# Charleston WV Channel 8 ABC & 11 FOX May Be Dropped June 1st



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Scrolling on Channel 8 WCHS-TV Charleston, WV (During newscasts)

Attention subscribers to the Dish Network The current agreement allowing the Dish Network to provide you with the signal of this television station will end on May 31, 2005. Although we are continuing to negotiate to try and obtain an extension of this agreement, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. In order to ensure your uninterrupted ability to watch the quality programming appearing on this station, you may want to consider consider contacting your localbe cable operator or DirecTV, whose ability to continue to carry this station's programming will not be impacted. Thank you.


----------



## moedog (Jun 20, 2003)

So SINclair is up to more of its low rent tricks. I would expect this to eventually impact other SINclair markets as that company strives to have cable and sat companies provide more and more of their profits. Just recently, SINclair held Comcast hostage over a digital/HD agreement, which ultimately led to much higher compensation for their second-rate analog stations as well.


----------



## chaddux (Oct 10, 2004)

Jacob S said:


> Scrolling on Channel 8 WCHS-TV Charleston, WV (During newscasts)
> 
> Attention subscribers to the Dish Network The current agreement allowing the Dish Network to provide you with the signal of this television station will end on May 31, 2005. Although we are continuing to negotiate to try and obtain an extension of this agreement, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. In order to ensure your uninterrupted ability to watch the quality programming appearing on this station, you may want to consider consider contacting your localbe cable operator or DirecTV, whose ability to continue to carry this station's programming will not be impacted. Thank you.


All Sinclair stations are affected.

http://www.sbgi.net/misc/dish.shtml


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I dont know if Charlie would give in as much as those cable companies will unless he fears of losing many subscribers back to cable/DirecTv. It sucks that they own half of the major networks here and try pull this! I would probably lose so many subscribers. Now I know why my customer wouldn't answer the phone when it was time for his SuperDish upgrade. I already had to deal with the credit card requirement for a SuperDish upgrade and got that dropped to keep this customer, now I have this ordeal to deal with. I bet he goes to DirecTv now like he was mentioning before.


----------



## mattb (Apr 29, 2002)

heck, SINclair is soo crooked in some markets they are running flea powered HDTV OTA signals and mostly running SDTV broadcasts on those stations. Shows how much they care about their viewers. They also want to charge cable companies to carry their OTA HDTV Signals on cable systems (where they get the SDTV Version currently for free)


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

SINclair should not be allowed to own two of the "big 4" stations in the same market. Says so right in the law, even the NEW duopoly rules. What good are rules, if the FCC will not enforce them?


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

As someone who just recently dropped his locals, can't say I care to much. All of the "non-reality" TV shows they have been doing more of are just not compelling content, IMHO. Heck, I had to argue with the CSR to just get rid of the useless things. 180 channels and still almost never anything good to watch. Makes me glad I have DVRs.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Its a dang shame that our market just happened to have two of the four main networks (HALF OF THEM) owned by the same company and having such an issue as this.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Considering that SINclair operates the WB and UPN stations here - not much lost (since Enterprise has finished). I suppose I can always start taking the SUperstations again...


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Here is a list of the Sinclair Markets:

Channel 13 ABC WLOS & Channel 40 WB WBSC - Asheville, NC & Greenville/Spartanburg/Anderson, SC - Market Rank 35

Channel 45 FOX WBFF & Channel 54 WB WNUV - Baltimore, MD - Market Rank 23

Channel 21 WB WTTO & Channel 68 UPN WABM & Channel 17 WB WDBB - Birmingham/Tuscaloosa, AL - Market Rank 40

Channel 29 FOX WUTV & Channel 49 WB WNYO - Buffalo, NY - Market Rank 46

Channel 2 CBS WGAN - Cedar Rapids/Waterloo/Dubuque, IA - Market Rank 88

Channel 15 NBC WICD & Channel 20 NBC WICS - Champaign/Springfield/Decatur, IL - Market Rank 82

Channel 36 UPN WMMP & Channel 24 FOX WTAT - Charleston, SC - Market 101

***Channel 8 ABC WCHS & Channel 11 FOX WVAH - Charleston/Huntington, WV - Market Rank 62

Channel 64 WB WSTR - Cincinnati, OH - Market Rank 33

Channel 6 ABC WSYX - Columbus, OH & Channel 28 FOX WTTE - Columbus, OH - Market Rank 34

***Channel 22 ABC WKEF & Channel 45 FOX WRGT - Dayton, OH - Market Rank 56

Channel 17 FOX KDSM - Des Moines, IA - Market Rank 73

Channel 66 FOX WSMH - Flint/Saginaw/Bay City, MI - Market Rank 65

Channel 45 ABC WXLV & Channel 48 UPN WUPN - Greensboro/Winston-Salem/Highpoint, NC - Market Rank 48

Channel 62 WB WSMO - Kansas City, MO - Market Rank 31

Channel 21 WB KVWB & Channel 33 IND KFBT - Las Vegas, NV - Market Rank 52

Channel 56 FOX WDKY - Lexington, KY - Market Rank 64

Channel 47 FOX WMSN - Madison, WI - Market Rank 85

Channel 24 UPN WCGV & Channel 18 WB WVTV - Milwaukee, WI - Market Rank 32

Channel 23 WB KMWB - Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - Market Rank 14

Channel 3 ABC WEAR & Channel 35 IND WFGX - Mobile, AL/Pensacola, FL - Market Rank 63

Channel 17 FOX WZTV & Channel 30 UPN WUXP & Channel 58 WNAB - Nashville, TN - Market Rank 30

Channel 33 WB WTVZ - Norfolk/Portsmouth/Newport News, VA - Market Rank 41

Channel 34 WB WOCB & Channel 25 FOX KOKH - Oklahoma City, OK - Market Rank 45

Channel 23 FOX KBSI & Channel 49 WB WDKA - Paducah, KY/Cape Girardea, MO/Harrisburg and Mount Vernon, IL - Market Rank 79

Channel 43 FOX WYZZ - Peoria/Bloomington, IL - Market Rank 117

Channel 53 FOX WPGH & Channel 22 WB WCWB - Pittsburgh, PA - Market Rank 22

Channel 13 CBS WGME - Portland/Auburn, ME - Market Rank 74

Channel 22 WB WLFL & Channel 28 UPN WRDC - Raleigh/Durham/Fayetteville, NC - Market Rank 29

Channel 35 FOX WRLH - Richmond/Petersburg, VA - Market Rank 61

Channel 31 FOX WUHF - Rochester, NY - Market Rank 75

Channel 29 FOX KABB & Channel 35 WRRT - San Antonio, TX - Market Rank 37

Channel 40 ABC WGGB - Springfield/Holyoke, MA - Market Rank 106

Channel 30 ABC KDNL - St Louis, MO - Market Rank 21

Channel 68 FOX WSYT & Channel 43 WB WNYS - Syracuse, NY - Market Rank 77

***Channel 40 NBC WTWC & Channel 27 ABC WTXL - Tallahassee/Thomasville, FL - Market Rank 109

Channel 38 WB WTTA - Tampa/St Petersburg/Sarasota, FL - Market Rank 77

Channel 39 FOX WEMT - Tri-Cities, TN/VA - Market Rank 89

*** Owns TWO main networks in the same market!!!


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

By City
Baltimore WBFF 45 Fox
Baltimore WNUV 54* WB
Birmingham WTTO 21 WB
Birmingham WDBB 17* WB
Birmingham WABM 68 UPN
Buffalo WUTV 29 Fox
Buffalo WNYO 49 WB
Cedar Rapids KGAN 2 CBS
Champaign WICD 15 NBC
Champaign WICS 20 NBC
Charleston, SC WMMP 36 UPN
Charleston, SC WTAT 24* Fox
Charleston/Huntington WCHS 8 ABC
Charleston/Huntington WVAH 11* Fox
Cincinnati WSTR 64 WB
Columbus, OH WSYX 6 ABC
Columbus, OH WTTE 28* Fox
Dayton WKEF 22 ABC
Dayton WRGT 45* Fox
Des Moines KDSM 17 Fox
Flint WSMH 66 Fox
Greensboro/Winton-Salem WXLV 45 ABC
Greensboro/Winton-Salem WUPN 48 UPN
Greenville, SC WLOS 13 ABC
Greenville, SC WBSC 40* WB
Kansas City KSMO 31 WB
Las Vegas KVWB 21 WB 
Las Vegas KFBT 33 Ind
Lexington WDKY 56 Fox
Madison WMSN 47 Fox
Milwaukee WCGV 21 UPN
Milwaukee WVTV 18 WB
Minneapolis KMWB 23 WB
Mobile/Pensacola WEAR 3 ACB
Mobile/Pensacola WFGX 35* Ind
Nashville WZTV 17 Fox
Nashville WUXP 30 UPN
Nashville WNAB 53* WB
Norfolk WTVZ 33 WB
Oklahoma City KOCB 34 WB
Oklahoma City KOKH 25 Fox
Paducah KBSI 23 Fox
Paducah WDKA 49* WB
Peoria WYZZ 43 Fox
Pittsburgh WPGH 53 Fox
Pittsburgh WCWB 22 WB
Portland, ME WGME 13 CBS
Raleigh WLFL 22 WB
Raleigh WRDC 28 UPN
Richmond WRLH 36 Fox
Rochester, NY WUHF 31 Fox
San Antonio KABB 29 Fox
San Antonio KRRT 35 WB
Springfield, MA WGGB 40 ABC
St. Louis KDNL 30 ABC
Syracuse WSYT 68 Fox
Syracuse WNYS* 43 WB
Tallahassee WTWC 40 NBC
Tallahassee WTXL 27* ABC
Tampa WTTA 38* WB
Tri-Cities WEMT 39 Fox

*Local Marketing agreement or other programming arrangement. Sinclare does not own this station.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Agent0042 (Mar 1, 2004)

*Jacob S* --- I'm in Dayton, Ohio --- although you didn't put a *** by Dayton --- and we'd be losing an ABC and FOX, just like Charleston/Huntington, WV.

Any ideas on what sort of compensation we might get if these stations do go off? *music_beans* tells me that they might offer us stations from another market, such as New York.

