# DIRECTV Completes Six Retransmission Deals



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

*DIRECTV Completes Six Retransmission Deals; Northwest Broadcasting Only Station Owner to Black Out Local Channels in Attempt to Extract Outrageous 600% Increase*

_DIRECTV Concludes Successful Deals with Hearst, Granite, Gannett, Red River Broadcasting, KLAS-TV and Sarkes-Tarzian Broadcast Groups but Northwest Refuses Requests to Keep Channels Up While Talks Continue or For Arbitration Leaving Its Viewers in the Lurch_

*EL SEGUNDO, Calif.*--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DIRECTV sharply rebuked Northwest Broadcasting today for attempting to "extort" a more than 600 percent fee increase to carry its local channels and forcing DIRECTV to take down broadcast networks in five markets. DIRECTV asked Northwest to keep the channels up while negotiations continued or bring the issue to arbitration to avoid any programming disruption to its customers, but Northwest refused and demanded the channels be taken down.

The Northwest blackout will take place at midnight PT tonight, affecting DIRECTV customers in Binghamton, N.Y.; Medford, Ore.; Yakima and Spokane, Wash.; and Laredo, Texas.

"We are appalled by the irresponsible behavior of Northwest Broadcasting, which has decided they would rather deprive our customers of their local channels, than make even an honest and good faith attempt to reach a fair deal in contract negotiations," said DIRECTV's Chairman, CEO and President Mike White. "For local broadcast station owners to brazenly hold viewers hostage in an attempt to extort fees that are astronomically higher than what we pay other local broadcasters is flat out wrong. We hope that Northwest will ultimately come to the table in good faith to discuss reasonable terms and fees and they will quickly restore programming to our customers."

He added, "I am sitting at the negotiating table with hundreds of thousands of my customers right behind me. Not a single one of them wants to pay a 600% price increase."

DIRECTV agreed to pay Northwest a fair market price increase that was consistent with fees it negotiated in other recently concluded contract talks for local broadcast channels. In the past weeks alone, DIRECTV was able to come to a fair deal with broadcast groups Gannett, Granite, Hearst, Red River Broadcasting, KLAS-TV and Sarkes-Tarzian, affecting millions of DIRECTV customers.

DIRECTV also pointed out that broadcasters like Northwest have been granted a number of special privileges by the federal government including free use of the public airwaves and have a responsibility to consumers to provide access to their content.

"We believe Northwest has now brazenly abused that privilege when they attempt to manipulate consumers through channel blackouts and threats in order to force their unreasonable demands on distributors like DIRECTV," said White. "And just as broadcasters have a responsibility to protect their viewers from programming disruptions, we have an obligation to protect our customers from unwarranted and outrageous fee increases that further drive up the costs of our programming services and create economic pressure on consumers at a time when they can ill afford it."

DIRECTV noted that the tenor of contract discussions with station owners has changed dramatically in recent years and has seen an increasingly belligerent attitude among broadcasters who are demanding unprecedented fee hikes and threatening blackouts.

While this is of great concern to DIRECTV and other distributors, it has not escaped the attention of the Federal Communications Commission or members of Congress in Washington. The FCC said it will begin the process of examining how to protect customers from the kind of behavior displayed by Northwest and other station owners, who have been involved in contentious contract negotiations this past year. DIRECTV intends to bring Northwest's egregious behavior to the attention of the Federal Communications Commission when it begins its review of retransmission rules this year.

About DIRECTV:

DIRECTV (NASDAQ: DTV) is the world's most popular video service delivering state-of-the-art technology, unmatched programming, the most comprehensive sports packages available and industry leading customer service to its 27.6 million customers in the U.S. and Latin America. In the U.S., DIRECTV offers its 19.1 million customers access to over 160 HD channels and Dolby-Digital® 5.1 theater-quality sound (when available), access to exclusive sports programming such as NFL SUNDAY TICKET™, award winning technology like its DIRECTV® DVR Scheduler and higher customer satisfaction than the leading cable companies for ten years running. DIRECTV Latin America, through its subsidiaries and affiliated companies in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, and other Latin American countries, leads the pay-TV category in technology, programming and service, delivering an unrivaled digital television experience to 8.5 million customers. DIRECTV sports and entertainment properties include three Regional Sports Networks (Northwest, Rocky Mountain and Pittsburgh) as well as a 65 percent interest in Game Show Network. For the most up-to-date information on DIRECTV, please call 1-800-DIRECTV or visit directv.com.

DIRECTV
Robert Mercer, 310-964-4683
[email protected]
or
Darris Gringeri, 212-205-0882
[email protected]

Source: DIRECTV


----------



## carillon (Nov 15, 2007)

What about Raycom? My local Fox affiliate is owned by Raycom.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

carillon said:


> What about Raycom? My local Fox affiliate is owned by Raycom.


That's the whole press release. It doesn't seem as if Raycom is involved in the current information.

Mike


----------



## carillon (Nov 15, 2007)

Sigh... I would hate to lose Fox network for any extended period of time.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

carillon said:


> Sigh... I would hate to lose Fox network for any extended period of time.


I've asked, but honestly .. It's New Year's Eve and getting close to midnight now .. I don't expect to hear anything tonight. If I do, I'll try to post if I'm not busy (unlikely).


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

The whole Raycom Direct TV situation is he said she said and is confusing as hell so Id wait until Midnight to see whats up.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

How would it work? At 12:01 local time it would be gone?

My local Fox is Raycom, and if Knoxville's is then I can use it to determine if I've lost mine. I know DirecTV was saying that there was an automatic one year extension.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I'm not convinced Raycom will be turned off tonight even if a new contract is not completed .. DIRECTV probably would have stated that in the press release if it were going to happen .. or perhaps there will be another one later. :shrug:

Still, if the agreement ends tonight, it is possible that Raycom channels will go dark. Just be advised of that and hope it doesn't happen.


----------



## carillon (Nov 15, 2007)

I'll be watching at midnight to see if my local Raycom Fox affiliate goes dark and will report back. If it does go dark will there be any way to get Fox network programming?


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

For those who are wondering check your channel lineup. Especially if they didn't give and do so under the all channels heading on your box. If the channel was going down tonight you will probably have a channel named Alerts. LIkely on the DT channel number that would use if receiving it via OTA, but the signal is coming from a Directv Satellite. This what has happened with the Northwest Broadcasting stations. This channel was added a few days ago and based on the artcile, I would expect that they are probably not even trying to talk with that company. As far as raycom, Directv seems to be of the opinion that their agreement would auto renew or something on those lines and obviously don't believe they are going to lose those raycom owned stations.
edit Raycom has extended through 2014.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

mshaw2715 said:


> edit Raycom has extended through 2014.


Are you saying a deal is now done?


----------



## Montezuma58 (May 24, 2004)

mshaw2715 said:


> For those who are wondering check your channel lineup. Especially if they didn't give and do so under the all channels heading on your box. If the channel was going down tonight you will probably have a channel named Alerts. LIkely on the DT channel number that would use if receiving it via OTA, but the signal is coming from a Directv Satellite. This what has happened with the Northwest Broadcasting stations. This channel was added a few days ago and based on the artcile, I would expect that they are probably not even trying to talk with that company. As far as raycom, Directv seems to be of the opinion that their agreement would auto renew or something on those lines and obviously don't believe they are going to lose those raycom owned stations.
> edit Raycom has extended through 2014.


