# DishTv may not carry Olympics in HD in SW Florida



## rhambling (Dec 19, 2007)

here is the link to a local article. trying to find a more national article about this.

http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=20727&z=3


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Anytime one company controls more than one major broadcast network in a DMA, in this case both ABC and NBC, the economic issues may be significant as Dish doesn't give much in negotiations. Right now Dish offers 1300 SD locals and allowing any one owner to squeeze them on HD isn't good decision-making.


----------



## Raymie (Mar 31, 2007)

On the News Monitor locked and loaded.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

Since Dish HD receivers all have OTA support, this is a minor problem. Only those beyond the receivable OTA signal or without a decent OTA antenna will miss the HD Olympics in Ft. Myers.

Smaller markets will have to wait in line. The largest markets have to go on line first. And so far it's only the "big 4" networks. Want PBS HD? You need OTA! Want NBC-HD in the Ft. Myers DMA? You need OTA! It's as simple as that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nice bias in the article ... but it is their station that won't be carried.

Olympic coverage in HD will be available via many other channels on DISH Network ... just the local coverage will be limited to SD or OTA reception due to this dispute.


----------



## HDRoberts (Dec 11, 2007)

They try to make it sound like Dish wants it for free. No, the channel wants more money. 

If you ask me, broadcast stations shouldn't charge to be carried. They broadcast the signal for free. Dish, Directv, and Comcast should only have to pay for the cost of getting their signal onto their respective systems.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

HDRoberts said:


> They try to make it sound like Dish wants it for free. No, the channel wants more money.
> 
> If you ask me, broadcast stations shouldn't charge to be carried. They broadcast the signal for free. Dish, Directv, and Comcast should only have to pay for the cost of getting their signal onto their respective systems.


While I agree this stuff gets out of hand sometimes... Stations should be able to charge for carriage because Dish and DirecTV and cable charge customers! I remember local stations here years ago saying they would provide their feed for free to the local cable company IF the cable company would provide it free to cable customers... but if cable charges then they want to be paid for the retransmission.

IF you want to receive it for free as the station intends, then put up an antenna and live where you can receive it that way.

So the blame for this sort of thing really rests with both the local stations and the satellite/cable companies.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> While I agree this stuff gets out of hand sometimes... Stations should be able to charge for carriage because Dish and DirecTV and cable charge customers! I remember local stations here years ago saying they would provide their feed for free to the local cable company IF the cable company would provide it free to cable customers... but if cable charges then they want to be paid for the retransmission.
> 
> IF you want to receive it for free as the station intends, then put up an antenna and live where you can receive it that way.
> 
> So the blame for this sort of thing really rests with both the local stations and the satellite/cable companies.


True. And if NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, PBS, and the CW would provide an East and West feed in HD for satellite instead of pretending its 1958, we'd have bandwidth to spare. I just don't see the public benefit of having 1000-local-tv-stations-in-HD worth of bandwidth set aside for the same programming which is what will probably happen after the NAB gets done with Congress.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> While I agree this stuff gets out of hand sometimes... Stations should be able to charge for carriage because Dish and DirecTV and cable charge customers! I remember local stations here years ago saying they would provide their feed for free to the local cable company IF the cable company would provide it free to cable customers... but if cable charges then they want to be paid for the retransmission.


The topic is beyond the DISH Network forum ... (perhaps legal issues) but I'd love to see legislation getting rid of the "Consent to Carry" rules that allow local stations to withhold OTA content from satellite and cable providers.

Stations are granted their license to serve the public - yet "Consent to Carry" allows those stations to selectively withhold their content from the public for a price.

Cable/Satellite providers have costs involved in rebroadcasting the local stations. Cable must receive and remodulate the signals plus deliver it to each customer's home. Satellite must receive and backhaul the signals to a regional or national satellite uplink center.

While the basic infrastructure does support their higher priced packages that include non OTA content, cable and satellite should be able to recoup the costs involved in delivering the signals to their subscribers. Especially since local OTA carriage is mandated by the government (in cable's case a percentage of channels carried, in satellite's case a carry one carry all per market requirement - plus pressure from congress and regulators to carry all markets).

The current system heavily favors the local station and (especially on the satellite side) creates an exclusive market where only that local station can provide that content ... leading to greedy stations wanting money for what they provide OTA. Not exactly a fair open market.

Add a little competition. Make that local signal worth paying for ... or let carriers rebroadcast for free.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Make that local signal worth paying for ... or let carriers rebroadcast for free.


The flip side of that.... IF it isn't worth paying for then it wouldn't be missed, right?

This is one of those things where I frankly feel like both cable and satellite companies use having locals as a selling point to sign customers up. Say "You can get your locals with us + lots of other stuff too!" and sign folks up... Without the locals, that clearly people want, they are not a complete solution for a customer who wants his locals.