Edit: *TNGTony* --- I noticed that my FOX station has an * on your list, indicating that it's not owned by Sinclair, but what exactly does that mean? Because they were definitely running a scroll today.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I'd say we would get $1 off of our bill. I adjusted the Dayton, Ohio *** marks for two major network stations in the same market.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

It means that the company that owns the stations ceded programming and control to Sinclair. Essentially Sinclair can do whatever they want with the sation as if they owned it as long as they live up to their agreement with the actual owners. This is a way aroiund the ownership limits and something that should NEVER be allowed by the FCC. If a company owns a TV or radio station, they damned-well better run it or lose their licesne to operate that channel due to failure to serve the market.

But I digress...

See ya
Tony


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Here is the LMA in the Huntington-Charleston market.

WCHS (ABC) belongs outright to SINclair and has for decades. They went and formed "WVAH Liscensee" and it owns WVAH (Fox). Its a dummy Nevada corporation. It owns 99% of WVAH and the right to buy the remaining 1% for $1 at any time from the old owners. It then signed a phony LMA with itself. 

An LMA was intended for a major station in a small market to operate a UHF small timer that could not meet expenses otherwise. Not for two VHF major affiliates in a Top 75 market.

Now, if I bought my self a transmitter and started broadcasting on Ch 5, which is unoccupied here, the FCC would spare no expense to bring me down, and it is right to do so. But SINclair has been, for six years, in open and arrogant defiance of the law and the FCC has done NOTHING about it. 

What good are rules if they are not enforced. WVAH should forfeit its liscense and it should be rebid.


----------



## oby (Jul 29, 2004)

In St. Louis, Charter Communications does not carry the HD feed of the Sinclair-owned ABC channel, KDNL, because presumably Sinclair wants a lot of money in return. I never watch KDNL here. In fact, the channel is a total joke, as its ratings are so low, they don't even have local newscasts.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

*BANG* It's now a stickie.

One station which WAS a Sinclair station is KOVR-13 (now called CBS-13) which was considered a low-rent news operation. With the recent sale completed to Viacom, Viacom now owns both KOVR-13 and KMAX-31 in Sacramento, and is expected to dump a lot of money into the local news operation.

Sinclair was also the broadcast group that was going to pre-empt regular programming near the end of October in order to broadcast a piece called _Unfounded Loyalty_ which essentially is a hit piece on Kerry that drew complaints against BOTH sides of the political aisle.

This is what makes the term "local broadcasting" so amusing. These mega-station corporations aren't concerned with fulfilling local public interest, they are concerned with the local advertising revenue. It's bad enough that there is a "bug" in the corner of the screen, but some stations have no hesitation about pre-empting regular programming in order to bring you an update on TornadoWeatherWatch with the latest images on WhopperDoppler7 as long as the advertising isn't interrupted. Yet, if we want to get programming from a neighboring market as a protest against these type of antics, we're told we can't and that "the local station brings you programming that isn't part of the national feed, so you gotta watch the local station." Heck, I even proposed that as long as we subscribed to our home market stations, we should be able to subscribe to a neighboring markets stations. Heck, when I was a Dish subscriber, I subscribed to the superstations partially for the UPN/WB feed (this was four months before SHIVA took effect in 1/02) and partially because of the staggered times.

Of course, we can write our congresscritters, the Networks, and the FCC. The stations are required to maintain a public comment file that is publically viewable during business hours. But, because of the strong arm of the NAB, can we expect any change?

(And, my apologies to those who live with tornado threats. But, if the station decides to go full-blown weather coverage over a tornado watches, not warnings, just watches, then there is a problem.)


----------



## UHF (Jan 11, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> Cedar Rapids KGAN 2 CBS


Sinclair has a LMA with KFXA FOX-28 in Cedar Rapids also. Not sure if that means they are affected as well or not.


----------



## lifterguy (Dec 22, 2003)

When the Sinclair owned FOX affiliate in Pittsburgh (WPGH - Channel 53) started local news several years ago, they hired a respected local news director, and put on an hour of solid LOCAL news at 10pm. The newscast never set the world on fire, but it was respected and had been showing steady growth. That, of course, was not enough for the money grubbers at Sinclair. They fired a good part of the local staff, and started doing weather, national news and some sports out of their "News Central" headquarters in Baltimore. They also started including regular (conservative) commentary from Sinclair Vice-President Mark Hyman. Ratings have been declining since then. 
I have no love for Sinclair, and I hope Dish stands firm in negotiations.


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

Sinclair is the lowest of the low. They are the slumlords of local broadcasting. I NEVER watch their fox channel in baltimore, since DC comes in just fine. Somehow they made Comcast change their Fox45 channel to come in over Channel 5 on cable, when Fox5 (dc) was there. The DC station got moved to ch 75!!! I couldn't even watch it on my older tv (only went to ch69). Of course the baltimore fox wouldnt show Simpsons reruns. I HATE THEM.

Not to mention the forced propaganda by Mark Hyman, et al. Local news my ass, they are exactly the opposite. I hope Charlie tells them to stick their renewal up their rear end.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

They sure sound like the scum of the earth.

Their name doesn't help them much either


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

Ok -- so my FOX is one of the ones on the list (the Flint DMA -- even though I'm actually closer to another FOX tower in Cadillac -- but I digress...) So -- let's say that I am not close enough to get any local FOX with an antenna (which is absolutely true). If this gets dropped, then I should be able to get distant FOX, correct?

This might actually be GOOD for me. The FOX I get is a crappy feed that no one seems to care about. It has a "buzz" in the background almost all of the time. I'd have no problem going back to FOX out of NY like I used to have before my "locals" became available. The station is so far away that none of the news is "local" anyhow -- so I might as well get a better broadcast out of New York or some other distant...

I would be able to do that if the SINs were dropped, correct?

- John...


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I rarely watch anything on the Sinclair stations here. I watch my news on NBC but my father watches ABC Sinclair channel for news.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

jgoggan said:


> Ok -- so my FOX is one of the ones on the list (the Flint DMA -- even though I'm actually closer to another FOX tower in Cadillac -- but I digress...) So -- let's say that I am not close enough to get any local FOX with an antenna (which is absolutely true). If this gets dropped, then I should be able to get distant FOX, correct?..


*NOT* correct. Sorry. Argue with me as you might, the new law is clear, your area is served by local channels via satellite INCLUDING the Fox affiliate. The fact that this fox affiliate denies retransmission consent to the satellite company does not void their copyright protection under the new law.

Isn't that lovely? Hmmm?

Not only can they prevent you from watching their station, they can essentially BLOCK every other simirlarly affiliated station from you via satellite.

See ya
Tony


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

TNGTony said:


> *NOT* correct. Sorry. Argue with me as you might, the new law is clear, your area is served by local channels via satellite INCLUDING the Fox affiliate.


I'm confused. So, even though a local channel is not available via satellite, it would still be considered "served via satellite"? How does that logic work?

I haven't kept up on the distant/local laws and such. 

And, the OTA stuff is out now too? I mean, I don't get any FOX with an antenna -- does that not mean anything any more then?

Please fill me in -- and thanks for the new info! I obviously need to start reading up on such things again -- I used to think I had a good grasp on such laws, but fell behind the more recent stuff.

- John...


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

They should have put a provision into the new law that says if it would not be cost effective(IOWs, expensive) to get your LiL because you are in a fringe area, that you can choose which DMA you want to receiver(until such time as a lot of your zip code chooses the same, and then everyone in that zip would get the same). Not the best solution, but better than some other ideas.


----------



## Hoobastank (Mar 9, 2004)

No Sinclair stations on Dish? Sounds like a good thing to me. Bon Voyage mother $%^(*$s


----------



## danm2z (May 18, 2005)

For what it's worth, DirecTV is already agreed to raise the subscriber fee that they pay to Sinclair for their local channels. Dish believes that they should be treated differently. The fact remains that 50% of televisions are tuned to a broadcast channel on average across the entire broadcast day. Up until now, cable channels have reaped large cash benefits in subscriber fees, despite the lack of popular programming. 

Sinclair is simply attempting to collect a fee on par with a cable network. The fee request is a small fraction of what ESPN now gets, yet they are getting vilified for negotiating to get a value for the service that they provide. This is no different then the negotiations that Dish had with CBS recently. Broadcast stations and networks are under pressure from other viewing sources (ie. cable networks), information sources (i.e. Internet), and entertainment sources (i.e. DVDs). CBS and Sinclair are examples of how these companies are looking at all sources of revenue that can provide the resources needed to deliver high quality content to consumers.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

The problem with the CBS setup was that Viacom was trying to tie their locals into their regular programming agreements. As far as I am concerned, that's not "good faith". That's as bad as when we were forced to sell computers with WinDoZe even if it didn't go out the door with WinDoZe on it. And, as far as that 50% figure, I would really love to see the source to back that up. I don't even have my locals on E* anymore, because I never watched them. I am thinking about an HD card for my computer, just because I don't have an HD TV, and it is more something to play with than it is to seriously watch.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

danm2z said:


> Sinclair is simply attempting to collect a fee on par with a cable network.


Perhaps they should get their programming on par with the cable networks. 


danm2z said:


> Broadcast stations and networks are under pressure from other viewing sources (ie. cable networks), information sources (i.e. Internet), and entertainment sources (i.e. DVDs).


Insert violin music here ...

The bottom line is that these stations are boradcast television. They entered a business where the government grants them spectrum to SERVE the public. But thanks to the laws they are allowed to hold cable systems and satellite providers hostage and charge for their programming.

It's all legal and the consumer loses ... but the power is in the BROADCASTER'S hands, not E*'s. The blame belongs squarely on Sinclair's shoulders.

Fortunately SHVERA when fully enacted will allow out of market locals to be carried along side of stations like Sinclair - even if Sinclair refuses to be carried. Help is on the way!

JL


----------



## rid0617 (Dec 27, 2004)

If dish dropped this one they would be doing their subscribers a favor. This channel has no news unless they can pick it up off the satellites in their yard. Because it's a tourist city they report no bad news so it don't discourage tourists. 

They also own WB40 which is no problem as I can get WB out of Charlotte on an outside antenna.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

danm2z said:


> Sinclair is simply attempting to collect a fee on par with a cable network.


I k now this is the mentality of these megacorps, but the problem is the entire concept is totally flawed! A local TV station is supposed to serve the local public. Whether the local public receives that signal via cable, satellite, MSU or antenna, they have the DUTY and OBLIGATION to serve the local public. Charging the same people because the crappy broadcast signal doesn't do the trick for them is absolutely ridiculous! Yes the cable companies and satellite companies charge for the channels, but they charge very little in comparison. Local channels are the loss-leaded for the exact reason you mention. But I digress...

