how much it is for us now. Because of government programs it's more profitable to sell oil overseas and therefore lowers domestic supplies causing us to pay more. This is incredibly true even during our current recession while demand is near a 25 year low!

Health care costs have gone up dramatically in the last 18 months, despite the new health care law, and is predicted to go even higher soon when the law kicks in fully. The current administration has even delayed pieces of the law to tamp some of that down.

I don't want to debate the merits of each of these issues, these are just some of the facts as they relate to what you and I pay for these goods and services.

The market almost always creates fair prices based on supply and demand. When prices become unfair, demand falls and the market will self correct.

The free market is not always perfect, but government usually makes 'political' decisions and not 'business' decisions. That's why nearly every government program wastes money and causes unintended consequences in the free markets.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sregener said:


> Part of the argument for retransmission consent is that cable and satellite dilute an OTA station's drawing power.


So it is not compensation for copyright it is punishment for apparently reducing viewership? Even though in the next breath the stations claim that cable and satellite are making money by selling OTA reception and they want a piece of the action?

They can't have it both ways. Pick a theory. Either retransmission on cable and satellite reduces viewership or it increases viewership. One cannot claim both!

There is nothing in the law that allows an OTA station to penalize a cable or satellite company for competing with them. The law allows the OTA to charge for retransmission ... not for competition.



sregener said:


> There is no question that retransmission fees have become a significant part of the broadcast stations' revenues, and if they were to lose those revenues they would need to be replaced elsewhere. The replacement would be in the loss of quality programming, since they couldn't raise their prices elsewhere. Advertisers won't pay more just because the networks aren't getting money from cable and satellite. In many smaller markets, you might even see stations go belly-up.


That is a failure of the STATIONS. They should never have relied on retransmission for income - and the trend to demand dollars instead of pennies for retransmission is reasonably new. A couple of years ago the networks and their O&Os started pushing for $1+ per subscriber and suggested the affiliates did the same. Before that, the rates were more reasonable.

If retransmission fees were never allowed to be charged perhaps stations would have already gone belly-up ... or perhaps they would not have tried to extort money from the companies that are helping them reach their audience. A long time ago DISH network did not carry my market's locals. Before I subscribed to DISH I had cable with locals and saw their programming ... when I switched to DISH I had satellite without locals and lived without OTA stations. It was a major benefit to those OTA stations and their advertisers when DISH added the channels in my market. Why does the thank you card come in the form of a bill?



sregener said:


> The digital transition really put the squeeze on a lot of stations' budgets. A 50kw lo-VHF analog station didn't use nearly the power a 1000kw UHF one does to cover a slightly smaller area. And thanks to the fact that analog was variable in power usage (white used 0 power, black 100%) the actual electrical usage was lower.


That sounds like one of those arguments that when DISH loses customers their satellites use less power (more signal for the rest of us when lost customers stop receiving the signal).

In my area UHF power levels dropped to cover "the same area". We have one station with 800kw and the rest are below 400kw. We even have three of UHFs that are 85kw or less. The conversion from tube transmitters to solid state (no tube or just one large tube) has reduced the power usage for the station ... not increased it.



sregener said:


> Getting two companies to agree when their interests are in opposition is even harder. My bet is this will resolve in a week or two, and all the terms will be confidential.


That I can agree with. It happens all the time. In the best times it happens without a loss of channels for the customer. But there are few disputes where a channel loss is permanent.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Time Warner Cable just drop CBS CORP. for retrains trouble.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

@ Athlon

Thanks for the reply. While this is not the place for this debate, may I offer that the third example is primo, whereas the first two are very interrelated and very complex, and not necessarily the Gov't's fault. And, yes, Gov't regulation costs each and every one of us bucks- some programs are worth it, others not so much. I feel safe eating in any restaurant that doesn't look horrible, and have a high degree of confidence that what I buy in the market isn't poisoned. There are glaring exceptions to both, but without the FDA, I wouldn't be as happy. Possibly the EPA; not Homeland security- or rather the TSA. I could go on and on, but won't!


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

This problem was caused by government DEregulation. They have been relaxing TV ownership laws and it has allowed companies to become so powerful that a retrans dispute will hurt a cable/satellite company in multiple markets. This is just one problem caused by relaxing the ownership laws.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Yeah, I figured part of the transition to digital was to reduce power consumption.

On the retrans fees and revenue .... if they're getting so much more, why are local commercial minutes increasing during the news?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> Yeah, I figured part of the transition to digital was to reduce power consumption.
> 
> On the retrans fees and revenue .... if they're getting so much more, why are local commercial minutes increasing during the news?


You're asking the wrong question.

Do you have a job? Do you want a raise? When did you last get a raise? Why wasn't that raise enough for you now?

Costs go up... people want to buy things... people want more money to work... companies have to pay more... companies have to charge more... it just keeps cycling around and around.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

In how many cities is CBS off both systems in these disputes?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> On the retrans fees and revenue .... if they're getting so much more, why are local commercial minutes increasing during the news?





Stewart Vernon said:


> Costs go up... people want to buy things... people want more money to work... companies have to pay more... companies have to charge more... it just keeps cycling around and around.