I've had one of these "ALERT" channels for several days. 48-1 for WAFF in Huntsville, AL a Raycom station.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Well you are saved though. They reached an agreement with them. Something must have changed in the last several hours for them to say they have an agreement in hand.
Each of the Raycom stations have this message oin their websites now. So it sounds like they are probably ok.
We have provided DirecTV a signed copy of an agreement that will allow continued carriage of this station to DirecTV subscribers into 2014. We are awaiting their signature.
The new message is a slighty different one than they had a just a little while ago. Where it said they had signed agreement in hand.


Montezuma58 said:


> I've had one of these "ALERT" channels for several days. 48-1 for WAFF in Huntsville, AL a Raycom station.


----------



## sum_random_dork (Aug 21, 2008)

According to John Ourand at SBJ


> Comcast extends deals with Dish Network for E! and Style. Extension expected on Golf Channel with DirecTV, too. Happy New Year!


 looks like we'll have Golf Channel at least for a while. I would imagine neither side wanted to lose the channel, Golf needs the #'s and DirecTV likes the Golf customer because they have $$$$$.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

goodbye sat feed of wxix. if I read the post right. if wxix was to go dark wouldn't the guide data for the sat channel be changed to tell you it will go dark? yes the whole raycom situation is confusing,


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

mshaw2715 said:


> Well you are saved though. They reached an agreement with them. Something must have changed in the last several hours for them to say they have an agreement in hand.
> Each of the Raycom stations have this message oin their websites now. So it sounds like they are probably ok.
> We have provided DirecTV a signed copy of an agreement that will allow continued carriage of this station to DirecTV subscribers into 2014. We are awaiting their signature.
> The new message is a slighty different one than they had a just a little while ago. Where it said they had signed agreement in hand.


We saw that earlier, some in the Raycom thread didn't sound like it was all that positive, that there were still differences that DirecTV may not agree to.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ah yes, there it is:
http://www.wtnzfox43.com/


> We have provided DirecTV a signed copy of an agreement that will allow continued carriage of this station to DirecTV subscribers into 2014. We are awaiting their signature.


Basically, it's looking like Raycom is good to go now. May not be signed until the new year as it's getting late, but it seems to be done.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

mshaw2715 said:


> Well you are saved though. They reached an agreement with them. Something must have changed in the last several hours for them to say they have an agreement in hand.
> Each of the Raycom stations have this message oin their websites now. So it sounds like they are probably ok.
> We have provided DirecTV a signed copy of an agreement that will allow continued carriage of this station to DirecTV subscribers into 2014. We are awaiting their signature.
> The new message is a slighty different one than they had a just a little while ago. Where it said they had signed agreement in hand.


link please since I am confused


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Ah yes, there it is:
> http://www.wtnzfox43.com/
> 
> Basically, it's looking like Raycom is good to go now. May not be signed until the new year as it's getting late, but it seems to be done.


sorry for the double post. you sure directv is not refusing to sign?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

dorfd1 said:


> link please since I am confused


This is one of them
http://www.wxix.com/global/story.asp?s=13659842


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> This is one of them
> http://www.wxix.com/global/story.asp?s=13659842


still confused. it sounds like both sides agree but I don't think that is true. wouldn't directv have to read the agreement first before they sign?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

dorfd1 said:


> still confused. it sounds like both sides agree but I don't think that is true. wouldn't directv have to read the agreement first before they sign?


Read between the lines. Wait til midnight to see the results.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Davenlr said:


> Read between the lines. Wait til midnight to see the results.


your right. I should wait because I get confused each time I read it.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Directv has updated their page regarding these.
http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2922
Then the sub page for just northwest broadcasting.
http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3094


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

mshaw2715 said:


> Directv has updated their page regarding these.
> http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2922
> Then the sub page for just northwest broadcasting.
> http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3094


so I guess raycom and directv are still negotiating?


----------



## tvjay (Sep 26, 2007)

It is my understanding that the stations (owners) actually control whether or not the signal gets polled. So, if the station feels they have reached an agreement, the signal does not get pulled. That doesn't mean if DirecTV refuses at a later date to sign it, it won't get pulled, it just means it won't get pulled tonight.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Ah yes, there it is:
> http://www.wtnzfox43.com/
> 
> Basically, it's looking like Raycom is good to go now. May not be signed until the new year as it's getting late, but it seems to be done.


It seems like Raycom is positioning themselves to have the public's sympathy if negotiations aren't settled. All their statement says is they have a document that they feel good about and DirecTV hasn't signed it. Nothing suggests DirecTV wants to sign it, but the statement makes it appear that if the Raycom channels go dark DirecTV is at fault.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

QuickDrop said:


> It seems like Raycom is positioning themselves to have the public's sympathy if negotiations aren't settled. All their statement says is they have a document that they feel good about and DirecTV hasn't signed it. Nothing suggests DirecTV wants to sign it, but the statement makes it appear that if the Raycom channels go dark DirecTV is at fault.


another question. why was raycom not mentioned at all in the press release?


----------



## iainleaver (Mar 16, 2010)

Looks like we lose our Fox channel here in Richland WA (Yakima) 

Guess i shouldn't be hopeful that they will add Fox in HD around here anytime soon if they are pulling the SD channel!!

I guess its time to get an antenna installed on the roof


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

more info regarding the northwest broadcasting/ directv issue. 
http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3095/kw/negotiating/related/1
Our agreement with Northwest, the owner of your local broadcast station(s), expired on 12/31/10. After months of radio silence and ignoring our requests to talk about the agreement, Northwest contacted us at the eleventh hour and demanded that we accept a 600% increase in fees. We of course declined that offer because we can't ask our customers to absorb such an increase. We responded with a fair counter offer and they flatly refused to accept it. Now that our agreement has expired, Northwest has demanded that we take their channels down even though we asked them to keep the local station(s) up while we continue to negotiate.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

dorfd1 said:


> another question. why was raycom not mentioned at all in the press release?


Because a deal hasn't been signed or agreed to. Raycom basically only says they are waiting for DirecTV to agree to their latest offer, not that the two have agreed on anything. It's worded to make DirecTV look like the bad guys if they don't agree to Raycom's terms.

It's similar to the DirecTV's press release at the top of this thread. Despite having a title that suggests at least some talk about the deals DirecTV did get done, the entire point of the article is all about how horrible Northwest Broadcast is.

In both cases, the intent is to "play" the public who could hurt by a lack of a deal; in the first instance, to be against DirecTV, in the second, to be pro-DirecTV


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I just emailed this:


> Stop trying to extort money from directv. And you know very well that $5 a month they charge for locals includes the fiber line to their uplink facility which aint cheap, as well as the equipment to rebroadcast your station which is operating on public airwaves. You should be ashamed of yourself trying to mislead your customers like that. And no, I dont work for DirecTv, but Im sick of my bills going up because of stations like yours.


to http://www.myfoxspokane.com/

in reference to the misleading info on their website which made it sound as if DirecTv was collecting $5 a month from customers to watch their free station.... If others were to email them, they might get the message, and when its your stations turn, they might think twice.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

KFFX has yet to be taken down. I'm wondering if it won't happen tell 6am eastern time.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Nope they took it down, but have another station group mentioned on the screen.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

The first thing I did this morning was to tune to 40-1 and what do I see but the DirecTV logo and the channel ID showing 40-1 Alerts. I panicked and then did a channel up and there was my OTA version. Of course, ch 40 shows the info screen. I think that it's weird that DirecTV would force a second 40-1 just to show a large DirecTV logo. I guess they want to make sure that their subscribers would get the message.