So in my mind, cable & satellite gain by providing locals even if they don't make money on them... so I really see no reason why they can't provide them for free anyway.

Consider with Dish that it only costs $5 for locals when added to other packages. That $5 is covering all their costs of retransmission + whatever they are paying the local stations. IF they didn't have to pay the local stations for retransmission then I have to believe something much less than $5 would be Dish's cost for retransmission... in which case giving those locals to the customer for free wouldn't be too costly.

I personally would like to see "must carry" so that they have to carry all locals in a market if they carry any... (which means the local station gets no money for retransmission) and then free to the customers.

This just seems like a good idea for goodwill to all... and at least in my local market was what the local stations petitioned for years ago but eventually agreed on retransmission fees since the cable/satellite companies didn't want to give it away.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is probably not a good idea to tie price to cost too much. Everything is cross subsidizing. There are costs for just having an account open to handle billing, CSRs and tech support that generally increase per customer. There are baseline costs for operating the infrastructure. Providers could offer locals for "free" rolled into their regular packages --- but actually providing the locals will never be free to the cable/satellite carrier - even if the stations don't charge for carriage.

The government interferes in this ... they require cable to have their lifeline packages of locals only (and require cable companies to carry locals, whether they want to or not). The cable company always seems to be the bad guy when a station demands money for their signal.

Even if a cable company offered a free "lifeline" package ... absolutely no charge for locals ... and ate the costs of hooking up that service to each home, any station that demands can require payment - another expense for the cable company (or bad press if they refuse to pay).

Cable started as community antenna ... a service to help people receive broadcast television without every individual needing to put up and maintain their own expensive antennas. A way of delivering that signal to more viewers clearer ... increasing the TV audience for every station carried. Yet now stations are looking that gift horse in the mouth ... and charging them.

Satellite has a bigger challenge. They are not required to carry every market (just offer carriage to every channel in every market they want to carry). But local channel carriage has led to the most expensive satellite upgrades - spotbeams. And because they compete with cable systems that are required to have locals they need to have locals to remain competitive.

There is a definite edge to being a local station. Even if your content is crap you can force your way on to cable and satellite carriers. The station doesn't get paid in those situations, but they do cause expense for the carrier - regardless of how many cable/satellite viewers care that the station is available.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

From the article:



> you'll be watching the first summer games ever in HD


Ummm... No. I watched the summer games from Athens in HD on Universal HD back in '04. And DirecTV is carrying individual events from Athens on their VOD service. In HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe they meant 100% HD ... not just ceremonies and key events.


----------



## grog (Jul 3, 2007)

Why is it that every loss in carry seems to be with Dish and not DirecTV or cable? 

This seems to be a common theme. 

Des Monies Iowa lost their carry two days ago.

It is a good thing we have OTA option.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Cable started as community antenna ... a service to help people receive broadcast television without every individual needing to put up and maintain their own expensive antennas. A way of delivering that signal to more viewers clearer ... increasing the TV audience for every station carried. Yet now stations are looking that gift horse in the mouth ... and charging them.
> 
> Satellite has a bigger challenge. They are not required to carry every market (just offer carriage to every channel in every market they want to carry). But local channel carriage has led to the most expensive satellite upgrades - spotbeams. And because they compete with cable systems that are required to have locals they need to have locals to remain competitive.
> 
> There is a definite edge to being a local station. Even if your content is crap you can force your way on to cable and satellite carriers. The station doesn't get paid in those situations, but they do cause expense for the carrier - regardless of how many cable/satellite viewers care that the station is available.


You've described well my pet peeve with Congress (I have many issues with Congress but this is my "pet").

Supporting local broadcast stations is a 1958 technology-public service issue, not a 2008 issue. Simultaneously broadcasting network shows on hundreds of stations in each time zone serves no public interest any more. Even the networks are selling their local stations. And local stations are doing less and less.

Of course, I'm tilting at windmills.....


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

James Long said:


> I believe they meant 100% HD ... not just ceremonies and key events.


Then they should have said 100%. 



phrelin said:


> Simultaneously broadcasting network shows on hundreds of stations in each time zone serves no public interest any more.


I think the local affiliates are starting a period of decline. What is the difference between a series on network TV vs. cable TV. If the series is good, people will watch it no matter what channel it is on. Eventually we will reach the tipping point where more and better series are on cable channels vs network. Some people may believe we are already there.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Herdfan said:


> Then they should have said 100%.
> 
> I think the local affiliates are starting a period of decline. What is the difference between a series on network TV vs. cable TV. If the series is good, people will watch it no matter what channel it is on. Eventually we will reach the tipping point where more and better series are on cable channels vs network. Some people may believe we are already there.


We're there already! Local news consists of house fires, roberies animal abuse. Who needs that?


----------