Charge the advertisers more ... and continue to provide programming worth watching so the station has viewers to sell to those advertisers. 

Trying to charge their viewers more indirectly through cable or satellite providers just seems wrong. Especially when the local commercial load is increasing and stations are cutting back on the quality of local production. Why are we watching? Sometimes I wonder.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> *Yeah, I figured part of the transition to digital was to reduce power consumption.*
> 
> On the retrans fees and revenue .... if they're getting so much more, why are local commercial minutes increasing during the news?


Reduce power consumption? Nope. All our big screen TV's draw far more power than the 25" TV's they replaced. And with the new TV's we need soundbars and audio system. More power.

The primary reason was spectrum efficiency. With Analog, you couldn't have adjacent channels in overlapping areas. Digital increased the TV station density and with that, comes more TV stations paying the government for licensing. It also eliminated the upper end of UHF TV, channels above 67. Where did they go? Reassigned for auction.

Make no mistake about it, money was first, HD was second. But the consumer was sold on increased features with digital, and that's real too. And cool.

Back to the original point of the thread... The DISH dispute has taken Fox off of that sat. where I live.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NR4P said:


> Reduce power consumption? Nope. All our big screen TV's draw far more power than the 25" TV's they replaced. And with the new TV's we need soundbars and audio system. More power.


I believe the thought was reducing power consumption at the TV transmitter. Perhaps on a global scale it all balances out with more TVs and devices in homes. Of course, where some stations may be saving money each month on their electric bill they had to put out a lot of money for new transmitters (especially for full power stations with parallel operations a couple of years ago) plus all the new digital switch gear needed to retransmit and now produce live HD programming.

And now, they are passing the expense on to you! For only $1 per month (or whatever Raycom is asking for) you can continue watching your Fox station. And if you don't think $1 per month is bad then wait until the other OTA network stations want their $1 per month ... would that be bad? And when the $1 per month contracts come up for renewal the local station will want $1.50 ... or $2. They won't want less.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

James Long said:


> I believe the thought was reducing power consumption at the TV transmitter.


If ATSC 8VSB had worked well on VHF 2-6, I think this would have been the case. In most markets, stations fought to not even be put on VHF-HI because it is inferior to UHF for reliable digital reception. I never heard power consumption being listed as a reason for pushing it.

The government pushed the transition so they could sell off channels 52-69 for other uses. They stood to make billions selling off that spectrum. HD was the carrot to get the American public to buy into it.

I had a 32" CRT that pulled somewhere around 400W. I replaced it with a 50" Plasma that uses an average of 40W and a peak of 80. An LED LCD pulls much, much less. Big screen TVs do not draw more power than a decade-old 25".

What seems reasonable to me is for satellite to drop the locals, but still provide the guide data for DVRs. And then put OTA tuners (dual would be nice, Dish...) on every receiver and include an OTA install with every new Dish.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

James Long said:


> In my area UHF power levels dropped to cover "the same area". We have one station with 800kw and the rest are below 400kw. We even have three of UHFs that are 85kw or less. The conversion from tube transmitters to solid state (no tube or just one large tube) has reduced the power usage for the station ... not increased it.


I had my numbers wrong yesterday. Analog UHF was 5000kw maximum ERP. Digital, because it uses a practically constant power, has the same effective coverage (and average power usage) at 1000kw. What is not in question is that the vast majority of lo-VHF stations moved to the higher-power-using UHF spectrum. In reading insider complaints about the digital spectrum, most stations who gave up lo-VHF (or hi-VHF) spectrum for the more reliable UHF state their power bills are dramatically higher. UHF stations have not saved energy by broadcasting digitally - they're using the same power now as before the transition (or more, in some cases.)

I can find no evidence that analog transmitters had to be tube-based and that only digital ones can be solid state. Thus, any power savings from converting to solid state would be valid for analog as well as digital broadcasting. If the energy savings justified the cost, I find it hard to believe that stations would not have voluntarily replaced their transmitters long before the digital transition came along.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

sregener said:


> In reading insider complaints about the digital spectrum, most stations who gave up lo-VHF (or hi-VHF) spectrum for the more reliable UHF state their power bills are dramatically higher.


Remember, electric rates have gone up in the last few years too. In some cases dramatically. I know mine has gone up close to 50% per KwH in 10 years.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sregener said:


> I can find no evidence that analog transmitters had to be tube-based and that only digital ones can be solid state. Thus, any power savings from converting to solid state would be valid for analog as well as digital broadcasting. If the energy savings justified the cost, I find it hard to believe that stations would not have voluntarily replaced their transmitters long before the digital transition came along.


It is more of a new vs old issue ... and transmitters are rather expensive. Even if a chief engineer approached the station bean counter and said they could save 50% on the power bill by upgrading the transmitter the price of the transmitter would push the break even point far enough out that the bean counter would win. One would practically have to lose a transmitter to get a new one.

During conversion when they ran both the analog and the digital it was not a happy time for bean counters.