----------



## Montezuma58 (May 24, 2004)

QuickDrop said:


> It seems like Raycom is positioning themselves to have the public's sympathy if negotiations aren't settled. All their statement says is they have a document that they feel good about and DirecTV hasn't signed it. Nothing suggests DirecTV wants to sign it, but the statement makes it appear that if the Raycom channels go dark DirecTV is at fault.


That is the feeling I go from reading the statement too. Another possibility is that the agreement was automatically renewed as DirecTV claimed and Raycom is trying to not look as stupid since the stations are still up.


----------



## vbush (Aug 22, 2006)

bingo, I suspect you are correct


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

wxix is still on in cincinnati


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

All Ye of little faith.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> All Ye of little faith.


I don't know how long it will be on. but lets hope directv and raycom come to an agreement.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> I just emailed this:
> 
> 
> > Stop trying to extort money from directv. And you know very well that $5 a month they charge for locals includes the fiber line to their uplink facility which aint cheap, as well as the equipment to rebroadcast your station which is operating on public airwaves. You should be ashamed of yourself trying to mislead your customers like that. And no, I dont work for DirecTv, but Im sick of my bills going up because of stations like yours.
> ...


I guess I was lucky with Hearst, as I didn't need to do this, but wanted to.
I had the notice being displayed and tried their website [per their message], but they had nothing but a story about this from Dec. 12th. I figured they might/should have had a place to post, but they didn't.

Not sure why DirecTV is even being charged for what is received from them OTA [in this market].
I can understand costs for fiber links etc., but for DirecTV to be simply "my antenna" and me being below the FCC minimum signal level, unless DirecTV were to *not air* all the commercials from this station, I really can't find a reason for charging a fee to retransmit their signal. The station simply gets more viewers to what they are broadcasting over the air.
This is the same station that won't issue waivers for those like me that can't get their signal with a large antenna and TVfool shows their signal power is -122.6 dBm.
They seem to want their cake, eat it too, and then charge DirecTV [us] also.
[/rant]


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

As of 10:00 AM January 1st, My Local NBC Channel is still on the air, WMC TV 5 Memphis. It says at their website "Raycom Media, this station's parent company, has been in good faith negotiations with DirecTV to ensure the continued availability of this television station and the popular news and entertainment programs you enjoy on DirecTV. 

Raycom has agreed in writing to substantially all the terms mutually negotiated to keep this station on DirecTV's service. Raycom has sent DirecTV a signed agreement for DirecTV to execute. We are awaiting DirecTV's signature on the agreement." So I am assuming the ball is now in DirecTv's Court to either sign the deal or pull the plug on programming. Come On DirecTv Sign it so I won't have to worry about this station getting yanked. NFL Wildcard Saturday is next weekend and I would be Madder than HELL if I could not see the playoffs come next weekend.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Msguy said:


> As of 10:00 AM January 1st, My Local NBC Channel is still on the air, WMC TV 5 Memphis. It says at their website "Raycom Media, this station's parent company, has been in good faith negotiations with DirecTV to ensure the continued availability of this television station and the popular news and entertainment programs you enjoy on DirecTV.
> 
> Raycom has agreed in writing to substantially all the terms mutually negotiated to keep this station on DirecTV's service. Raycom has sent DirecTV a signed agreement for DirecTV to execute. We are awaiting DirecTV's signature on the agreement." So I am assuming the ball is now in DirecTv's Court to either sign the deal or pull the plug on programming. Come On DirecTv Sign it so I won't have to worry about this station getting yanked. NFL Wildcard Saturday is next weekend and I would be Madder than HELL if I could not see the playoffs come next weekend.


use ota or cable if the directv pulls the plug


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I expect the Raycom channels to stay on .. There really shouldn't be anything to worry about with them.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Doug Brott said:


> *DIRECTV Completes Six Retransmission Deals; Northwest Broadcasting Only Station Owner to Black Out Local Channels in Attempt to Extract Outrageous 600% Increase*


600%?

I am with DirecTV on this one..... 600% is outrageous! Maybe if the local population of the area has grown so much that the station can carry better advertising and thus programming.... maybe then it would be justified to increase the fees by doubling them..... but 600%??


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Montezuma58 said:


> That is the feeling I go from reading the statement too. Another possibility is that the agreement was automatically renewed as DirecTV claimed and Raycom is trying to not look as stupid since the stations are still up.


Yeah. I just got around to reading D* earlier statement that Raycom contract doesn't officially end until the end of 2011.


----------



## dthreet (Jun 6, 2006)

FOX Channel 40 WICZ 
Binghamton, NY

MNT Channel 10 WBPN 
Binghamton, NY

FOX Channel 26 KMVU 
Medford, OR 

FOX Channel 11 KFFX 
Yakima, WA 

FOX Channel 28 KAYU 
Spokane, WA

FOX Channel 39 KXOF
Lerado, TX


----------



## davidjplatt (Sep 22, 2007)

I don't understand why local stations should receive compensation from DirecTV at all.

DirecTV charges $5 for local channels - multiple local channels. If DirecTV is paying for the fiber link to get the feed of the channel, the channel should be GREATFUL that DirecTV is increasing their viewership. And I say that because a lot of people that get their locals over satellite can't get OTA signals even with a rooftop antenna. Therefore, they pick up viewers.

The local stations are just being stupid - they are trying to reduce their viewership not increase their audience. I'm pretty sure local stations can ask for more money for advertising if they have 200,000 viewers instead of 100,000 versions in a given market. I'm sure they wouldn't decrease their fee to DirecTV if they get more advertising revenue due to satellite carriage of the channel.

Penny wise and pound foolish...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I'm not sure what NorthWest is getting now, but if it's $0.15/sub, now they want over $0.90/sub.

I probably get a lot more local channels here in the SF Bay Area than these smaller markets. Perhaps Northwest is using the logic that "there's only a couple of stations in our DMA .. You should be paying us a bigger chunk of that fixed-rate local channel pie since there's not as many channels to spread around."

What's more likely the case is that some of the larger markets (like mine) are subsidizing the smaller markets.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not sure what NorthWest is getting now, but if it's $0.15/sub, now they want over $0.90/sub.


...and despite that kind of data...remarkably....a number of folks don't recognize the greed and blame their sat company. Unreal.

Perhaps they will someday break out the local HD channel costs in separate cost pricing models to recoup those variations, which of course will also expose the higher-cost areas based on the exhorbitant prices for those.


----------



## iainleaver (Mar 16, 2010)

Can anyone recommend a good installer in the Richland WA area to install an antenna on my roof


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm not a big fan of a la carte, but perhaps locals could be done that way. You get all the stations that offer free retransmission, and a pass-through of the per-subscriber charges each station imposes. Since these stations have opted out of must-carry, that shouldn't be a problem. 