Another thing is that local channels are designed to survive 100% off advertising. Cable channels are not. The reason is the same as you stated...limited audience. But again this is subterfuge. Broadcast stations and cable stations are not the same thing. Again broadcast stations are supposed to serve the local area. The fact that they can hold a city and many of their viewers hostage is ludicrous and to me a reason to revoke licenses I long for the 7-7-7 ownership rules days! The broadcast properties price would drop like a rock and people more interested in serving the public and less interested in ruling the friggin broadcast world would take over.

Cable channels are NOT the same as broadcast channels. There is NOT limited bandwidth in each market for these types of channels. So any comparison between the two is ridiculous!

See ya
Tony


----------



## danm2z (May 18, 2005)

The economics of programming have changed over the years. The 50% figure comes from Nielsen as interpreted by the cable television advertising bureau. The exact figure is open to interpretation, depending on what you consider as your universe (multichannel tv subscribers only or all households with television sets.). However, the evidence is clear that broadcast television is on the decline, when it comes to viewers.

As the previous poster pointed out, broadcast television was designed to serve the public interest and survive off of advertising. Broadcast television continues to serve the public interest by providing content to 100% of households, regardless of whether or not they can afford a multi-channel PAY TV service. I haven't yet seen cable or satellite companies lining up to offer their services for FREE to everyone. As for advertising, if viewership dries up, advertising alone cannot compensate with additional revenue.

If you look at history, you'll see that the cable companies could not exist if they did not have broadcast in the beginning. Cable became popular since you could get a great looking picture (compared to anteanna) without a large investment in an ugly outdoor anteanna. Why shouldn't broadcasters expect a share of the revenue generated by pay tv operators? Keep in mind that no one is forced to pay Dish extra for their local channels. Everyone still has a choice to put up an anteanna and recieve the channel over the air for free.

As for SHIVA, the frequently viewed channels provisions will only affect those that live near enough to another city that the signals are available off-air, like me, near Baltimore. It will not help those where cities that are further apart (Most of Sinclair's markets). The law still gives a local broadcaster a monopoly to provide certain programming within a certain geographic area. If that were ever to change, it would mean the certain death of over the air channels.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

justalurker said:


> The bottom line is that these stations are boradcast television. They entered a business where the government grants them spectrum to SERVE the public.





TNGTony said:


> A local TV station is supposed to serve the local public.


And they do.

However, there are other businesses that would like to make a buck off of their programming, by carrying it and retransmitting it to their subscribers. So why shouldn't the broadcasters make money, as they are already serving the public?

I wrote this earlier in the year, on another board:


> ... people signed up in droves, not because the local cable carrier was able to provide ESPN, but because the local carrier was able to provide all networks. I still refer back to a study done in the early 1990's, where cable subscribers believed they should have their cable bill *halved* if local channels (network programming) were removed from their lineups.


If people had believed in the early '90's that half the value of their cable bill was worthy of their local channels, then the cable companies of the day were making money off the carriage of local channels. There is no reason for carriage of these channels to be free to the carrier if the consumer places such a high value on it.


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

danm2z said:


> Broadcast television continues to serve the public interest by providing content to 100% of households, regardless of whether or not they can afford a multi-channel PAY TV service.


Um, don't lie. I don't get any broadcast network television where I am OTA. Therefore, they do NOT serve "100% of households."

Well, I take that back, I can get a little bit of an ABC that is 55 miles from me with a huge 8-bay antenna on my roof -- but only on the odd days of even months when the moon is full.

With digital, it is even worse since none of the local broadcasters are doing full power until they are forced to do so. In fact, the closest SIN-owned station is the WORST when it comes to digital -- they have the lowest powered digital that they can get away with.

So, don't suggest that broadcasters serve "100% of households" without having to pay. Especially when they are purposely making it difficult-to-impossible to get digital OTA for many people.

- John...


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> However, there are other businesses that would like to make a buck off of their programming, by carrying it and retransmitting it to their subscribers. So why shouldn't the broadcasters make money, as they are already serving the public?


The stations that serve my DMA I cannot get with an antenna -- analog not at a quality that is watchable and digital not at all. They aren't serving the public in their entire DMA, so I don't see that they should be able to charge more for finally getting a signal to me over SOME medium when they don't/won't get a reasonable signal to me for their "public service."

- John...


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Why can't the satellite and cable companies just pass-thru the local stations for FREE?

Then, the stations would not have a big beef with them, and the sat and cable providers could also be "providing a public service". Cable could just say, "If our lines are in your neighborhood, you can pay for the installation and get the locals free for life". Satellite could say "Just get a dish and receiver, ours or a FTA, and get your locals free". PROBLEM SOLVED


----------



## jpetersohn (Apr 6, 2005)

kenglish said:


> Why can't the satellite and cable companies just pass-thru the local stations for FREE?
> 
> Then, the stations would not have a big beef with them, and the sat and cable providers could also be "providing a public service". Cable could just say, "If our lines are in your neighborhood, you can pay for the installation and get the locals free for life". Satellite could say "Just get a dish and receiver, ours or a FTA, and get your locals free". PROBLEM SOLVED


That's great. Except who is going to pay for the continuing infrastructure costs? Head-end equipment, satellite costs, electricity required by said equipment? I do not find the $5.99 that Dish charges unreasonable considering the costs of carrying the local channels? How much bandwidth has Dish used up just to carry locals?


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

danm2z said:


> If you look at history, you'll see that the cable companies could not exist if they did not have broadcast in the beginning. Cable became popular since you could get a great looking picture (compared to anteanna) without a large investment in an ugly outdoor anteanna. Why shouldn't broadcasters expect a share of the revenue generated by pay tv operators? Keep in mind that no one is forced to pay Dish extra for their local channels. Everyone still has a choice to put up an anteanna and recieve the channel over the air for free.


TIME OUT!!!!! History lesson here! Cable came into existance as a way for TV salespeople to sell television sets in areas where OTA reception was impossible! Scranton, PA is generally known as the first cable system in 1947. At the time it was called a community antenna system and this is why the abreviation for cable TV is CATV to this day! The subscription fee was actually called a maintenance fee and it paid for the infrastructure to bring the antenna signal from NYC and Philadelphia stations to subscribers.

Cable was relegated to the back-hills and far-away places for 40 years! The profits were never really there and the broadcasters did not care that the cable systems were charging for the service because they were bringing the signal to areas that their channels were otherwise unable to reach.

It wasn't until Ted Turner's Atlanta channel, HBO and other satellite channels that along that cable's polularity began to rise sharply. People in the cities were NOT really willing to pay for cable just to get the local channels, but they were willing to pay to get other services. In the very early 1980's there was a cable explosion. At this time the broadcasters looked at the audience share they were starting to lose to the calbe channels. THEN AFTER realizing that cable channels could be competitors, they looked at the money the cable syetems were charging (very few systems were profitable then) and started to cry foul. For 40 years it was okay, but by 1983 and 1984 the NAB began to scream bloody murder. The telecommunications act of 1984 was the first act that allowed local broadcasters to charge cable systems for the use of the signal.

So even though broadcast channels are still the most popular channels out there it was NEVER the reason to get cable in areas where an antenna would do. It took a generation or two to make it that way now. And that is really due to the marketing of many cable companies. Many people don't even know that they can get local channels using an antenna. It's magic!

Now back to the the fees charged by cable systems for local channels... As I mentioned in the previous post, *local channels are loss leaders*. The fees charged by cable companies for locals alone *does not cover the costs* of they system. Any nickel charged by the broadcasters comes directly from the pocket of the subscribers. Essentially, the broadcasters are charging viewers to get their signal via cable. But since there is a go-between, the broadcasters either don't see it that way or don't care and just want to extort money from subscribers. Again, to me that should be reason to have the broadcast license REVOKED for lack of service to the public.

And finally, no system can survive without local channels...DirecTV and Dish Network had close to 8 million subscribers combined BEFORE they offered local channels. I was one of them. Both systems were growing vigorously too!

See ya
Tony


----------



## lifterguy (Dec 22, 2003)

Today I sent this e-mail to the Sinclair e-mail address for comments ([email protected]):
To Sinclair Broadcasting Management:
Please note that I am a Dish Network subscriber living in Pittsburgh. I have become aware of your stalemate in negotiating an agreement with Dish for them to carry your signal, and the threat that in my market Channels 53 and 22 may no longer be available on Dish after May 31rst. I want you to know now that if on June first your channels are no longer available, I will NOT be calling Dish Network to complain. I commend Dish for standing up to your money-grubbing management who are trying to pick-my-pocket by jacking up the fees paid by cable companies and satellite providers. You should be falling down on your knees and thanking these retransmitters for providing a clearer signal and wider distribution of your product than you would receive if you had to depend on over-the-air reception alone. I can easily live without your low-budget newscasts and mediocre programming. I can only hope that your company chokes on its own greed and is forced to begin selling off stations.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

danm2z said:


> Keep in mind that no one is forced to pay Dish extra for their local channels. Everyone still has a choice to put up an anteanna and recieve the channel over the air for free.


That is incorrect now. Any E* sub who was signed up under the DHA promotion HAS to pay for their locals channels, regardless of whether they are available or not. A good case is Harrisonburg, VA, where they have a 2 channel DMA, PBS & ABC. E* does NOT offer locals in this DMA's zip codes, however, they still HAVE to pay the same package price with the local channels. DHA customers CANNOT drop their local channels.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

If anything satellite and cable is doing the local channels a favor for taking on the cost of broadcasting their channels, particularly satellite. It's not free to provide those channels to get it to their customers.


----------



## elbyj (Jan 9, 2003)

Haven't seen any notice on the two San Antonio channel apparently affected by the contract issue, but of course we don't stay glued to the FOX and WB stations at all times. These are the same set of channels that refused to allow Dish and our local Time Warner cable to carry the Super Bowl in HD for this area!! Hope we are able to keep them on Dish as a roof antenna for our area just doesn't bring in the signal for the WB channel. The FOX channel comes in a little bit better.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> Why can't the satellite and cable companies just pass-thru the local stations for FREE?


They are free ... It is against the law for satellite providers to charge stations for carriage on their systems.

As for charging the customers a nominal charge for getting that station to the customer that isn't a bad thing. There are costs involved for the satellite provider including satellite space, backhauls and monitoring. Even a CATV system has to buy and maintain equiment even if all the signals are analog.

Cable and Satellite companies were not granted their license to serve the public interest in the same way that broadcasters received their licenses. There are a lot of restrictions and requirements on both Cable and Sat to meet certain public service levels - but it isn't like a TV license.