The VHF markets faced different challenges ... blanket statements applied to all stations in the US based on the complaints of a VHF to UHF converting station or a VHF to VHF station would not apply. One thing that can be applied to all stations is that it cost them money. Paying engineers and specialized lawyers to protect their coverage area was only the beginning of the cost. It was not a cheap process.

And now the cost is passed on to you ... the cable or satellite customer.

The stations I feel for are the small non-network stations who do not have highly rated content to hold hostage. Stations that if they asked for a dime a month would be refused and few would notice. They still have the expense of running a station but don't have the pull of a major network station when it comes to negotiations.

Which begs the question ... If a small non-network station can afford to stay on the air with less advertisers, lower ratings and no retransmission fees why can't the larger network stations live off of their advertising and not charge a retransmission fee? The powerhouse stations that allegedly cannot survive without $1 per month from cable/satellite viewers ... they should learn something from the smaller stations that are surviving.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> Which begs the question ... If a small non-network station can afford to stay on the air with less advertisers, lower ratings and no retransmission fees why can't the larger network stations live off of their advertising and not charge a retransmission fee? The powerhouse stations that allegedly cannot survive without $1 per month from cable/satellite viewers ... they should learn something from the smaller stations that are surviving.


For one thing, I'd say the smaller stations don't have several people drawing multi-million dollar salaries.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Snipped:
> And now, they are passing the expense on to you! For only $1 per month (or whatever Raycom is asking for) you can continue watching your Fox station. And if you don't think $1 per month is bad then wait until the other OTA network stations want their $1 per month ... would that be bad? And when the $1 per month contracts come up for renewal the local station will want $1.50 ... or $2. They won't want less.


Just think $1 per station in a market Like NYC or LA!



James Long said:


> So it is not compensation for copyright it is punishment for apparently reducing viewership? Even though in the next breath the stations claim that cable and satellite are making money by selling OTA reception and they want a piece of the action?
> 
> They can't have it both ways. Pick a theory. Either retransmission on cable and satellite reduces viewership or it increases viewership. One cannot claim both!
> Snipped:


I suspect that both claims could be true.
I can wrap my head around the thought (Theory) that Viewers that only have OTA will end up watching more Local TV stations content than a Cable or Satellite Viewer that can cherry pick shows to watch from the local stations plus all the non OTA content. On the other hand they can say more viewers since the entire DMA gets their channel. Hmmm...............

A conspiracy type might claim that they are trying to get more people to go back to OTA only by raising prices on Cable or Satellite.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

fpembleton said:


> The NBC affiliate in Columbia, SC is affected - as far as I am concerned, they can leave it off. I rarely watch the networks.


Anyone watches NBC? Do they have anything worth watching?


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

While you always see people saying, in discussions like this, "Well. I never watch NBC so who cares?" or whatever network channel, the fact is that most people watch the networks a LOT. A rating on a cable station that is much smaller than a rating on one of the big 4 networks is often considered very good. Sports, top prime time shows, etc. Plus for many the local news.

Something really does need to be done. I understand the arguments for TW or Dish or DirectTV, etc. refusing to pay fee increases, but for many of us a carrier missing one or more of the major networks is unacceptable. The only reason I subscribe to Dish is to watch the stations; I.e. the stations are the dog and Dish is the tail for me. I can't get my locals via OTA, plus I'd lose my ability to record them via DVR (which is how we watch most TV, for various reasons.) 

I do know that when the local CBS and Fox stations were within days of dropping off of Dish, even though it may have been the "fault" of the owner of the networks, the local cable people and DirectTV were bombarded with people dumping Dish. People who post on forums like this tend to be more hardcore than the average viewer, who just wants to watch their NCIS or NFL game or the Masters golf tournament or Community, etc. And most people, if they are faced with one provider in the area not carrying CBS or NBC or Fox or ABC and other carriers who do, they will switch to the ones who do. Yeah, yeah, good luck when you switch from Dish to Time Warner and then Time Warner loses CBS, but then they'll just jump ship again. I don't know of many people who would be happy that their Dish bill was $2 less per month but they don't get CBS and Fox. 

I do believe that this is a case where Congress (bleh) should jump in and set some rules on the public network and re-transmission fees.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> Anyone watches NBC? Do they have anything worth watching?


Only the evening news as far as I am concerned. Though Crossing Lines is not bad for a summer show. Yes I am lurking here from the Direct area, but our NBC station is a Raycom unit so I was curious as to how this was playing.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

James Long said:


> Which begs the question ... If a small non-network station can afford to stay on the air with less advertisers, lower ratings and no retransmission fees why can't the larger network stations live off of their advertising and not charge a retransmission fee? The powerhouse stations that allegedly cannot survive without $1 per month from cable/satellite viewers ... they should learn something from the smaller stations that are surviving.


Okay, what market do you have in mind? In mine, we have 6 broadcast channels + 1 local translator. That's 1 each for ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, and 2 for PBS. The translator is for 3ABN. The local TBN translator got shut down due to high costs. ABC multicasts This, CBS multicasts MyNetwork, NBC multicasts CW, and Fox multicasts MeTV. None are O&O, so they are all paying significant fees to the major networks to be affiliates. Plus they're paying to carry their multicast channels. And those multicast channels are not on Dish. For a couple, there isn't even guide data for OTA reception and recording.