DirecTV would then drop the $2 local charge and cover remaining overhead in its basic package fee. The result would be that individual subscribers would decide if the station is worth the demanded fee, and DirecTV could wash their hands of it.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I expect the Raycom channels to stay on .. There really shouldn't be anything to worry about with them.


Yes, if they are actually negotiating in good faith and the delay is just holidays and lawyering I'd be shocked if the stations went dark while negotiations were in progress. A simple handshake agreement would suffice to keep them up for a few days if all the agreement needed was review and signoff.


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

davidjplatt said:


> DirecTV charges $5 for local channels - multiple local channels.


Directv does not charge anything for local channels on their current packages. They are include in the markets where locals are provided. If you are in a market where Directv does not provide locals, your package is discounted by $3/month. You could intrepret that to mean that Directv charges $3/month for locals, but that is just included in the monthly package charge.

With some older expired/grandfathered package, the cost to add locals could be different. That additional cost allows subs to maintain their grandfathered package, but the pricing structure more closely mirrors the current packages. Again that additional charged for locals may not reflect the "true" cost of locals, but rather just to minimize the price difference between grandfathered and current packages.


----------



## NowSTL (Apr 17, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...and despite that kind of data...remarkably....a number of folks don't recognize the greed and blame their sat company. Unreal.
> 
> Perhaps they will someday break out the local HD channel costs in separate cost pricing models to recoup those variations, which of course will also expose the higher-cost areas based on the exhorbitant prices for those.


I suspect that will happen. Some cable companies now now identify these costs so consumers can understand the source of price increases. Again, posturing to get the consumer's support.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

cariera said:


> Directv does not charge anything for local channels on their current packages. They are include in the markets where locals are provided. If you are in a market where Directv does not provide locals, your package is discounted by $3/month. You could intrepret that to mean that Directv charges $3/month for locals, but that is just included in the monthly package charge.
> 
> With some older expired/grandfathered package, the cost to add locals could be different. That additional cost allows subs to maintain their grandfathered package, but the pricing structure more closely mirrors the current packages. Again that additional charged for locals may not reflect the "true" cost of locals, but rather just to minimize the price difference between grandfathered and current packages.


What the providers pay to programmers is almost always covered under an NDA


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

davidjplatt said:


> I don't understand why local stations should receive compensation from DirecTV at all....


I think the locals should pay DirecTV in order to get more viewers for their podunk stations. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

NowSTL said:


> I suspect that will happen. Some cable companies now now identify these costs so consumers can understand the source of price increases. Again, posturing to get the consumer's support.


The plot will thicken even more if/when ComCrap gets ownership of NBC Universal.


----------



## BEP1030 (Sep 4, 2007)

Here in Kennewick, WA, love my H20-100.


----------



## tvjay (Sep 26, 2007)

jdspencer said:


> I think the locals should pay DirecTV in order to get more viewers for their podunk stations. :lol:


Of the top channels requested by cable/satellite subscribers...four of them are over-the-air networks. I know a lot of people choose satellite or cable because of reception issues with local stations or they simply don't want to install an antenna. In other words, DirecTV and cable providers MAKE MONEY off LOCAL channels. So they take something that is free and make money of it. Would you want to give away something for free so someone else can make money off of it? I sure don't.

Also, I know for a fact that stations are only getting pennies per viewer. The brand new Oprah network is asking for $.21 per viewer which is more then local stations get. To compare, ESPN gets $4.00 per viewer.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

tvjay said:


> Of the top channels requested by cable/satellite subscribers...four of them are over-the-air networks. I know a lot of people choose satellite or cable because of reception issues with local stations or they simply don't want to install an antenna. In other words, DirecTV and cable providers MAKE MONEY off LOCAL channels. So they take something that is free and make money of it. Would you want to give away something for free so someone else can make money off of it? I sure don't.
> 
> Also, I know for a fact that stations are only getting pennies per viewer. The brand new Oprah network is asking for $.21 per viewer which is more then local stations get. To compare, ESPN gets $4.00 per viewer.



Locals are only available to customers in the market that is being served by OTA reception.
These station's business model is to "serve it for free", and sell commercial time for profit.
They also have control over who can get their network programing from other sources [DNS] through issuing [or not] waivers. 
Cable or SAT providers charge nominal fees for their costs to retransmit these channels. Bandwidth isn't free unless you're using the public's airwaves.
"Cable channels" [Oprah, ESPN, etc.] haven't been granted a license to use the airwaves, so they have a different business model.
A subset of these are the premium channels without commercials and higher fees.

Let's truly compare apples to apples, and not to oranges.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

tvjay said:


> Of the top channels requested by cable/satellite subscribers...four of them are over-the-air networks. I know a lot of people choose satellite or cable because of reception issues with local stations or they simply don't want to install an antenna. In other words, DirecTV and cable providers MAKE MONEY off LOCAL channels. So they take something that is free and make money of it. Would you want to give away something for free so someone else can make money off of it? I sure don't.


Just because subscribers want the networks doesn't mean they want the local affiliates. However, I do recognize that local news and weather coverage is a big draw, especially for older viewers.



tvjay said:


> Also, I know for a fact that stations are only getting pennies per viewer. The brand new Oprah network is asking for $.21 per viewer which is more then local stations get. To compare, ESPN gets $4.00 per viewer.


Ah, yes, but the local affiliates draw mere thousands of viewers, whereas networks such as OWN and ESPN draw _millions_ of viewers. Also, national networks such as OWN and ESPN (and virtually every other national commercial network) allow the providers (DirecTV, Dish, cable or telco) to insert their own advertising (through local availabilities), thus lowering the effective rate paid for those networks. When was the last time you heard of a local broadcaster giving up _ANY_ of his advertising availabilities to the carrier(s) of his programming? Hmmm?


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Starting to look like KNDO got most of what they were asking for. SWX TV ads asking people to call to get it on Satellite are now aimed only at Dish network leading you to believe the channel is available on the other providers. I suspect we will see SWX on soon In Yakima/ Tri-Cities area.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Northwest broadcasting has some more interesting numbers they believe are the reason they are asking for a fair price. They feel Directv marks local stations up 1000 percent and don't tell you they have done this either. http://www.myfoxtricities.com/dpp/about_us/directv_news/directv-statement
http://www.myfoxspokane.com/about/kayu-directv-statement-12212010,0,2302925.story


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Yea, right. They complain because DirecTv recoups the cost to capture the signal, transport it across the country, upload it to special spot beam satellites...and complains that Directv is greedy and wont pay the poor small privately owned company their fair share, then tells viewers to watch them for free with an antenna? That makes no sense at all. Maybe they should share their advertising profits with DirecTv since I am sure there are hundreds or thousands of people watching that would not be without DirecTv that allows them to charge more for advertising.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mshaw2715 said:


> Northwest broadcasting has some more interesting numbers they believe are the reason they are asking for a fair price. They feel Directv marks local stations up 1000 percent and don't tell you they have done this either. http://www.myfoxtricities.com/dpp/about_us/directv_news/directv-statement
> http://www.myfoxspokane.com/about/kayu-directv-statement-12212010,0,2302925.story


What a joke. That's not even a lame negotiating tactic comment from Northwest...its over the top lame.