TV stations are licensed to SERVE a community. Many have forgotten that - including the stations.

JL


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Its all about the money. That is obvious with Sinclair. It is not about you and me, the community, city, or state that we live in. Its all about the cha ching.


----------



## danm2z (May 18, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> Now back to the the fees charged by cable systems for local channels... As I mentioned in the previous post, *local channels are loss leaders*. The fees charged by cable companies for locals alone *does not cover the costs* of they system. Any nickel charged by the broadcasters comes directly from the pocket of the subscribers.
> 
> I'm curious where your numbers come from that indicate pay TV systems do not cover their costs of local channel delivery. I also have to wonder about your logic: If the satellite company decides they want to subsidize the cost of local broadcast TV service, why should the broadcaster also subsidize that cost? If ESPN can charge $2 for every subscriber, then why shouldn't a broadcaster be similarly compensated? Is the programming any less popular? It's not a question of cost, it's a question of value. Broadcasters are only charging for the percieved value of their product. It's up to the distributors and their subscribers to decide if that value is worth while.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Again, the reason is that EAPN IS NOT A BROADCAST CHANNEL. ESPN IS NOT CHARGED WITH SERVING THE PUBLIC IN THE AREA THE CABLE SYSTEM IS DELIVERING THE BROADCAST STATION'S SIGNAL. If the operators were selling the signal OUTSIDE the area the station is licesned to serve, then I have no argiument.

If the TV station wants to go into the cable business, they can give up their broadcast license and start up a cable channel!

As to the loss leader thing... The numbers come from an internal cable memo dealing with where the money comes in. How did I get my hands on it? I work for a Public Access center that gets its operating from franchise fees charged by cable systems. The channels we program are on the lifeline service. The memo was telling us that the life-line service was a loss leader (locals, access and two shopping channels only). This was to tell us to ask people to get basic service rather than lifeline. Since we are an independent studio that programs these channels for 3 of the local communities, we ignored the statement. But according to the detailed numbers I saw on this memo, the $11 Warner charged for the lifeline service didn't even come close to coverng the costs.

I do not have similar numbers for Dish or DirecTV. But looking at the expenses I have seen I cannot see how $6 a month even comes close to covering the costs.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> Again, the reason is that EAPN IS NOT A BROADCAST CHANNEL. ESPN IS NOT CHARGED WITH SERVING THE PUBLIC IN THE AREA THE CABLE SYSTEM IS DELIVERING THE BROADCAST STATION'S SIGNAL. If the operators were selling the signal OUTSIDE the area the station is licesned to serve, then I have no argiument.


Ah. Tell me how allowing rebroadcasts of local channels on cable or satellite is "SERVING THE PUBLIC". After all, unless I am mistaken (and I am not), the FCC defines how broadcast licenses are regulated for "the public interest". Stations meet these regulations every day. But how is having a local channel on cable or satellite "SERVING THE PUBLIC", when the station itself already has a transmitter and is "SERVING THE PUBLIC".


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Rebroadcasting a local TV channel to the local market it is licensed to serve allows the local channel to reach the public it is licensed to serve. 

I really do not see where the question is here. The problem is that the broadcast station see this as a cable system profiting from the distribution of their signal (which as I ave explained above is not the case). I see it as the cable systems ensuring 100% distribution of the signal to the people the station is licensed to serve!

I am not saying the cable company is doing this as a public service. What I am saying is as long as the cable company is distributing a channel to the area where the local channel is MANDATED to serve the local interest, they should not expect to be paid. They should do everything they can to make sure their signal is carried so they can serve the public they are licensed to serve! What Sinclair and other mega broadcast corps are doing is the opposite.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> The problem is that the broadcast station see this as a cable system profiting from the distribution of their signal (which as I ave explained above is not the case).


And once again, as I wrote this on another board:


> ... people signed up in droves, not because the local cable carrier was able to provide ESPN, but because the local carrier was able to provide all networks. I still refer back to a study done in the early 1990's, where cable subscribers believed they should have their cable bill halved if local channels (network programming) were removed from their lineups.


A study is a study. Local channels are *expected* to have carriage on a multichannel carrier, unless the bill is halved.

The cable system is profiting from the distribution of local channels. You can explain that the providers aren't profiting, but it isn't the case. Find me a cable company or a DBS system without local channel or network programming, and I'll show you a system that shuts down in less than a year.

People *expect* their multichannel provider to carry local channels. Look at all the concern from the last Dish Network skirmish, involving Viacom. Look at all the concern with ABC and Time Warner from 1999/2000. Look at all the concern in this thread regarding the Sinclair channels.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Greg, please read one of my first posts in this thread. It wasn't until channels like ESPN andTBS and HBO were available that Cable exploded on the scene. Cable had been around since 1947 strictly to provide locals to people who couldn't otherwise receive the signals OTA. But in places where OTA was "good enough" cable did not do well until other channels became widely available.

What people say and the actual numbers in sales are two different things. Again after two generations of wide cable distribution, the attitudes change. But the underlying reasons are the same.

Yes people absolutely expect for their locals to be on the local cable system. But this is not the argument here. The problem is that local channels who should want to have their channel available to 100% of their viewers by any and all means necessary in order to fullfill their obligation for getting a broadcast license now view cable as another revenue stream. The revenue that really comes from the pockets of the people the stations were charged to serve. This is in complete conflict! That is the argument here. Everything else is superfluous.

Again, if we were talking about what happened to "superstations" where their signal was sold outside their local marketing area, that is a different story. And yes at that point the broadcast station should charge whatever they want to export their signal.

See ya
Tony


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

The problem with the Local DMAs is that a lot of folks are UNABLE to get their locals in their DMA. Out here in western VA and the Eastern parts of WV, there are substations that retransmit the locals(try to get a local DC channel with an antenna in Morefield, WV. Not gonna happen). Putting the locals on sat was about the ONLY way that some people in the rural areas with INTERFERENCE problems would ever be able to get their locals. I've seen people getting locals with an antenna in areas where they "Qualify" to get the DC locals. And they were pulling Pittsburgh and Johnstown, PA and Charleston, WV. No DC stations at all. But they are in the DC DMA. This is where the problem really is. The 50% of people who can't get a good signal, or have to pay out the nose to get an antenna able to get the signal, and then have their Home Owners Association raise hell over it.


----------



## NightRyder (Jan 29, 2004)

IMO: The method by which a viewer in a broadcastor's DMA receives their transmission should have no relevance. If a broadcaster is mandated to "serve the public" then all viewers within their DMA should be treated equally. Any broadcaster that transmits a free OTA signal should not be allowed to charge an entity that re-transmits their broadcast within the designated DMA. The entity that re-transmits the broadcast should, at a maximum, be allowed only to recover the costs associated with re-transmission from the viewer.


NightRyder


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> The problem is that local channels who should want to have their channel available to 100% of their viewers by any and all means necessary in order to fullfill their obligation for getting a broadcast license now view cable as another revenue stream.


And once again, this is where we diverge. These broadcast stations already fulfill their obligation for their broadcast license. There has never been a license revoked for failure to rebroadcast on a cable or DBS system. Unless you are somehow trying to turn the clock back and rewrite the rules, there is no way to change that part of the system.

The broadcast industry was *OK* with CATV rebroadcasting their channel, Fortnightly not withstanding. However, when the broadcasting industry saw niche channels receiving loads of money for their niche-channel content, the broadcast industry had no choice but to charge for their signal. The broadcasters were the single reason for the CATV industry. And they should be paid for their content, just like the cable channels.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> ...And they should be paid for their content, just like the cable channels.


Broadcasters ARE paid for their content. It's called "Advertising Revenue". The more viewers a station has, the more they can charge for advertising. Stations should be clammoring for as many cable/DBS systems to carry them as possible. The stations should pay for the exposure.


----------



## NightRyder (Jan 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> The broadcasters were the single reason for the CATV industry. And they should be paid for their content, just like the cable channels.


If the broadcastors wish to be compensated like cable channels then they should face the same competition. No more protected DMAs. If viewers choose to receive their programming from NY or LA then the local broadcaster should be forced to permit it. Their attempt to have it "both ways" just exposes their blatant hypocrisy.

NightRyder


----------



## JonBlack (Feb 24, 2005)

We've been getting messages on FOX (Charleston, SC) that *appears* to be from E* stating that on May 31st we may not have fox anymore and to contact DirecTV or your local cable operator to keep the channel.

Is there any progress on the negotiations???


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

JonBlack said:


> We've been getting messages on FOX (Charleston, SC) that *appears* to be from E* stating that on May 31st we may not have fox anymore and to contact DirecTV or your local cable operator to keep the channel.
> 
> Is there any progress on the negotiations???


The messages are from the OWNERS of the station, and NOT E*.


----------



## markav (Jul 26, 2004)

JonBlack said:


> Is there any progress on the negotiations???


I'm curious too, as I just noticed that my local nbc affiliate is affected by this. Does anybody have any theories or predictions on how this will play out? Have their been similar situations in the recent past?

I was affected by the FSN Chicago / Comcast Chicago switchover outage on Dish earlier this year, so I'm somewhat concerned about this.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> the broadcast industry had no choice but to charge for their signal.


Actually, stations can choose to require DBS and cable systems to carry their signals. That is their choice.

Satellite carriers can pick and choose which markets they carry but cannot pick and choose channels within a market (unless the station chooses to withold their signal until paid).

Cable companies have it worse. They MUST carry a certain number of local channels based on their total channel count regardless of what they or their customers want. Only when they have fulfilled their quota can they refuse a local broadcast channel.

The biggest choice is in the hands of the local broadcaster.

JL


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Greeg, you are arguing what they can do because they can. I am arguing what they should do because they should. The difference is one doesn't give a rat's ass about the market they serve and the other one does. If the station doesn't give a rat's ass about the market they serve, the screw 'em! They SHOULD lose their license for lack of service but I know they wont. In the mean time the jack around the audience they were charged to serve by charging them money for the signal if they want it via a more convenient means.

Retransmission consent is legal and it shouldn't be. They do it because THEY CAN. No other reason. Well...they finally hit a wall. Dish is telling them, we can survive without you! And when the local channel loses these viewers they may change their tune. Viacom did....and Viacom had much more levarage!