The big networks are charging affiliates more than ever for membership. Those dollars have to come from somewhere, and they're coming from cable and satellite viewers. In exchange, the big networks are able to bid for the rights to major events, and even so, they lose frequently to ESPN or one of the other cable networks. What isn't there is a serious containment of costs. Every channel in turn gets to hold the providers hostage, and providers who don't want to lose a lot of customers end up caving and paying whatever the channels want. The channels then outbid each other for programming with their newfound wealth, which leads to another round of holding providers hostage. The cycle will not stop until people stop paying for television (or at least, stop paying traditional sources for it) in large enough numbers to matter.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

fudpucker said:


> Something really does need to be done. I understand the arguments for TW or Dish or DirectTV, etc. refusing to pay fee increases, but for many of us a carrier missing one or more of the major networks is unacceptable. The only reason I subscribe to Dish is to watch the stations; I.e. the stations are the dog and Dish is the tail for me. I can't get my locals via OTA, plus I'd lose my ability to record them via DVR (which is how we watch most TV, for various reasons.)


Most people who state they can't get their locals via OTA are wrong. I'm not saying there aren't white areas in the country, but those areas are few and far between. There are probably many more who live in condos or other areas that face the wrong way and can't erect an antenna where it will work, though the modern tuners are able to deal with signals bouncing off buildings better than anything in the old analog days this number is also probably smaller than people think. And there are OTA-only DVRs out there, and there's the HTPC option.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sregener said:


> Okay, what market do you have in mind?


No specific market or station in mind ... just looking at thousands of stations without the "big network" leverage that manage to keep the transmitter on and fed.



sregener said:


> Plus they're paying to carry their multicast channels. And those multicast channels are not on Dish. For a couple, there isn't even guide data for OTA reception and recording.


Once again you're expecting DISH to pay a penalty to stations. Retransmission rights payments should be for the signals that satellite and cable retransmits ... not for signals they do not retransmit.



sregener said:


> The big networks are charging affiliates more than ever for membership. Those dollars have to come from somewhere, and they're coming from cable and satellite viewers.


And that is the root of the problem ... Fox telling their affiliates to demand $$ per subscriber regardless of market. And then instead of supporting the local station it just goes back to the national programmer.



sregener said:


> In exchange, the big networks are able to bid for the rights to major events, and even so, they lose frequently to ESPN or one of the other cable networks.


Have you forgotten who ESPN is? They are the owners of a Mickey Mouse OTA broadcast network called ABC. Who are they bidding against? NBC Universal, the owners of another major OTA broadcast network and many cable channels? Fox, the owners of the Fox Sports empire? The big OTA networks ARE the major multiple cable channel networks!



sregener said:


> The cycle will not stop until people stop paying for television (or at least, stop paying traditional sources for it) in large enough numbers to matter.


Good luck with that. A decade of a la carte talk has led to more firmly entrenched package/tier system. As long as the major players own their content it will be delivered to people on the major players terms.

Unless you're suggesting that the government should seize sports and other programming and force it to be delivered to customers at a government set rate.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

TBoneit said:


> Anyone watches NBC? Do they have anything worth watching?


Nope.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> In how many cities is CBS off both systems in these disputes?


None. TWC's dispute is with CBS O&O, Dish's is with Raycom, which owns different network affiliates in different cities. Since there is only (usually) one CBS local per market, it would be impossible for two "CBS" stations to be off both systems in the same city. However if Raycom owned a station with a different network in the same city as a CBS O&O, then it's possible that one market could have a system down a CBS and the other down an NBC/ABC or FOX.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

TBoneit said:


> Anyone watches NBC? Do they have anything worth watching?


My local NBC one time subbed a Matlock rerun in prime-time and got better ratings than the NBC program in that time slot (it was a rerun anyway).

This week two day's worth of NBC programming will be subbed with live sports: A Cleveland Indians game and a Cleveland Browns preseason game.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

James Long said:


> Good luck with that. A decade of a la carte talk has led to more firmly entrenched package/tier system. As long as the major players own their content it will be delivered to people on the major players terms.
> 
> Unless you're suggesting that the government should seize sports and other programming and force it to be delivered to customers at a government set rate.


Actually, a la carte is here for many things. It's called pay-per-view, and it's the ultimate in a la carte. Pay for the programs you watch, pay nothing for the ones you don't. So far, many sports have resisted jumping on this bandwagon, but it will only be a matter of time before they see money signs in their eyes and cut out the middleman.

No, I don't want government stepping in. You don't solve a problem by making it worse.


----------



## bnewt (Oct 2, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You're asking the wrong question.
> 
> Do you have a job? Do you want a raise? When did you last get a raise? Why wasn't that raise enough for you now?
> 
> Costs go up... people want to buy things... people want more money to work... companies have to pay more... companies have to charge more... it just keeps cycling around and around.