They must have lots of sore shoulders there from padding themselves on the back all day long for how great they are... !rolling


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Newshawk said:


> *Just because subscribers want the networks doesn't mean they want the local affiliates.* However, I do recognize that local news and weather coverage is a big draw, especially for older viewers. ...


This is what I laugh at the local affiliates about. They always complain that the MSOs refuse to compensate them fairly for their allegedly "great programming" as Northwest is doing here. Well if their local programming is really as great as they claim then why do most affiliate stations support the NAB's hard fight to have the government continue to heavily restrict DNS service and hardly ever grant waivers for it?

Let's see the local stations actually prove they have all this great programming by opening up to true competition and grant DNS waivers to anyone who wants them or have the NAB drop their opposition to its restrictions.

C'mon ... :nono2:

The majority of these local network affiliate stations know good and darn well that their only major value is as an outlet for network programming and need government protection of their markets to survive.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> ... then tells viewers to watch them for free with an antenna?


This is the exact position Northwest is in now .. Their market is now OTA only. While I certainly don't know the details of any contract negotiations, I will speculate that Northwest's compensation is probably similar to other local market stations across the country which recently concluded negotiations with DIRECTV. It may not be exactly the same, but it's probably not far off - I refuse to believe that these local channel providers don't give some indication to each other what each other are getting.

Northwest's argument is "DIRECTV is making a killing, so we should too." When in reality the market price is what should be charged regardless of who is getting the short end of the stick. The funny thing is that with fewer subscribers in these areas, DIRECTV may not even be breaking even on retransmitting the signal. Certainly this is evened out by larger markets, but without real numbers we can never know.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

See that is the thing. I think we should be told what we are actually paying for these stations. if Directv is so concerned about the cost of restransmitting the signal, then they should include that information as well. in addition to that I think we should be told what a channel or channel group (like showtime) would cost us if it was done by alacarte. Because if channels are going to continue to try and make up for the lost advertising by taking it out on everyone else, we may have to go alacarte anyway.


Doug Brott said:


> This is the exact position Northwest is in now .. Their market is now OTA only. While I certainly don't know the details of any contract negotiations, I will speculate that Northwest's compensation is probably similar to other local market stations across the country which recently concluded negotiations with DIRECTV. It may not be exactly the same, but it's probably not far off - I refuse to believe that these local channel providers don't give some indication to each other what each other are getting.
> 
> Northwest's argument is "DIRECTV is making a killing, so we should too." When in reality the market price is what should be charged regardless of who is getting the short end of the stick. The funny thing is that with fewer subscribers in these areas, DIRECTV may not even be breaking even on retransmitting the signal. Certainly this is evened out by larger markets, but without real numbers we can never know.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

mshaw2715 said:


> See that is the thing. I think we should be told what we are actually paying for these stations. if Directv is so concerned about the cost of restransmitting the signal, then they should include that information as well. in addition to that I think we should be told what a channel or channel group (like showtime) would cost us if it was done by alacarte. Because if channels are going to continue to try and make up for the lost advertising by taking it out on everyone else, we may have to go alacarte anyway.


We can't be told what the price would be if it were a la carte because the a la carte numbers would be much, much higher than the per-subscriber numbers are. Even if DIRECTV wanted to share this information, anything they said would be inaccurate.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mshaw2715 said:


> See that is the thing. I think we should be told what we are actually paying for these stations. if Directv is so concerned about the cost of restransmitting the signal, then they should include that information as well. in addition to that I think we should be told what a channel or channel group (like showtime) would cost us if it was done by alacarte. Because if channels are going to continue to try and make up for the lost advertising by taking it out on everyone else, we may have to go alacarte anyway.


Showtime may have been a poor choice as it does come "a la carte" in the $12/month range.
Perhaps the costs of local network retransmission could be compared to the costs of a DNS network, which "used to be" $1.50/month to the customer.

If these local as$&&$% think their product is so great, then issue blanket waivers to all customers for DNS service and let the market decide.
The idea of having exclusive control AND then extorting retransmission fees is absurd.
They want their cake, they want to eat it too, AND they want to be paid for it too. :nono:


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

I think DirecTV should do an a-la-carte with the channel groups. Offer more packages and/or give the subscribers the choice of which channel groups they want. Let the subscribers pick a minimum of say 3 groups for $x.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> If these local as$&&$% think their product is so great, then issue blanket waivers to all customers for DNS service and let the market decide.


OTA antenna sales skyrocket - film at 11. :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> OTA antenna sales skyrocket - film at 11. :lol:


"yeah"

The point that chaps my ... is that locals have exclusive control/access to a market, through the waiver granting [and NOT] process as part of their FCC license, yet they feel they can charge retransmission fees [at all].
"IF" all their advertising isn't being carried by the retransmitting, "THEN" a fee is reasonable/justified.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Since I got my HR20 over 3 years ago, I've been using a $9 pair of rabbit ears to get the 'important' OTA channels for backup during storms / rainfade.

I certainly didn't want an exterior antenna with a rotator and tried several amplified indoor antennas in the $30-50 range - Terk, Phillips, etc.

A couple of weeks ago, I started checking it with the possibility of our local CBS going dark (didn't) and decided to order PID 4729 from Monoprice - $17.

I am AMAZED at it's reception! Channels I couldn't acquire are now 50-60% and 40-50s are now 90-100s.

While I can't compare them side-by-side since I returned them, it's the only powered / amplified antenna that made a difference with the power plugged it! It's also so small (approx. 5x8x1/2) and unobtrusive, it easily hides behind a picture frame.


----------



## flexoffset (Jul 16, 2007)

Here's the statement on my NBC affiliate WAFF:
http://www.waff.com/global/story.asp?s=13659842

Here's the opening paragraph:


> Important notice for DirecTV subscribers
> 
> Raycom Media, this station's parent company, has been in good faith negotiations with DirecTV to ensure the continued availability of this television station and the popular news and entertainment programs you enjoy on DirecTV.
> 
> Raycom has agreed in writing to substantially all the terms mutually negotiated to keep this station on DirecTV's service. Raycom has sent DirecTV a signed agreement for DirecTV to execute. We are awaiting DirecTV's signature on the agreement.


----------



## vbush (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "yeah"
> 
> The point that chaps my ... is that locals have exclusive control/access to a market, through the waiver granting [and NOT] process as part of their FCC license, yet they feel they can charge retransmission fees [at all].
> "IF" all their advertising isn't being carried by the retransmitting, "THEN" a fee is reasonable/justified.


http://dev.americantelevisionalliance.org/

An easy link to let congress know how you feel. I just used it to contact my representatives.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

vbush said:


> http://dev.americantelevisionalliance.org/
> 
> An easy link to let congress know how you feel. I just used it to contact my representatives.


"Done"


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

Unfortunately this really hurts rural customers. They are the least likely to have LOS for OTA and are the least likely to stream content like news online. My parents, for instance, are in the very northern reaches of the NYC DMA and cannot receive any OTA whatsoever. Back in the day, when they subbed to TWC and had the plug pulled on O&O ABC stations, they were stuck without ABC for two weeks. It's actually what prompted their move to Dish, and eventually, to DirecTV.