See ya
Tony


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Two ways of looking at it, locals provide the channels free OTA so cable and satellite is doing them a favor for proving it on their systems, or locals charge for the service to cable and satellite as they should and those that are low income or dont watch much tv/dont want to pay for it get it OTA. Isn't there some locals that not even broadcast OTA? I have heard of this in some markets.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jacob S said:


> Isn't there some locals that not even broadcast OTA? I have heard of this in some markets.


They are not locals unless they are broadcast.

Some areas do not have all of the networks as NTSC OTA stations.
Some areas have those missing networks presented as secondary feeds on ATSC (digital) OTA stations (like UPN in South Bend and Fort Wayne markets).
Technically, ATSC (digital) is still broadcast - but the FCC rules have not caught up with the technology yet and digital stations cannot force themselves on to cable or satellite.

A station/station group that keeps good relations with a provider (or carries a big enough stick) can get providers to cooperate 'voluntarily'. "UPN Michiana 22.2" was placed on local cable as an analog channel almost immediately because of the relationship with the cable company and the big stick of CBS 22 sponsoring the UPN. This station is also on E* as ESBT ch 30 in the local market.

LPs do not have the ability to force themselves on to satellite, but in many markets the 'relationship' issue is making LP and CA stations a wise addition. Plus the issue of missing networks if a LP isn't added. In my market there are two LPs that are both on E* - they are the WB and ABC affiliates so they have clout and being owned by Weigel Broadcasting helps in the 'big stick' department. (Carry our LPs or don't get our full power network stations in other markets.)

Sometime this advisarial relationship between stations and providers can work to help the consumer. Would E* carry "ESBT" UPN, WB25 and ABC57 in my market if there wasn't some threat that a broadcaster could make? Probably not. Then again, with cable carrying all nine of my market's channels - LPs and UPN ATSC included - E* would be at a competitive disavantage if they didn't carry those channels. (WAAT 69 is the only one not carried and it is a LP in search of a format.)

JL


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> Greeg, you are arguing what they can do because they can. I am arguing what they should do because they should. If the station doesn't give a rat's ass about the market they serve, the screw 'em! They SHOULD lose their license for lack of service but I know they wont.


People also signed up for cable so they no longer had to worry about an antenna. The expectation of receiving local channels is there. And if the consumer places that much value on the availability of their local channels on their multichannel system, the stations should be paid. I am definitely arguing the stations should be paid, because they should...


> Retransmission consent is legal and it shouldn't be. They do it because THEY CAN. No other reason. Well...they finally hit a wall. Dish is telling them, we can survive without you! And when the local channel loses these viewers they may change their tune. Viacom did....and Viacom had much more levarage!


The question here: are you sure Viacom changed their tune?

Dish Network was beating up DirecTV in the new subscribers race. On 3 June, 2003, Dish Network and Allbritton got into a skirmish. Every quarter after, DirecTV has beaten Dish Network in net new subscriber additions. Then again, on 12 March, 2004, Dish Network had another skirmish, this time with Viacom. In the full year period since, DirecTV has outpaced Dish Network by 443,000 net new subs.

I truly doubt Viacom lost.

If Sinclair is pulled, how many more subs will DirecTV gain? I realize that Dish Network is "profitable", but at what point, when subscriber acquisition slows, will Dish Network no longer anger their sub base? (and yes, I know the angry sub base is over at DirecTV's doorstep regarding HD Sunday Ticket).


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Viacomm haulted all their cable channels to get Nick Toons on At120. Dish said no...At180 maybe. Viacom said no and went into the fight. Dish said AT180 and we ai't budging. Well.... look at the program guide.

Again Greg, the numbers and all that crap are not what the argument is about. They are suspect anywah and the turn in adds for each satellite company now has more to do with the promotions offered. And if you noticed Dish is still growing and the churn rate is lower than industry average.

The argument is about a TV station charging its viewers (whether directly or indirectly via cable/satellite subscriptions) is actually service the public interest. 

As to the "is it profitable argument... If you show vendors you mean business and you will NOT be subject to extortion, some companies may think twice before trying it. If you just roll over and play dead, you will be in short order. I'm very happy that Dish is saying "this far and no further!" I just wish other companies did the same. These shenannigans would stop right now!

See ya
Tony


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

It seems to me that local broadcast television makes it's money through advertising revenue. So you'd think that if another company was willing to re-transmit their signal so that more people received it and got a clearer picture for most people as well the local broadcaster ought to kissing that company's butt for increasing it's exposure and allowing it to charge more for advertising. Just my simple 2cents worth.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> Again Greg, the numbers and all that crap are not what the argument is about. They are suspect anywah...





TNGTony said:


> Viacomm haulted all their cable channels to get Nick Toons on At120. Dish said no...At180 maybe. Viacom said no and went into the fight. Dish said AT180 and we ai't budging. Well.... look at the program guide.


If my numbers are suspect, the belief that Viacom "lost" the fight to Dish Network is more suspect, since there aren't any facts to back up your position.


tsmacro said:


> It seems to me that local broadcast television makes it's money through advertising revenue. So you'd think that if another company was willing to re-transmit their signal so that more people received it and got a clearer picture for most people as well the local broadcaster ought to kissing that company's butt for increasing it's exposure and allowing it to charge more for advertising. Just my simple 2cents worth.


Yes, but it seems the only reason the DBS providers have grown so much over the past five years is that local channels are now available. Tell me the local broadcasters don't deserve some of that revenue.

I realize I sound like a CEO for any broadcaster. But when someone else is able to make money off of a service you provide, and you do not get your piece of that revenue, you'd find any way possible to get your part of the profits.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> ...I realize I sound like a CEO for any broadcaster. But when someone else is able to make money off of a service you provide, and you do not get your piece of that revenue, you'd find any way possible to get your part of the profits.


There are no profits. The DBS providers put up LIL at a net LOSS. They do it to remain competetive with each other and cable.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Mikey said:


> There are no profits. The DBS providers put up LIL at a net LOSS. They do it to remain competetive with each other and cable.


We're figuring that 60 percent of the base has locals. Locals are at the least $5 per month (on Dish Network).

On a figure of 12 million total subs, Dish Network would have 7.2 million subs with locals. At $5 a month, that would be $36 million a month, or $432 million a year. I don't think it costs Dish Nework $432 million a year to uplink local channels, pay them for their carriage, and run the fiber backhaul network.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> We're figuring that 60 percent of the base has locals. Locals are at the least $5 per month (on Dish Network).
> 
> On a figure of 12 million total subs, Dish Network would have 7.2 million subs with locals. At $5 a month, that would be $36 million a month, or $432 million a year. I don't think it costs Dish Nework $432 million a year to uplink local channels, pay them for their carriage, and run the fiber backhaul network.


Assuming your figures are correct (maybe/maybe not), then $432 million / ~2000 stations = ~$173,000/station. Not an enormous amount in 2005 dollars.

In addition to the costs you listed, there's also the design, launch, and operating cost of the satellites required for locals, and those costs will only go up as more stations have their digital signals carried on DBS.

So, I'm not moving off my position that DBS makes no profit off LIL.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

Locals channels already have a higher profit potential BECAUSE they are being carried by cablle or sat. If they have approx 1 million viewers, OTA, and then they are added to cable/sat, and their viewership jumps to 5 million possible subs, they can charge more revenue on advertising based on that. The problem is that the NAB is MORE interested is protecting it's little fiefdoms revenue possibilities than they are in making sure that the public interest is served. Very few boradcast stations offer more than 2 hours of locally produced programming in the DC area per day. And, quite frankly, a lot of subs, myself included, could care less about watching our locals news, since the only thing local have the time is a murder of some such crap. I live 70 miles west of DC, so their local news is in no way MY local news. That's why I read my local paper. Other news I get on-line. So, how are the broadcasters serving us locally? Take Morefield, WV, like I pointed out earlier. Almost 2 HOURS drive from DC. Yup, that's locals new for them. So how is the public being served???
When it all somes down to it, it's about $$, not the public interest.


----------



## moedog (Jun 20, 2003)

In DC, Channels 4-5-7-9 all offer at least 4 hours of locally produced news per day. And though you would not like to admit it, Winchester VA has become a part of the DC metro area. Moorefield WV subscribers, I am quite certain, can subscribe to DNS in addition (or in lieu) to the DC locals if they so desire. But you must realize that the reason that Moorefield WV is in the DC market is that the local county government has maintained translators of channels 5 and 9 in that area for many years. They, and their constituants, must feel there is value in recieving those DC stations. The other two stations, recieved ever so faintly in the Moorefield area, no more serve the Moorefield area than the DC stations. I have noticed that the DC stations do provide weather forcasts and school closings for the Moorefield area. But that is not to say I agree with SINclair's position at all. They are robber barrons and thats that.


----------



## Terry2f (May 20, 2005)

Jacob S said:


> Scrolling on Channel 8 WCHS-TV Charleston, WV (During newscasts)
> 
> Attention subscribers to the Dish Network The current agreement allowing the Dish Network to provide you with the signal of this television station will end on May 31, 2005. Although we are continuing to negotiate to try and obtain an extension of this agreement, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. In order to ensure your uninterrupted ability to watch the quality programming appearing on this station, you may want to consider consider contacting your localbe cable operator or DirecTV, whose ability to continue to carry this station's programming will not be impacted. Thank you.


Directv is offering all four networks in HD. Any idea when Dish will offer more than CBS HD?


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

Terry2f said:


> Directv is offering all four networks in HD. Any idea when Dish will offer more than CBS HD?


Do you have any clue how a message board works? Does anything in this thread relate to carrying national HD channels? This isnt even the Directv forum. Go away.

Back to topic. Obviously the two camps will never agree. I see it fairly simple. Govt gives XYZ company a license to transmit their station. They transmit it locally, FOR FREE. They get money from local advertisers and other advertisers. Joe blow who lives in the sticks cant get a signal from XYZ channel. However, ABC satellite wants to transmit XYZ to stay competitive. They charge Joe the cost to uplink, transmit, and maintain the signal. What gives XYZ the right to charge extra for this?? Stupid laws lobbied by the NAB, thats what. They get extra ad revenue eyeballs from dish and direct retransmitting. Now they want more from the retransmitters. CORPORATE GREED AT ITS BEST.

and the excuse that direct has already agreed to this increase is total BS. So what if direct already did? Charlie will fight more than evil Rupert. Maybe Directv is planning a $99 price increase for local channels next year, just like their HD season ticket increase :hurah:


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

moedog said:


> In DC, Channels 4-5-7-9 all offer at least 4 hours of locally produced news per day. And though you would not like to admit it, Winchester VA has become a part of the DC metro area. Moorefield WV subscribers, I am quite certain, can subscribe to DNS in addition (or in lieu) to the DC locals if they so desire.