I lost a job after 30 years.......yes, I have a job now, but had to take a pay cut for this smaller company. Not sure how the health care agenda is going to hurt.....
Yes, I want a raise, but haven't had one in over 7 years, almost 5 years at present job with nothing
The problem is still the economy. Business' have learned that they can do just as much with less, so they aren't hiring & when they are, they look for the younger, less expensive employees, not the older, experienced ones


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

bnewt said:


> *The problem is still the economy. Business' have learned that they can do just as much with less*, so they aren't hiring & when they are, they look for the younger, less expensive employees, not the older, experienced ones


The money's there. The problem is that the suits are sucking it up from every source they can, no matter who else has to suffer.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

The article has a mistake in it regarding the Albany, GA DMA listed below. It's NBC *and* ABC. WALB-DT (NBC 10.1) and WALB-DT2 (ABC 10.2) that are blacked out.

The funny thing is, Raycom and Mediacom were in a squabble a month or two ago, and WALB was recommending folks switch to DISH or DirecTV should the channels go dark on Mediacom. Now, WALB is recommending folks switch to DirecTV or Mediacom.



Athlon646464 said:


> Dish Network, Raycom squabble blacks out local channels in 36 markets
> 
> Apparently it's the season for issues between networks and pay-TV distributors, as Dish Network customers in 36 networks are missing some of their local channels as of late last night. Dish and Raycom Media has failed to reach an agreement, so stations the network owns including ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, CW and MyNetworkTV stations in 36 markets stretching from Cincinnati to Honolulu have gone dark.
> 
> ...


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

*DISH to Raycom: 'Match contract language to your public statements and we'll sign'*


_DISH ready to sign deal if Raycom commits to market rates_
ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DISH customers in 36 markets remain in the dark today despite DISH's (NASDAQ: DISH) commitment to pay market rates to retransmit Raycom stations.
The following statement is attributable to Sruta Vootukuru, DISH director of programming:
"DISH is ready to sign a deal right now if Raycom will match the words in the contract with its message to viewers. Raycom has publicly told its viewers that they are willing to give DISH the same deal as other providers. All we're asking is for Raycom to put that on paper and we're ready to sign the deal now."

DISH is encouraging customers in the affected markets to call their local Raycom station and demand to be treated fairly.


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

I am in the Jackson, MS market and lost WLBT (NBC) and WDBD (FOX). I fully support Dish Network on this fight. If Raycom is asking 4 times the previous amount from 3 years ago, that is absolutely outrageous. 

I am lucky to have receivers with OTA tuners in them and an attic antenna so that I can still pick the channels up. However, I am only watching the local news on WLBT now anyway.

Charlie, hang tough and don't let Raycom extort you...


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

bnewt said:


> I lost a job after 30 years.......yes, I have a job now, but had to take a pay cut for this smaller company. Not sure how the health care agenda is going to hurt.....
> Yes, I want a raise, but haven't had one in over 7 years, almost 5 years at present job with nothing
> The problem is still the economy. Business' have learned that they can do just as much with less, so they aren't hiring & when they are, they look for the younger, less expensive employees, not the older, experienced ones


Hi, You have stated exactly how the future employment market will be. No raise? Don't like it? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. BTW we are replacing you with two lower cost part timers.

I lost my last job when Sandy hit and killed the power and they closed my location. I had seen the handwriting on the wall so It didn't matter. I was prepared.

Good Luck in the future

Cheers
TBoneit


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sregener said:


> Actually, a la carte is here for many things. It's called pay-per-view, and it's the ultimate in a la carte.


Pay per view is mostly movies and special events ... often content that is not available on a linear channel. PPV movies are offered before coming to a linear channel. There is no subscription (at least on DISH) that includes all the PPVs without extra charge.

When I can subscribe to NASCAR and only NASCAR you can tell me a la carte is here. Until then, program based a la carte is limited to IPTV or physical media delivery and does not include the vast majority of programming.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

James Long said:


> Pay per view is mostly movies and special events ... often content that is not available on a linear channel. PPV movies are offered before coming to a linear channel. There is no subscription (at least on DISH) that includes all the PPVs without extra charge.
> 
> When I can subscribe to NASCAR and only NASCAR you can tell me a la carte is here. Until then, program based a la carte is limited to IPTV or physical media delivery and does not include the vast majority of programming.


Let's say I'm a huge fan of "The Walking Dead" but I don't have pay television. I can go to Amazon and stream season 3, paying by the episode or buying the whole season. I don't have to subscribe to AMC. Same with Parenthood or any of dozens of others of top-rated television shows. That's all pay-per-view, or a la carte. Pay for what you watch, pay nothing for what you don't.

I agree on NASCAR. I admitted sports were the current exception, but the situation is getting better. MLB.TV and NBA.TV are available as individual subscriptions. In time, the dollar signs will win out and the rest of the sports will end up with streaming options. I have the same issue with tennis.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

sregener said:


> Let's say I'm a huge fan of "The Walking Dead" but I don't have pay television. I can go to Amazon and stream season 3, paying by the episode or buying the whole season. I don't have to subscribe to AMC. Same with Parenthood or any of dozens of others of top-rated television shows. That's all pay-per-view, or a la carte. Pay for what you watch, pay nothing for what you don't.