I am convinced that these disputes are going to get worse. With other legal means available to watch many of these shows (many local networks stream their news live on the net for free, and most network shows are available to watch online), they become less vital for the providers to hold onto without interruption. DirecTV needs to be able to compete with Netflix, OTA, Hulu, and other online PPV options. $75/mo for TV isn't competitive any longer, and giving in to these stations won't help control that cost.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I do urge all to follow the link above and send some emails.
I've already received a reply [though I'm sure a form reply].


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

We lost Fox sometime yesterday, I think. Fortunately, I only watch Glee and Human Target on that station, and football if it is on. So I am unsure when it went dark, but I thought I would watch House last night since everything else was a re-run. No luck. I was thinking about calling DirecTV and seeing if they would provide me another station's Fox just so I can watch Human Target on Wed.


----------



## CouchTater (Dec 19, 2006)

Our local channel is reporting that Directv has refused to sign an agreement with Raycom which will result in my losing at least one local channel (NBC) I just traded in my HR20 for an HR21 which does not accept OTR signals after I bought a new 3D TV. I refuse to go back to the stone age. I have been with Directv since its inception 1994 but if I have to switch to cable or Dish to get my locals I will. Hopefully an agreement will be reached. It seems to me both sides will suffer if it is not.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

The current message from Raycom (which probably appears on all stations home page) is:


> DirecTV has refused Raycom's offer to enter into a contract that would allow continued carriage of this station through June 2014. Raycom and DirecTV continue negotiations for carriage rights of this station on the DirecTV service.


So negotiations continue .. I still expect Raycom channels to remain on the air during this negotiation.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> The current message from Raycom (which probably appears on all stations home page) is:
> 
> So negotiations continue .. I still expect Raycom channels to remain on the air during this negotiation.


WXIX is still on.


----------



## carillon (Nov 15, 2007)

This message is posted on my local Fox affiliate which is owned by Raycom...

Important notice for DirecTV subscribers
DirecTV has refused Raycom's offer to enter into a contract that would allow continued carriage of this station through June 2014. Raycom and DirecTV continue negotiations for carriage rights of this station on the DirecTV service.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

carillon said:


> This message is posted on my local Fox affiliate which is owned by Raycom...
> 
> Important notice for DirecTV subscribers
> DirecTV has refused Raycom's offer to enter into a contract that would allow continued carriage of this station through June 2014. Raycom and DirecTV continue negotiations for carriage rights of this station on the DirecTV service.


anyone lose raycom stations yet?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Obviously there are two sides to most stories...and this one is no different.

It appeara Raycom is using scare tactics to influence a non-required extension agreement...looks like Raycom doesn't have their act together, not DirecTV.

This is from TVPredictions this morning:



> *Raycom, which owns roughly 40 local stations, has stated that the current agreement with DIRECTV expired on January 1, suggesting the broadcasting group could pull its local stations at any time if a new pact is not signed.
> 
> However, DIRECTV tells the Arizona Daily Star that it will be able to carry the channels regardless of whether a new deal is signed now. The satcaster says the agreement automatically renewed for one year at the end of 2010 unless Raycom notified DIRECTV of its intent to terminate the deal; DIRECTV says it did not receive a notification to terminate.
> 
> ...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hey, what do you know .. Swanni got one right ..


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Hey, what do you know .. Swanni got one right ..


He lifted the story from the Arizona Daily Star and gave them no credit for it.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> He lifted the story from the Arizona Daily Star and gave them no credit for it.


I hate to defend the idiot, but he did say:


> However, DIRECTV tells the Arizona Daily Star


----------



## iainleaver (Mar 16, 2010)

Called DirecTV, they are sending someone out to install an OTA antenna on Sunday for $99 - I should be able to get FOX then - in HD too. 

I should have done this a while ago instead instead of hoping for local HD channels from DTV in Richland!


----------



## jostby (Jan 12, 2011)

I am a rural customer and can't get Fox OTA, that's why I signed up for DTV. Unlike many of you I tend to think DTV is the one making my behind hurt.

I have copied and pasted a direct quote from DTV CEO Michael White talking during their 2009 Q4 Earnings call&#8230;

"_Frankly, it still amazes me that Pay TV Providers as a group continue to rank at the bottom of the ACSI survey year-after-year. Somehow, we must and will crack the code on the challenge of providing world class customer experience every day_."

My response to Mr White is this dispute is an excellent example of why Pay TV Subscribers rate their providers so bad!
Large corporations have lost focus of what makes them money. The only way to efficiently put money into the shareholders pockets is to keep us the customer happy. If you keep losing unhappy customers you will have to continue cutting services in order to profit. Eventually all you have is a mediocre product that is no longer competitive in the marketplace.

I do understand that they claim Northwest Broadcasting (local Fox Distributor) is demanding 600% increase to allow rebroadcast of the Fox station. I do not however believe that this is the full truth or that it is as expensive an increase as it sounds. 
After reading of DTV's 2009 Q4 profits of $697 million (I know, OPBDA) But that's for ONE QUARTER!!! I can't help but wonder if their shareholders couldn't afford to give up a couple pennies per share in order to absorb this increase for us customers.

What has really got me agravated is the fact that I can't even watch the NFL playoffs now (at least the upcoming Seahawk game (don't go there guys:nono)
And it's possible I'll have to go somewhere else to watch the Superbowl. That's BS when I signed up specifically because of these stations 

Jeff.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

jostby said:


> I am a rural customer and can't get Fox OTA, that's why I signed up for DTV. Unlike many of you I tend to think DTV is the one making my behind hurt.
> 
> Jeff.


While I understand and sympathizes with your situation, why should a local station even charge a retransmission fee at all?
They are licensed to operate using the public airwaves. If their commercials are being carried in full by the retransmission, and this is being also picked up by over the air from them, what costs are these fees there for?
They have total control with their license as to who can or can't get their network from some other provider.
They therefore have a monopoly, yet are extorting fees at the same time.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jostby, it's certainly understandable that you'd be hot over this issue. I would be too if I couldn't see my favorite football team in the playoffs (wait, that happened when they went 2-14 in the regular season :lol.

That being said .. Feel free to be mad @ DIRECTV, but clearly they are holding the line because Northwest Broadcasting is asking for a rate that doesn't compare favorably to the 6 other agreements that did reach a successful negotiation. It's not like DIRECTV (and likely Northwest Broadcasting) didn't know what the Market Rate is for this.

The problem is probably not Northwest Broadcasting in particular, but if those guys set a new benchmark, then it's the negotiations for the next group and the next and the next. If DIRECTV doesn't hold the line, then rates will rise even faster than they already are. Hopefully an agreement can be reached as I'm sure these stations ratings numbers are going to drop with fewer eyeballs.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Doug, are you a Panthers fan? At least we have a new coach. . .

Our local Raycom has quit running the crawl, but it may be because of running the crawl of all the closings / late openings due to the weather.


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Doug, are you a Panthers fan? At least we have a new coach. . .
> 
> Our local Raycom has quit running the crawl, but it may be because of running the crawl of all the closings / late openings due to the weather.