Actually, their DMA is only considered DC. They do not have access to any other DMAs. This may change with the new significantly viewed part of SHVERA. And, I do know about the repaeater that re-transmits the signals into the Moorefield area. It is owned by a local co-op. I did a great many P* conversions in that area. As for Winchester being a part of DC, when it comes to news, that is not the case. The Quad state area here, Winchester, VA, Martinsburg, WV, Hagerstown, MD, and Chambersburg, PA, does have a lot of people who work in the DC area, but these people still must rely on their local raido and newspapers for their local news. Hagerstown has NBC25, but it is not carried on either sat company. You get many more locals on Cable in this area, however, who really needs to have 3 NBCs or CBS's?

As for 4 hours of local news everyday, they don't have but 1/2-1 hour on the weekends, so this drops the average by a bit.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Yes, but it seems the only reason the DBS providers have grown so much over the past five years is that local channels are now available. Tell me the local broadcasters don't deserve some of that revenue (originallly posted by Greg Bimson)


I would argue that the local broadcasters are getting their share of the revenue by being able to charge more for advertising because their signal is being seen by more people. If they want make more money from the public (as they are trying to do by charging $$ to Dish to rebroadcast, because this will come from the public's pockets because you know E* won't eat the cost) they ought to hold their own fund drive like they do on PBS.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

The initial growth of DBS was due to an alternative to cable and availability in the country where cable wasn't at. The growth of DBS now has more to do with local channel availability making it an even better alternative to cable having what they have to offer. Now if they can offer a good broadband solution and phone service they may be set. It seems as if this is what they are currently working on. They know this is what they will have to do in order to survive.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> I don't think it costs Dish Nework $432 million a year to uplink local channels, pay them for their carriage, and run the fiber backhaul network.


Well I'm glad you are quoting real figures you know - and not one that is simply made up to support your argument. 

Oh, that isn't a real figure. 

But if you want to play DIVIDE that $432 million in estimated income by the channels carried. Is it too much to believe that they wouldn't spend 28k per month on a station? Especially when some stations choose the extortion option that costs E* more than the simple cost of keeping equipment warm?

How much expense has gone into the design of the two current and third coming spotbeam satellite that serve no value other than locals? How about the cost of building and maintaining the second and soon third uplink center? Not needed without the vast number of local channels. How much legal expense has gone in to lobbying E*'s view of SHVERA? How much legal expense is going in to FCC filings to protect E*'s business rights?

D* only charges $3 more for locals ... does that means it costs them LESS than E* to carry the channels? No. They just chose a different price point and the true cost of locals is burried in the bottom line - just like E*.

Welcome back to reality.

JL


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

justalurker said:


> Well I'm glad you are quoting real figures you know - and not one that is simply made up to support your argument.


But you didn't counter my numbers. So, I looked up Dish Network's website. The true number is 11.23 million customers. The take rate for Dish Network customers on local channels is about 60 percent. So, that means 6.7 million customers are taking locals. At $5 a pop (the least you can buy locals on Dish Network), that totals $33.5 million, or $402 million a year. Sorry my figures were incorrect.


justalurker said:


> But if you want to play DIVIDE that $432 million in estimated income by the channels carried. Is it too much to believe that they wouldn't spend 28k per month on a station?


Well, I took your math here. $432 million a year, divided by 12 months, is $36 million a month. In order to get to $28K per month per station, you have assumed in the neighborhood of 1285 local channels. No where near all of those stations get paid. Near half of them are must-carry, which means they receive no payment. And, I do not have the numbers to back this up, but I could swear that these stations were receiving no more than 25 cents per sub, at this time. I think Sinclair is trying to receive more. I will try to find backup later.


----------



## moedog (Jun 20, 2003)

A few comments about Greg's post. First, I have to wonder where the 60% take rate on Dish locals came from. That seems very low to me. I read that in some well established locals markets, the take rate is about 90%. I am sure the rate is much higher here in the Roanoke market, though we do have serious OTA issues because of rough geography and long distances. Here in the Roanoke market, one of the major station managers told the Roanoke TImes that his company was getting "about 10 cents per month per local subscriber" for carrying their signal. Thats a whole lot less than the 25 cents you quote. Of course, prior to DIsh and DIrect carrying Roanoke locals about two years ago, the local stations were PUBLICALLY begging the sat companies to carry Roanoke locals: they admitted that they had lost 20% (DIrect and Dish penetration at the time--now its over 30% and one of the highest in the country) of their audience to sat. because sat subscribers were not making any arrangements to pick up the locals OTA or on cable. That situation might have encouraged D* and E* to offer the Roanoke big four less compensation than they did in other markets. But not all LIL subscribers pay 4.99. Myself, I also subscribe to the NYC big four (legally) and the superstations. as well as the national PBS (which I am told is not permitted., but I never asked for it) and pay $11.99 for the whole package which reflects some kind of discount. Also, some locals subscribers seem to have some kind of package where locals are provided at no charge. In any event, I think it is safe to say, that both sat companies probably make a good profit on locals in the really big markets. But I also believe they take big losses in the small markets (especially DIsh, since they are in more tiny markets) so overall, I doubt they make much or any profit on LIL service. In medium markets, such as Roanoke or Charleston-Huntington, its probably about a wash. Dish does not need to be paying SINclair $.25 or more on two stations. In fact, even $.25 is too much in any market. That rivals or exceeds the fees that are paid for many cable only channels, I am sure. And the local stations have the opportunity to sell huge amounts of local advertising.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> The take rate for Dish Network customers on local channels is about 60 percent.


Source? - Irrelevant anyways ...


Greg Bimson said:


> In order to get to $28K per month per station, you have assumed in the neighborhood of 1285 local channels. No where near all of those stations get paid.


It isn't *all* about paying the stations --- it is about paying for the backhauls, uplinks, satellite capabilities and satellite leases that would NOT be needed if it were not for carrying locals.

My workplace has a short (90 mile) T1 link that costs more than a thousand per month. Extend that link all the way to Colorado or Arizona and expand it so it could carry a video channel and one could get in the $20k range easily.

But the number of E* subscribers and percentage taking locals is IRRELEVANT to the cost of providing those locals - Their costs are not fixed by the amount they can charge for the programming - their costs are fixed by backhaul mileage, uplink costs and satellite space purchase or rent as well as whatever they have to pay the greedier stations for permission.

The only relevance of what E* charges is to whether or not it covers their costs.


Greg Bimson said:


> I do not have the numbers to back this up


I know.

JL


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> *NOT* correct. Sorry. Argue with me as you might, the new law is clear, your area is served by local channels via satellite INCLUDING the Fox affiliate. The fact that this fox affiliate denies retransmission consent to the satellite company does not void their copyright protection under the new law.


Actually, I'm not sure this is true. The way the future applicability clauses of SHVERA are written, it would seem that white area subs would regain DNS access for any local network that is dropped.

The clauses governing signals available January 1, 2005 could be seen to contradict this, so it might be left for a court to decide what the correct interpretation is. It will be interesting to how E* interprets this if/when it drops Sinclair stations.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

The following is reposted from Jacob's dbsforums thread of the same name, and the quotes are from that thread. Sorry I don't have time right now to re-edit the content for this board, but I think readers here will find this interesting.



> *Originally posted by Greg Bimson on 05-20-2005 at 04:07 AM in post #41:*
> _Nothing has changed. Except that others rebroadcasters that wish to make money *absolutely need* product from these stations in order to increase their own revenue.
> _


This is not a change. Distributors always need product to make money. The paper boy can't make a buck when the newspaper doesn't publish. And originally, cable had no product at all except OTA and a mandated local bulletin board channel for systems over a certain size. So they've always "absolutely needed" OTA product.

What changed with the addition of cable only channels such as CNN and ESPN was that the cablecaster had local ad avails in non-broadcast channels and thus started competing with the broadcaster for local ad dollars. Before this the cablecaster was purely a business partner, now he became at least partly a competitor.

While this is obviously somewhat unfair to the broadcaster, it isn't a sound ethical justification for retrans compensation because it really has nothing to do with the viewer. The viewer's relationship to the broadcaster hasn't changed, it's the competitive landscape that's changed, and that doesn't justify extracting compensation from viewers, even indirectly, for what is supposed to be a free service.



> *Originally posted by Greg Bimson on 05-20-2005 at 01:57 PM in post #45:*
> _In 1968, CATV consisted of only OTA stations. In 1984, the cable "boom" came from the availability of the 60 or 120 channel universe. And a large chunk of that was because people could ditch their antenna, and watch the most viewed programming, the networks, on cable.
> _


You're contradicting yourself here. From the 50s through the early 70s, cable was primarily a rural and small town phenomenon, consisting of 12 or fewer OTA channels. The 60/120 channel universe consisted of primarily cable-only channels, and it's that service, not the ditching of antennas, that made cable viable in the cities. You can read marketing studies from the time that suggested that basic cable needed a minimum to two major non-OTA channels to succeed in the market.

But it turns out that satellite LIL has changed the business landscape yet again. Consider the Charlottesville, VA market, where one company is soon to own three, count 'em, three, of the four major network affiliates in the town:

http://readthehook.com/stories/2005/03/10/newsWahuFoxTvStationTakesP.html

Three things are noteworthy about this. First, two of the affiliates will be low-power and probably wouldn't be viable without the ability to force carriage on satellite by piggybacking on the RC agreement of the third. Second, controlling three of four major network affiliates gives this company make-or-break control of any DBS local package. Third, there was another proposed station that was supposed to carry 24/7 local news/content. That station, not surprisingly, has failed to materialize, and the obvious reasons are (a) with three new major network affiliates soaking up local ad dollars, there can't be much left for a local-only operation, and (b) only the network affiliated LPs are going to be able to get DBS carriage, so the local-only broadcaster would be at a serious disadvantage.

Still, if one company can make a buck providing three networks on a non-exclusive basis, I say more power to it. But if this company is able to exclusive gain exclusive control on cable and/or DBS of three major networks, then viewers who would otherwise have access to news produced by four different companies -- or possibly even five companies if the local-only channel proved viable -- will instead have news produced by just two, and that is definitely not in the public interest.