That's not ala carte in the sense we're talking about here. If I only want Disney East and ABC Family, I should be able to get just those two without all of the other channels in the package. By the same token, if somebody only wants ESPN and not any of the Disney channels, they should be able to get that.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

It appears that this fight may be getting serious. Yesterday E* subbed WGN on 19.0 instead of WOIO with the "Important Information" card. WGN?? really? Everyone gets it at 239, it does not belong in the Cleveland SD locals (there was no HD equivalent - HD still had WOIO / Important Information). I wish they could give us another nearby CBS like WKBN in Youngstown. I can get it with an antenna 57 miles from the WKBN tower. At least I can see the CBS guide data from WKBN.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sregener said:


> Let's say I'm a huge fan of "The Walking Dead" but I don't have pay television. I can go to Amazon and stream season 3, paying by the episode or buying the whole season. I don't have to subscribe to AMC. Same with Parenthood or any of dozens of others of top-rated television shows. That's all pay-per-view, or a la carte. Pay for what you watch, pay nothing for what you don't.


Keep in mind, though, that the only reason you can do that is because AMC already made their money on the original AMC commercial-broadcasts... IF they couldn't sell commercials OR collect AMC subscriber money from Dish, DirecTV, etc... the show might not exist for the streaming outlet later.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

SayWhat? said:


> That's not ala carte in the sense we're talking about here. If I only want Disney East and ABC Family, I should be able to get just those two without all of the other channels in the package. By the same token, if somebody only wants ESPN and not any of the Disney channels, they should be able to get that.


The very idea of a "channel" is so... old fashioned. You don't watch channels, you watch programs. You're forced to pay for an entire "bundle" of programming when you subscribe to a channel, when you may only watch one program or two a week on that channel. I know some of you want to hold to the idea of a channel as what a la carte is all about, but it was always about paying for what you watch, and not paying for what you don't. Expand your mind and embrace the future. Now that you can buy programs individually, it is no longer necessary to accept bundling of any kind, which includes the idea of a "channel."


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Keep in mind, though, that the only reason you can do that is because AMC already made their money on the original AMC commercial-broadcasts... IF they couldn't sell commercials OR collect AMC subscriber money from Dish, DirecTV, etc... the show might not exist for the streaming outlet later.


I don't believe this is true. Just as the argument went that VHS was going to destroy the movie makers because people would be able to watch movies at home, so the argument goes that streaming isn't going to support the industry. In fact, disc movie sales to home viewers are now a significant part of any studio's revenue. Right now, the big money is still on the satellite-delivered content, but that could easily shift. If every current viewer of The Walking Dead paid $2.99/episode, AMC would make a lot more money than they do on advertising and subscriber fees. There is a transition that needs to take place, and it's not going to be a flash cut from 100% advertiser/subscriber revenue to end viewer revenue, but rather a steady shift of viewer habits until streaming revenues are the lion's share of the business.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sregener said:


> I don't believe this is true. Just as the argument went that VHS was going to destroy the movie makers because people would be able to watch movies at home, so the argument goes that streaming isn't going to support the industry. In fact, disc movie sales to home viewers are now a significant part of any studio's revenue. Right now, the big money is still on the satellite-delivered content, but that could easily shift. If every current viewer of The Walking Dead paid $2.99/episode, AMC would make a lot more money than they do on advertising and subscriber fees. There is a transition that needs to take place, and it's not going to be a flash cut from 100% advertiser/subscriber revenue to end viewer revenue, but rather a steady shift of viewer habits until streaming revenues are the lion's share of the business.


But how likely is that shift to happen?

$2.99 per episode is fine if you only watch one or two shows a season...

But... let's be conservative and not count 20+ episodes, but rather just 10 episode seasons for shows... So, one show @ $3 per episode would cost you $30 per season.

IF you watch 12 shows of some kind during the year that essentially equates to $30 per month... IF that is all you watch, then it's probably not a bad way to go... but I'm watching more shows than that just this summer alone (Under the Dome, Major Crimes, Whose Line is it Anyway, Rizzoli & Isles, Covert Affairs, Suits, Franklin & Bash, Futurama, Continuum) + The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, various things on ESPN and some shows like Falling Skies that just finished their run...

So... I would either end up spending WAY more than I do now OR I would have to give up watching a lot of shows... and if I give up watching them, I also will not be buying DVD/Blu-rays of the shows I really liked because I will not have watched them to know if I want them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Let me say it again since it was apparently missed:

Program based a la carte is limited to IPTV or physical media delivery and does not include the vast majority of programming.


People are not looking for just the top 20 or top 100 programs. They are looking for all sort of content - and they want it delivered to them easily. That is why DVRs changed the viewing landscape - record when it airs, watch when you want. And (don't tell Fox) don't watch commercials. It doesn't matter if the best of the best is available through Amazon, Hulu or other IPTV or physical media delivery ... television viewers want the all of the all.