Our Raycom channel quit the crawl to, but to replace with it with a new one to say they know about their audio drop out issues  Hopefully they fix that while they work out a deal with DirecTV


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

jostby said:


> ...
> I do understand that they claim Northwest Broadcasting (local Fox Distributor) is demanding 600% increase to allow rebroadcast of the Fox station. I do not however believe that this is the full truth or that it is as expensive an increase as it sounds.
> After reading of DTV's 2009 Q4 profits of $697 million (I know, OPBDA) But that's for ONE QUARTER!!! I can't help but wonder if their shareholders couldn't afford to give up a couple pennies per share in order to absorb this increase for us customers. ... Jeff.


Perhaps DirecTV stockholders could easily make such a sacrifice, but as VOS explains they shouldn't be FORCED to is the point. Its one thing for local stations to be allowed to charge the MSOs these unjust re-transmission fees, but to have a monopolistic system rigged to where the MSO must deal with them and them only in order to deliver TV network programming which the local stations neither create or own to subscribers in a market, which is all DirecTV is primarily interested in from these lousy local stations anyhow, is quite another. :nono:


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Still waiting for DirecTV and Northwest Broadcasting to come to an agreement.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Rakul said:


> Our Raycom channel quit the crawl to, but to replace with it with a new one to say they know about their audio drop out issues  Hopefully they fix that while they work out a deal with DirecTV


Raycom is still running the crawl here in Cleveland on our local CBS (and quite possibly our local Mtn as well though I do not watch that particular channel)


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I think the Raycom agreement auto-renewed .. It probably doesn't technically expire now until end of 2011 (That's a guess). If Raycom is still pushing hard for a new contract I can only assume that they didn't dot their I's and cross their T's properly on the previous contract.

Still, with all of the pressure they are putting out there now, hopefully Raycom & DIRECTV can come to an agreement long before the new deadline.


----------



## mikewsu (Oct 26, 2007)

jdspencer said:


> Still waiting for DirecTV and Northwest Broadcasting to come to an agreement.


Me too.. Seahawks game this weekend would be nice to watch.


----------



## mikewsu (Oct 26, 2007)

Supposed to be some news on this today or tomorrow, according to news quotes from NW Broadcasting's greedy COO.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

mikewsu said:


> Supposed to be some news on this today or tomorrow, according to news quotes from NW Broadcasting's greedy COO.


Hopefully the news doesn't turn out to be "DIRECTV rejected our reduce offer of only a 500% increase."


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

My guess would be rejected offer of only a 599% increase.


Doug Brott said:


> Hopefully the news doesn't turn out to be "DIRECTV rejected our reduce offer of only a 500% increase."


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Based on the info out there. They wanted a buck from every subscriber. I would guess that directv offer somthing around 25 to 30 cents per subscriber. Considering we pay just under 20 cents now for those northwest broadcast stations. Also the news articles seem to point to 3 issues remaining. My guess is HD feeds that are already not available on Directv and sub channels in some markets.


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

A buck looks to be pretty close based on this press release issued today.

Northwest wants "independent verification" that the rate they get is similar to the rates for other markets, if I'm reading all the gobbledegook in the release correctly.

Anyway, they claim they've got a deal.......subject to that verification. We'll see.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

But, the DirecTV web page paints a different picture.
http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3094


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

any news on raycom?


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

I bet they are just iching to know what deal KHQ and KNDO got to stay on Directv. Esecially when they singal out NBC in these markets in their press release.


Jaspear said:


> A buck looks to be pretty close based on this press release issued today.
> 
> Northwest wants "independent verification" that the rate they get is similar to the rates for other markets, if I'm reading all the gobbledegook in the release correctly.
> 
> Anyway, they claim they've got a deal.......subject to that verification. We'll see.


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

mshaw2715 said:


> I bet they are just iching to know what deal KHQ and KNDO got to stay on Directv. Esecially when they singal out NBC in these markets in their press release.


That's what this whole "independent verification" nonsense is all about, an attempt to get proprietary information that DirecTV is unwilling to provide.


----------



## karmbrown (Mar 4, 2010)

Those people in areas of eastern Washington might check channel 399. D* turned it on for several of us in the Palouse region.


----------



## bighifi (Aug 11, 2004)

NO 399 here in Spokane, still getting screwed out of Fox.


----------



## karmbrown (Mar 4, 2010)

It seems like it may be based on where you are located. I have a coworker that lives about 15 miles north of Pullman and thay did not get it turned on, but other coworkers in Pullman have it on as of yesterday. I live about 15 miles south of Pullman and we got a call from D* notifying us it was turned on.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Only in areas they can't get the local FOX signal easily can they acutally get the FOX DNS signal given to them during this dispute.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Most people in the Palouse area's and the Tri Cities, should be able to use OTA during all this. Have several friends in Richland that are using indoor Rabbit ears right now with lots of success.


----------



## bighifi (Aug 11, 2004)

Thing that sucks is you cannot integrate you OTA into DVR easily


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

One of the boxes I have does intergrate the OTA signal with my Directv HD DVR. Which is the station I would be viewing regarless of what was going on with the talks between the two parties since the station they removed SD anyway, since they don't have the HD locals on Directv here yet.


bighifi said:


> Thing that sucks is you cannot integrate you OTA into DVR easily


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

bighifi said:


> Thing that sucks is you cannot integrate you OTA into DVR easily


I keep forgetting that Direct doesn't have a built in OTA tuner or an easy to insert module for those units that don't have OTA built into them.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> I keep forgetting that Direct doesn't have a built in OTA tuner or an easy to insert module for those units that don't have OTA built into them.


The AM-21 is a very easy to insert module for OTA on any Hx21-24.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> The AM-21 is a very easy to insert module for OTA on any Hx21-24.


I thought the AM-21 was a seperate unit. Didn't know that it inserted into the DVR, to keep things nice and neat. Stacking units isn't the end of the world, but it does work, but having everything in one box and no external connections between them is easier.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

AM21 is a separate unit. Only the HR20 and H20 has OTA built in.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> I thought the AM-21 was a seperate unit. Didn't know that it inserted into the DVR, to keep things nice and neat. Stacking units isn't the end of the world, but it does work, but having everything in one box and no external connections between them is easier.


As you can see, it's pretty thin. OTA coax goes in & an USB connects it.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> As you can see, it's pretty thin. OTA coax goes in & an USB connects it.


Thanks for the image. The AM-21 is what I thought it was and discribed. A seperate box with external connections. Not sure what the point is of the image? Were it maybe easy to use, its not a plug in module.

Like I said, for those in the Palouse and the Tri City areas, OTA should work while this is being worked out.


----------



## karmbrown (Mar 4, 2010)

Not true in the Palouse area. I am over 80 miles from Spokane and can't get it on OTA. I beleive that is why D* turned on 399 for those people in the outer areas that can't receive OTA. Tri-Cities is right in the broadcast area for OTA.


----------



## ulfius (Sep 1, 2007)

I'm in Moscow, ID (8 miles from Pullman, 90 miles from Spokane) and I've tried calling twice to get DNS and they said I'm not eligible and they cannot turn 399 on for me. I filled out an online waiver request on the 12th and it's still pending, and they said it can take up to 45 days. bleh.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ulfius said:


> I'm in Moscow, ID (8 miles from Pullman, 90 miles from Spokane) and I've tried calling twice to get DNS and they said I'm not eligible and they cannot turn 399 on for me. I filled out an online waiver request on the 12th and it's still pending, and they said it can take up to 45 days. bleh.