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

This is EXACTLY why the satellite companies should work out a deal with the networks to basically create satellite specific networks in SD and HD and just pay a set fee to the locals in each market that's not negotiated out constantly from those viewers in that market who subscribe to network programming...this would obviously clear up a ton of bandwidth and cut out this nonsense every other year on channels(and no, I'm not talking about using existing west coast and east coast feeds ala Primetime 24-these would be satellite specific channels)


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

justalurker said:


> But the number of E* subscribers and percentage taking locals is IRRELEVANT to the cost of providing those locals - Their costs are not fixed by the amount they can charge for the programming - their costs are fixed by backhaul mileage, uplink costs and satellite space purchase or rent as well as whatever they have to pay the greedier stations for permission.
> 
> The only relevance of what E* charges is to whether or not it covers their costs.
> 
> ...


Funny.

Care to provide any estimates? This goes out to everyone.

I am fairly certain that most of the OTA broadcasters arent receiving any more than 25 cents per sub. And most are much less than that.

But all anyone here can come up with is "locals are a loss leader", or "they barely cover costs", when I haven't seen any *PROOF.*

So, when you guys wish to stop talking out of both sides of your mouth, let me know. Try to find anything that disproves me, or proves your thought.

I went round and round with justalurker about 9 months ago. I finally had the time to prove my theory. Now I am telling you to disprove my theory.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> Greg Bimson said:
> 
> 
> > In 1968, CATV consisted of only OTA stations. In 1984, the cable "boom" came from the availability of the 60 or 120 channel universe. And a large chunk of that was because people could ditch their antenna, and watch the most viewed programming, the networks, on cable.
> ...


I am far from contradicting myself. As a matter of fact, you just proved my statement.

You may need a minimum of two non-OTA channels, but in order for the cable company to survive, *you'd need all the OTA channels.*


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> I went round and round with justalurker about 9 months ago. I finally had the time to prove my theory. Now I am telling you to disprove my theory.


First of all, being right once doesn't mean you are right all the time. Second in our big battle YOU didn't prove your beliefs. So it's your turn to prove yourself right. 

JL


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

AFAIK, E* NOR D* release the information that we would need in order to even say who is actually right. And quite frankly, I could care less since I have no control over it and neither does anyone else here.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

justalurker said:


> Second in our big battle YOU didn't prove your beliefs. So it's your turn to prove yourself right. :biggrin:


I did prove my beliefs. This was the thread on our argument. And I was continually goaded to prove myself. I did, and it never seemed to be enough.

For some of the other people that still believe cable would have survived without OTA stations, I posted this a while back:


> During consideration of the 1992 Cable Act, Broadcasting (later Broadcasting & Cable) --a major industry newspaper--noted a survey conducted by the Roper Organization which supported the broadcasters claim that the "cable operators [were] making money on the backs of the network's [sic]." In this survey, two-*thirds of all cable subscribers said that they would cancel their subscriptions if the three major networks were not carried. Eighty*-four percent said that their subscription rates should at least be cut in half.


Just to be fair, I don't know how much any of the satellite companies make on local stations. I do tend to believe that there is now a bit of profit in carriage, on Dish Network.

One can amortize the cost of the spot-beam satellites as a cost of business, not directly relating to local channels. I am thinking along the lines of what DirecTV has done: the DirecTV 7S satellite is a direct replacement for DirecTV 6, which had problems from the moment it was put in service. You can't amortize the entire cost of the DirecTV 7S satellite as an expense for local channels when a satellite is needed to replace DirecTV 6.

DirecTV 4S is another of these type of transactions. Something needed to replace DirecTV 3, which was hobbled by a failure of the SCP.

For Dish Network, things may be a bit different. Their spot-beam satellites, which were a bit inefficient, were launched directly as a result of local-into-local regulations. These satellites when launched could have been classified as a local channel expense. However, both Echostar 7 and Echostar 8 are now doing the bulkload of the work in transmitting core programming in addition to the spot-beam local channel payload. The entire cost can't simply be attributed to the need for local channels.

You can add the cost of separate uplink centers, the infrastructure to get local channels distributed to the uplink site, the cost of maintaining these sites, and the cost for contracted carriage of the local channels. I just still have to believe the $400 million-plus Dish Network will rake in from the subscription to local channels is more than the other expenses.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> I am far from contradicting myself. As a matter of fact, you just proved my statement.
> 
> You may need a minimum of two non-OTA channels, but in order for the cable company to survive, *you'd need all the OTA channels.*


First, the contradiction was in claiming that the "cable boom", as you put it, arose from cable-only channels while at the same time claiming it was so people could ditch their antennas.

Second, there's no evidence that cable or DBS needs "all" OTA channels. In fact, the furor over E*'s two-dish solution arose precisely because people really only care about some of the OTA channels, not all of them.

Third, so what?

You couldn't sell TV sets without OTA channels either; does that mean TV set manufacturers and/or TV set buyer should pay a fee to broadcasters? In some countires, it does, but in this country it doesn't, because that's not the way our broadcasting system is set up.

And those of us who oppose RC don't think broadcasters should get compensation through subscription fees, either. We want broadcasters to get their money from advertising as originally intended.

You are, of course, free to disagree, but you can never "prove" that broadcasters have any entitlement to compensation beyond what we, the public, decide, through our elected representatives, so why belabor this?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> You are, of course, free to disagree, but you can never "prove" that broadcasters have any entitlement to compensation beyond what we, the public, decide, through our elected representatives, so why belabor this?


Our elected representatives have already decided that the broadcasters should be paid for retransmission. In this sense, I am certainly not the one belaboring the point.

However, I certainly can prove that the broadcasters have entitlement to compensation. _The broadcasters get compensated or the channel is yanked._ See the numerous disputes over the past five years.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> Our elected representatives have already decided that the broadcasters should be paid for retransmission.


No, they decided that if the station WANTS to charge they CAN charge for the signal. They never said they SHOULD charge. This is a very important point. Stations can elect retransmission consent or must carry.



> However, I certainly can prove that the broadcasters have entitlement to compensation. _The broadcasters get compensated or the channel is yanked._ See the numerous disputes over the past five years.


So? See the numerous amounts of channels that do not have an audience via Dish and Dish continues to grow in the market! See the number of disputes settled after years when the station comes crawling back to Dish to get their viewership numbers up again. (Anchorage NBC was one of the prime examples. they did a 180 in less than a year.)

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> And I was continually goaded to prove myself. I did,


No, you didn't. In the end *I* did the deep research needed to prove what you only assumed was correct. It remains your turn to prove yourself right. 


Greg Bimson said:


> One can amortize the cost of the spot-beam satellites as a cost of business, not directly relating to local channels. I am thinking along the lines of what DirecTV has done: the DirecTV 7S satellite is a direct replacement for DirecTV 6, which had problems from the moment it was put in service. You can't amortize the entire cost of the DirecTV 7S satellite as an expense for local channels when a satellite is needed to replace DirecTV 6.


You must be deeply in debt.

I needed a car to get to work. My old one wore out. So I went and got a replacement car. But what kind of car? $2,000 used in good condition? $14,000 new (and losing half its value in a year)? $28,000 new? More? If I buy the $28,000 car how much is "replacement cost" and how much is "improvement cost"? Half ($14k)?

E* needs a satellite to replace a simple ConUS bird. They NEED a simple ConUS bird ... but they bought three spotbeam birds. How much of the price of the satellite is due to its spotbeam nature? Half? 3/4?

If they could poor all of their cash into redundant ConUS transponders instead of spotbeams the satellite would be much more useful for non-ConUS needs.

There is also the question of how badly the replaced satellites have failed. What satellites are no longer in service? E1, E2, E3, E6, E7 and E8 are all online. E3 has it's problems but that slot wouldn't be needed at all if it were not for locals. Empty the unneeded 148 slot and move E1 and E2 back to 110 and we could cross E6 and E8 off of the list. The 10 transponder wasted on spotbeams at 110 and 119 plus the local only ConUS transponders could handle the Internationals - so E9 wouldn't be needed either.

A lot of expense that would not be needed if there were no locals.


Greg Bimson said:


> The entire cost can't simply be attributed to the need for local channels.


Neither can the entire cost be written of as replacement. I believe you are grossly underestimating the additional cost of carrying locals.


Greg Bimson said:


> You can add the cost of separate uplink centers, the infrastructure to get local channels distributed to the uplink site, the cost of maintaining these sites, and the cost for contracted carriage of the local channels. I just still have to believe the $400 million-plus Dish Network will rake in from the subscription to local channels is more than the other expenses.


Since all you have is beliefs to go by, I'll have to agree. You can't believe it. I do believe that locals cause non-trival costs to E* - but this isn't really a question of loss or gain based on ONE offering.

Does D* make money on NFL Sunday Ticket? Or do they make money on TC which is easier sold if they can also sell Sunday Ticket? E* with 225+ channels isn't a bad deal, but it is a better deal if you can also get your locals. In rural non-cabled areas E* and D* would not be hurt as much by 'missing locals' than in cabled areas where people have the alternative, but having locals is a selling point.

How many people chose D* over E* based on their particular locals being on the system of choice? E* doesn't mind losing $$$ on each locals subscriber if it means the difference between selling an AT package or not.

You can keep *assuming* that locals are not loss leaders ... But that can only be an assumption as long as you refuse to notice the impact of carrying locals on satellite costs as well as the uplink centers and backhauls. I believe that E* makes more money overall because they have locals than they would without them. But that doesn't mean that the actual cost of the locals doesn't exceed the total collected in $5-$5.99 charges.

JL


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

justalurker said:


> You can keep assuming that locals are not loss leaders ... But that can only be an assumption as long as you refuse to notice the impact of carrying locals on satellite costs as well as the uplink centers and backhauls. I believe that E* makes more money overall because they have locals than they would without them. But that doesn't mean that the actual cost of the locals doesn't exceed the total collected in $5-$5.99 charges.


I never refused to notice the impact of carrying locals on satellite costs as well as the uplink centers. I even pointed that out. The issue here is we don't know how Echostar (or DirecTV) amortized the costs of the local satellites. Sure, these costs impacted cash flow, but we don't know how they impacted the books.

Now, when it comes to DirecTV's Spaceway satellites, we know how they impacted the books. DirecTV is in the red when it comes to locals, simply because of these three satellites. I just happen to think that Dish Network is faring better at controlling the costs. Remember, unlike a car, the satellite doesn't depreciate as much, and the cost for depreciation is spread over the life of the satellite (on the books). These satellites have value, and are on the books as an asset.

Dish Network, on the other hand, has been leasing space and giving Superdishes away in order to place more markets in service. The Superdish giveaway is probably the most cost for Dish Network (along with the wing-slot upgrades) when it comes to local channels. I don't think that Dish Network is losing money on locals, but they aren't making a boatload, either.