Present company excepted viewers are also fairly placid. It is easier to get them to pay $80-$100 per month (average) for a lot of channels that they don't watch than to get them to track down the programming they want and pay per view or per program. And assuming this is a perfect world (it is not) where every program that a person might watch IS available via PPV, at $3 per program the average $90 per month satellite subscription works out to 30 shows per month. You can watch one show per day or you can watch some of thousands of shows on linear delivered channels. Despite the high costs people complain about they are getting a good deal.

Even if you fudge the figures, assume incorrectly that everything one watches is available per program and the cost is only $1 per program that narrows the average viewing FAMILY to three shows a day. The kids could blow your budget on cartoons before you got home to watch your shows. 

And the final problem I'll mention that would face program based a la carte is marketing. Without linear channels how would I know "Under the Dome" existed? How would it be marketed if it didn't pop up on my local network affiliate? How would the producer convince me to individually select and pay for that show? Free previews? Quite frankly, if I had to line item pay for television programs there would be several shows I watch that would get cut. They are worth the time but not a line item payment.

Sorry ... but per program a la carte is NOT here. Not in a workable sense. There is too much content that remains linear only and it is still cheaper to watch linear than buy each and every program viewers want.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^^ You could say 'per program' is, but not 'per channel or network'.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ You could say 'per program' is, but not 'per channel or network'.


I could not say 'per program' is here. It is not true for all the reasons I just elaborated.

There are some per channel a la carte channels ... but they are niche channels willing to add a few viewers from lower tiers and are cheaper in packages than the a la carte price. A la carte channels are rare.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But how likely is that shift to happen?
> 
> $2.99 per episode is fine if you only watch one or two shows a season...


And now we see the other side of the coin. All the people who have argued against a la carte have said that with a la carte, there would be less programming options and people would still be paying the same or more. Your argument is that a la carte costs more than the programming bundle, so a la carte doesn't exist.

In my household, 80% of what we watch is available with an antenna. I have a DTVPal DVR in the closet that would work just fine to record programs from that source. So "cutting the cord" and going a la carte does not mean one has to give up broadcast television. What keeps me a pay customer is the programming that I do want to watch that isn't available a la carte. I can't get Monday/Thursday Night Football, most NASCAR races, or Wimbledon OTA or in a PPV format. And since I want a DVR to record those things, it's convenient to use it for the broadcast channels, too. My argument is that the day is not long in coming when programming providers can no longer ignore the money they could get by making that programming available in a streaming format.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sregener said:


> And now we see the other side of the coin. All the people who have argued against a la carte have said that with a la carte, there would be less programming options and people would still be paying the same or more. Your argument is that a la carte costs more than the programming bundle, so a la carte doesn't exist.
> 
> In my household, 80% of what we watch is available with an antenna. I have a DTVPal DVR in the closet that would work just fine to record programs from that source. So "cutting the cord" and going a la carte does not mean one has to give up broadcast television. What keeps me a pay customer is the programming that I do want to watch that isn't available a la carte. I can't get Monday/Thursday Night Football, most NASCAR races, or Wimbledon OTA or in a PPV format. And since I want a DVR to record those things, it's convenient to use it for the broadcast channels, too. My argument is that the day is not long in coming when programming providers can no longer ignore the money they could get by making that programming available in a streaming format.


I'm confused at what your argument is here... If it costs money now, you don't think it will be free tomorrow do you? IF people "cut the cord" then they will have to pay for the content somehow OR the content goes away.

I can have pizza delivered OR I can go get it... but it still costs me money. IT even costs me money to buy the ingredients and make my own pizza.

Even your broadcast TV is paid for... by advertising... and supplemented by the carriage fees they get from some cable/satellite providers to re-transmit. The only reason you get the option to stream that same programming online is because of the earlier revenue streams. IF the future becomes streaming-only... then that becomes the revenue source... and it will cost you much more than it does today because they will need/want that revenue to replace what they lost with the old model.

Imagine cable/SAT die tomorrow... I guarantee you Netflix, Hulu, whatever you want to pick for streaming suddenly goes up to make up that difference and you are right back where you started.

Driving Pizza Hut or Domino's out of business wouldn't make pizza free. It just means you pay someone different to get it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sregener said:


> What keeps me a pay customer is the programming that I do want to watch that isn't available a la carte.


Thank you for accepting that fact.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

As for the current raycom vs dish dispute It appears to me this is going to be resolved later than sooner. I think both sides have their heels dug in.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Driving Pizza Hut or Domino's out of business wouldn't make pizza free. It just means you pay someone different to get it.


Best line of the discussion, Stewart.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

*DISH and Raycom Reach Agreement in 36 Markets*

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. & MONTGOMERY, Ala.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DISH (NASDAQ: DISH) and Raycom Media, Inc. today announced an agreement regarding the continued retransmission of Raycom TV stations in 36 markets. Service to DISH customers in the affected markets is expected to be restored overnight.

Terms of the agreement between DISH and Raycom were not disclosed.

*About DISH*
DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides approximately 14.014 million satellite TV customers, as of June 30, 2013, with the highest quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value, including HD Free for Life*®*. Subscribers enjoy the largest high definition line-up with more than 200 national HD channels, the most international channels, and award-winning HD and DVR technology. DISH Network Corporation's subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., delivers family entertainment to millions of customers around the world. DISH Network Corporation is a Fortune 200 company. Visit www.dish.com.