And since DIRECTV and Northwest are at a stalemate right now, the waiver is unlikely to be approved anyway.


----------



## bighifi (Aug 11, 2004)

Directv is sending AM21 for free.


----------



## steinmeg (Nov 23, 2006)

Rakul said:


> Our Raycom channel quit the crawl to, but to replace with it with a new one to say they know about their audio drop out issues  Hopefully they fix that while they work out a deal with DirecTV


Here is Lake Worth FL, they are still runnig the crawl especially during a FOX football game....


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

steinmeg said:


> Here is Lake Worth FL, they are still runnig the crawl especially during a FOX football game....


I guess directv and raycom are still negotiating?


----------



## steinmeg (Nov 23, 2006)

Guess so, its like a chess game...hope this does not effect the Super Bowl


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

steinmeg said:


> Guess so, its like a chess game...hope this does not effect the Super Bowl


in the pass fox DSN was open for the SB.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

DirecTV (via Twitter) said:


> NW Customers:Northwest granted our request to put the channels back on while we negotiate a deal. We're working to restore the channels ASAP


~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

DirecTV (via Facebook) said:


> Breaking news: FOX channels in Spokane & Yakima, WA, Medford, OR and Binghamton, NY will be restored tomorrow.
> by DirecTV on Tuesday, February 1, 2011 at 8:57pm
> 
> We are very happy to share the news and expect the channels to return by Wednesday February 2. Some viewers may already have the signal now. Here is the official statement from Dan Hartman, SVP, Programming Acquisitions, DIRECTV -"We're happy that Northwest granted our request to put the channels back on while we negotiate a deal. We are making arrangements to restore the channels as soon as possible and look forward to getting a deal done as quickly as we can."


~Alan


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hey at least folks can see the Superbowl .. Wonder if this means the stations are better off with the redistribution than without.


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Hey at least folks can see the Superbowl .. Wonder if this means the stations are better off with the redistribution than without.


Both the stations and DirecTV. Around here, DISH Network contract installers have been running TV and Radio spots with the theme, "Don't miss the big game....switch now!" A couple of my neighbors have done just that.


----------



## gkamer (Nov 5, 2005)

*I posted an earlier thread about not getting my FOX channel here in the Spokane Wa area. It was kind of a long post so I'm not going to go into it again. I missed the announcement from DirectTV that FOX was going to be put back up. Know why? Cause I was checking the DirectTV web site which showed the last update on this situation as having been posted on 01/14/11. I never would have thought to go to Facebook to get information. I am at work so I can't check to see if my local FOX28 is back up but I'm going to check as soon as I get home.*

*Thanks for everyone, especially the super moderator who pinted me in this direction.*


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Jaspear said:


> Both the stations and DirecTV. Around here, DISH Network contract installers have been running TV and Radio spots with the theme, "Don't miss the big game....switch now!" A couple of my neighbors have done just that.


Around here, there are people switching from Dish to DirecTV, because when their satellite got the "electrical issue" local HD channels were moved to a satellite a lot of customers can't see and Dish won't give them that equipment.

I think DirecTV will gain more Dish subs than Dish gets DirecTVs, more affected by the Dish situation.


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> Around here, there are people switching from Dish to DirecTV, because when their satellite got the "electrical issue" local HD channels were moved to a satellite a lot of customers can't see and Dish won't give them that equipment.
> 
> I think DirecTV will gain more Dish subs than Dish gets DirecTVs, more affected by the Dish situation.


"Electrical issue"??? I can just hear Charlie and Jim explaining _that_ on the Chuck Chat, complete with the pained expressions on the faces in the peanut gallery!:lol:

Anyway, Fox 28 Spokane is back up on DirecTV. I'll bet Northwest's local Superbowl advertisers had something to do with this.

According to this letter from the head honcho at Northwest, they want 60 cents per sub per month. Probably something like 40 cents more than everybody else.

Edit: Make that 90 cents per sub per month.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Fox40 and MyNet are now up here.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Just temperary at this point 4 week time period to allow for a contract to be signed between the two parties.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

My guess is Northwest will end up falling in line with the other deals that DIRECTV already negotiated. Not sure we'll ever really know, though.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

That is what I'm thinking. 
This page placing a link to I think gives you a better idea of what's been happening and also explains how the 600 percent increase came from as well. Having said that It's clear they were asking for a dollar a month at first.
http://www.myfoxtricities.com/dpp/about_us/DirecTV_FAQ



Doug Brott said:


> My guess is Northwest will end up falling in line with the other deals that DIRECTV already negotiated. Not sure we'll ever really know, though.


----------



## BCARR (Jan 26, 2009)

Meanwhile in smaller DMA's like Montgomery, Alabama (#150) the local, family-owned FOX station, has been dark on the DirecTV Guide for the past 60 days. I am sure the re-trans agreements with the majors are priority one for D* but there are still quite a few of us who won't be watching the Super Bowl at home this weekend. I suppose this is really a game of "chicken" to see who gives in first. Meanwhile I am paying a monthly fee for my locals in HD, save one.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

mshaw2715 said:


> Just temperary at this point 4 week time period to allow for a contract to be signed between the two parties.


No, just temporary for four weeks to allow Northwest Broadcasting to count DirecTV subscribers in their Nielsen ratings. *February sweeps starts TOMORROW!*


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Newshawk said:


> No, just temporary for four weeks to allow Northwest Broadcasting to count DirecTV subscribers in their Nielsen ratings. *February sweeps starts TOMORROW!*


All the more reason to not watch your local Fox during sweeps. 

Update: 2/4/2011 - Just received an automated phone call from DirecTV telling me that our locals are now available while the negotiations continue.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

mshaw2715 said:


> That is what I'm thinking.
> This page placing a link to I think gives you a better idea of what's been happening and also explains how the 600 percent increase came from as well. Having said that It's clear they were asking for a dollar a month at first.
> http://www.myfoxtricities.com/dpp/about_us/DirecTV_FAQ


I love the math that myfoxtricities is using. A 6000 percent markup? If DirecTV were charging the "75 to 100 dollars" to provide simply the one channel, I could understand. I thought I got a few more channels for the $68 that I am paying. It looks as though they are trying to extort a payment for each subscriber whether they are a viewer or not.


----------



## ulfius (Sep 1, 2007)

I can just imagine what our bills would be like if DirecTV had to pay every station $1/month/subscriber.


----------



## awblackmon (May 20, 2009)

I wonder what Directv or Dish could save on these retransmission fees if they both sent out the over the air modules and then didn't count those that had the modules as customers not receiving the locals via satellite. The rural customer would be the only ones that could be counted. I have an AM-21 module on my DVR and can see the transmitter tower from my front door.

Actually I think the broadcasters should be sent the bill for the cost of carrying the signal to me. I mean if they want Directv to charge me to receive the signal, then they should also be partners in it getting it to me, and pay accordingly instead of letting Directv pay that bill, and the extortion fees.


----------