Where I am offended is that I am constantly being told to back up my claim. I will, only if the rest of you back up your claim that it is a loss leader.


TNGTony said:


> No, they decided that if the station WANTS to charge they CAN charge for the signal. They never said they SHOULD charge. This is a very important point.





joblo said:


> Second, there's no evidence that cable or DBS needs "all" OTA channels. In fact, the furor over E*'s two-dish solution arose precisely because people really only care about some of the OTA channels, not all of them.


My bad. I only meant the most watched channels. Who cares if your local TBN or PAX is available via satellite? Not many.

The only reality is if on 1 June Sinclair channels go dark on Dish Network. Then, if Sinclair channels go dark, we'll see how long it will take for Dish Network and Sinclair to reach an agreement. And then we'll see if this impacts Dish Network churn during second quarter, 2005.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> ...The only reality is if on 1 June Sinclair channels go dark on Dish Network. Then, if Sinclair channels go dark, we'll see how long it will take for Dish Network and Sinclair to reach an agreement. And then we'll see if this impacts Dish Network churn during second quarter, 2005.


Well, Sinclair has been taking a hard line with Cox Cable in OKC for the last 2 years now. Our local FOX station here still isn't being carried in HD on Cox.

Sinclair's bottom line probably isn't impacted by that very much, since the analog signal is still being carried on Cox. If Sinclair were to cut the analog feed on cable, their market penetration would drop significantly, and so would their ad revenue.

Holding out on the analog signal for Dish is probably a test case, like a UAW strike against one of the "Big 3" automakers. Dish has a significant number of subs to local channels, but nowhere near the number of cable subs, so the risk to Sinclair is limited. If they can make one provider blink (Dish), then next time they'll go after all of them.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Now, when it comes to DirecTV's Spaceway satellites, we know how they impacted the books. DirecTV is in the red when it comes to locals, simply because of these three satellites. I just happen to think that Dish Network is faring better at controlling the costs. Remember, unlike a car, the satellite doesn't depreciate as much, and the cost for depreciation is spread over the life of the satellite (on the books). These satellites have value, and are on the books as an asset.


Actually, D-8/10/11 are the only ones that D* actually invested in. The Spaceway sats, 1 & 2, were originally designed for 2 way internet service. After News Corp bought Hughes, they scrapped those plans and decided to use them for D*'s service to get a jump start on the Digital LiLs. Not to mention that already having access to slots near the D* 101 was a plus.



Greg Bimson said:


> Dish Network, on the other hand, has been leasing space and giving Superdishes away in order to place more markets in service. The Superdish giveaway is probably the most cost for Dish Network (along with the wing-slot upgrades) when it comes to local channels. I don't think that Dish Network is losing money on locals, but they aren't making a boatload, either.


The ONLY reason that the 105 is being used for LiL right now is because AMC-2 wasn't able to handle HD properly due to the fact that moving it screw up the footprint. The SD was supposed to be for HD and internationals. There's a very good chance that some of the locals on the 105 will be moved off of it eventually. However, they had to do something with the huge amount of inventory they had, so they used it for LiL, and pissed off those subs instead of the HD subs.



Greg Bimson said:


> The only reality is if on 1 June Sinclair channels go dark on Dish Network. Then, if Sinclair channels go dark, we'll see how long it will take for Dish Network and Sinclair to reach an agreement. And then we'll see if this impacts Dish Network churn during second quarter, 2005.


Then E* will issue a $1 credit to all subs in those markets and they MAY lose some subs over it. But if they hold firm, they will ensure that other companies can't force E* to raise it's rates. And the Viacom crap was just that. They lost maybe a couple thousand subs over it. For what? More for the loss of Nick and Spongebob than for the fact that the CBS channels were pulled. Sinclair doesn't have the other sets of channels to back up their threats like Viacom did.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Sinclair has major network duopolies, though. That's the new wrinkle. Sure, Viacom also has UPN in some markets, but IIRC, those channels were covered by a separate agreement and thus not blacked out when CBS went dark. (Can anyone with a better memory confirm or refute this?)


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Yes, the Viacom-Dish Network dispute did not cause the Viacom-owned UPN stations to go dark on Dish Network.


----------



## stone phillips (Jul 1, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Who cares if your local TBN or PAX is available via satellite? Not many.
> 
> i care, i hate not being able to watch my local pax on dish, but is available and i can view it on direct
> dish add pax locals to all markets


----------



## Scratch (Dec 27, 2003)

Is Directv better at negotiating deals or what? It seems like every year Dish has trouble with some network about extending their contract. I'm just curious why I never hear about Directv having these problems. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Scratch said:


> Is Directv better at negotiating deals or what? It seems like every year Dish has trouble with some network about extending their contract. I'm just curious why I never hear about Directv having these problems. Am I missing something here?


D* takes the shaft every time. Sinclair, NFL Sunday Ticket, ...


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

Scratch said:


> Is Directv better at negotiating deals or what? It seems like every year Dish has trouble with some network about extending their contract. I'm just curious why I never hear about Directv having these problems. Am I missing something here?


Nah, D* just has more price increases.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Dish Network, on the other hand, has been leasing space and giving Superdishes away in order to place more markets in service. The Superdish giveaway is probably the most cost for Dish Network (along with the wing-slot upgrades) when it comes to local channels. I don't think that Dish Network is losing money on locals, but they aren't making a boatload, either.


It is amazing that no matter how many more ways you or I identify a cost E* has spent on locals, you still refuse to believe they are not over the tipping point into 'locals cost more than what is collected'. 

JL


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

Scratch said:


> Is Directv better at negotiating deals or what? It seems like every year Dish has trouble with some network about extending their contract. I'm just curious why I never hear about Directv having these problems. Am I missing something here?


Direct basically caves and pays whatever the ransom is, Dish on the other hand has decided to play hardball. Say what you will about Charlie, but he will hold out for the best price he can get, even if it means taking a few days off from getting to watch whichever channels. So to answer the question is Direct better at negotiating? Yea, whatever! How much are the paying for NFL ticket? I say keep it up Charlie, do give in to those sinclair bloodsuckers!


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Dish has shown 2 profitable years in a row. DirecTV which had a year and a half head start on Dish has yet to have a profitable year and has only had one quarter in the black in its existence. It was sold off as liability relief to the original owners and has yet to turn a profit. Though to be fair, Murdoch hasn't had a chance to work his magic yet.

Does this mean anything to the subscriber? Yes. 
1) While DirecTV has had deep pockets to absorb the losses, E* is a stand-alone company. This is all they do. They cannot use monopolistic practices to subsidize their operations running at a loss. This allows for vigorous competition. Though one company is holding prices artificially low while being subsidized, the other (which is profitable) is forcing the issue. The benefit is subscription prices are held to a slower rate of increase.
2)The profits allow for more expansion of services, the purchase of satellites for expansion and replacement of old or malfunctioning units, and the replacement of customer receivers to new technology (MPEG4).

There's more but this is enough for now.

Is DirecTV a better negotiator? No. They just have deeper pockets and can absorb the costs so they just pay whatever is asked of them. Dish will not and cannot just pay if there is not sufficient return on the investment.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

justalurker said:


> It is amazing that no matter how many more ways you or I identify a cost E* has spent on locals, you still refuse to believe they are not over the tipping point into 'locals cost more than what is collected'.


I know.

It depends on how these costs are structured in Dish Network's books. The satellite is definitely depreciating over the "life of the satellite", so even if the satellite costs $250 million to build, Dish Network is spreading the liability over the lifetime over the satellite, making a $20 million a year write-down on a satellite that is supposed to last 12 years. That is because the satellite is an asset.

Everyone else is under the assumption that the satellite (because the outlay of cash was immediate), the backhaul network, and the payments to the broadcasters cost Dish Network more than they rake in. Yet no one has ever attempted to do the math to prove their point.


TNGTony said:


> Dish has shown 2 profitable years in a row. DirecTV which had a year and a half head start on Dish has yet to have a profitable year and has only had one quarter in the black in its existence. It was sold off as liability relief to the original owners and has yet to turn a profit.


To be entirely fair, DirecTV America has shown a profit for two years, in 1999 and 2000. The problem is that since DirecTV America at that time was part of Hughes, other Hughes operations, such as DirecTV DSL and DirecTV Latin America put a drain on Hughes expenses, thus hiding the fact that DirecTV America was profitable.

Also, the original owners of DirecTV, Hughes, a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Motors, did not sell DirecTV because "it was sold off as a liability". DirecTV was sold off so that General Motors could fund the GM pension plans, which was an underfunded liability.


TNGTony said:


> 1) While DirecTV has had deep pockets to absorb the losses, E* is a stand-alone company. This is all they do. They cannot use monopolistic practices to subsidize their operations running at a loss. This allows for vigorous competition. Though one company is holding prices artificially low while being subsidized, the other (which is profitable) is forcing the issue. The benefit is subscription prices are held to a slower rate of increase.
> 2)The profits allow for more expansion of services, the purchase of satellites for expansion and replacement of old or malfunctioning units, and the replacement of customer receivers to new technology (MPEG4).


On point 1, DirecTV has a higher expense, mainly due to more employees and higher subscriber acquisition costs (SAC). DirecTV's programming expense was lower than Dish Network's.

On point 2, profits do not allow for more expansion of services, cash flow does. As a matter of fact, one reason why DirecTV wasn't profitable in 2004 was because of the charge-downs on the Spaceway satellites. This charge-down is directly responsible for a large chunk of DirecTV's losses in 2004, and it is due to DirecTV expanding their services.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

The sky is blue!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Prove it! 

Better yet, I agree!


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Scratch said:


> Is Directv better at negotiating deals or what? It seems like every year Dish has trouble with some network about extending their contract. I'm just curious why I never hear about Directv having these problems. Am I missing something here?


Yeah basically what you are missing is that Direct is owned by a multi-billionaire that doesn't care if Direct is profitable right now (which it isn't or never has been) and has no problem throwing the money from his media empire around. E* on the other had is still owned by it's original founder (Charlie) and he's known to be either frugal or cheap depending on your point of view. Of course E* has been profitable for the past couple of years, so he's doing something right.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Maybe DirecTv is able to deal better since they have more subscribers where the companies may expect almost the same amount out of Dish Network even though they have fewer subscribers.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Closing this thread. Please continue discussion here:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=42443


----------