*About RAYCOM*
Raycom, an employee-owned company, is one of the nation's largest broadcasters and owns and/or provides services for 52 television stations in 36 markets and 18 states. Raycom stations cover 12.6% of U.S. television households and employ nearly 3,600 individuals in full and part-time positions. In addition to television stations, Raycom owns Raycom Sports and Tupelo-Honey Productions.
Raycom Media is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama.

Source: DISH Network Corporation


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm confused at what your argument is here... If it costs money now, you don't think it will be free tomorrow do you? IF people "cut the cord" then they will have to pay for the content somehow OR the content goes away.
> 
> Imagine cable/SAT die tomorrow... I guarantee you Netflix, Hulu, whatever you want to pick for streaming suddenly goes up to make up that difference and you are right back where you started.
> 
> Driving Pizza Hut or Domino's out of business wouldn't make pizza free. It just means you pay someone different to get it.


Let's be clear about what the problem is. Right now, programming providers hold all the cards. When their contracts come up for renewal, the channels customers really want are frequently tied to ones they don't. By withholding rights to a popular channel, providers lose those customers to someone else who has what the channels they want. Costs go up and we, the end users, get squeezed.

Cutting the cord ends the game of paying for what you don't want. You hold all the cards. You decide what you want to buy, and that's what you pay for. Everything else can be someone else's problem. And as I have steadfastly maintained, the cost of streaming a program you want to watch is dramatically higher than what the channel in question receives from you in subscription fees. What the traditional revenue stream of subscribers offers is a steady, guaranteed income. There is no reason to think that customers would suddenly be willing to pay $19.95/episode if they were no longer paying for cable, or that they would accept paying $90/month to Netflix, unless Netflix offered exactly as many "Free" (in reality, prepaid) programming choices as cable does now.

I'm not expecting cord cutting to reduce the typical viewer's budget to zero. There's a better way to do that: stop watching television. But since very few people do that, I'm being realistic.

I don't really want to cut the cord. I like pay television service and what it gives me. I don't think I could save money by cutting the cord, even if all my sports programming suddenly became available via streaming. I wish it was cheaper and that we didn't see the fragmentation of sports programming, where more and more channels are needed to see the events I care about. But the fact that I'm still a pay television customer clearly shows that on balance, I'm still here. It's the moaners and whiners who need to cut the cord. If things are as bad as they say (and typically it's sports programming they complain about paying for) then they need to fish or cut bait. There's no longer any reason to be held hostage by the pay television industry. It's like I used to say: "How do you know if you're in a rut or a groove? The difference is whether you want to be there or not." Too many people are complaining about being in a groove.


----------



## 4bama (Aug 6, 2006)

Yes, this is the announcement here locally:

In an emailed statement Friday night, spokesman John Hall said Montgomery-based Raycom Media and DISH have come to a distribution agreement regarding the retransmission of Raycom TV stations in 36 markets, including Huntsville's WAFF-48, WBRC in Birmingham, WDFX in Dothan and WSFA in Montgomery.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

As for the current raycom vs dish dispute It appears to me this is going to be resolved later than sooner. I think both sides have their heels dug in.


You were saying?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is later than you think. 

Glad to see the channels back ... lets watch TV!


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I always like to know who blinked.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> I always like to know who blinked.


You are rarely satisfied. Most negotiations that end with a deal end with either a joint press release or statements from both sides that are either so generic that no one knows who "won" or have both sides claiming "victory".

This deal seems to be the generic "it is over" type of announcements. "Terms of the agreement between DISH and Raycom were not disclosed."


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

RasputinAXP said:


> You were saying?


Duh! Reverse psychology 101- if I would have said "its been over a week I expect a deal any day now" then we would still be talking about the dispute Wairing on a deal!  
I'm glad its over kuddos to dish for getting the locals back to their customers


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rtd2, please make a comment about the FS 1 contract being resolved later than sooner. I'd like your magic lightning to strike twice.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

James Long said:


> rtd2, please make a comment about the FS 1 contract being resolved later than sooner. I'd like your magic lightning to strike twice.


That's a lot to ask for the pressure messes w/ my crystal ball. I got a feeling fox heels are dug in and we are in for a long wait.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rtd2 said:


> That's a lot to ask for the pressure messes w/ my crystal ball. I got a feeling fox heels are dug in and we are in for a long wait.


Thanks. :righton: :righton: :righton:


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

James Long said:


> Thanks. :righton: :righton: :righton:


Glad I could do my part


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Now try it for ESPNUHD, Watch ESPN, and the other Disney/ESPN/ABC HD feeds!

Go for the hat trick!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

That one is a little more difficult as the channels have been off since 2010. We have already met the definition of a long wait, so saying it will be a long wait is already true.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Now try it for ESPNUHD, Watch ESPN, and the other Disney/ESPN/ABC HD feeds!
> 
> Go for the hat trick!


no way I'm not touching that one.


----------

