# Moonves to stations: Get more retrans money out of pay-TV operators or else



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

CBS Corp. president Les Moonves is an a** hole. 

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/moonves-stations-get-more-retrans-money-out-pay-tv-operators-or-else/2014-09-11?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

And why is that? His company (which happens to employ me) spends a whole lot of money on creating content. CBS has every right to negotiate the best possible deals to pay for that content.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The same content the cable companies are required by law to carry? If they want more money then I say get rid of must carry laws. Right now it's unfairly stacked in the broadcasters favor. They can squeeze as much money as they want from the cable companies and there is nothing the cable companies can do about it but pay.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> The same content the cable companies are required by law to carry? If they want more money then I say get rid of must carry laws. Right now it's unfairly stacked in the broadcasters favor. They can squeeze as much money as they want from the cable companies and there is nothing the cable companies can do about it but pay.


I thought if a broadcast station invokes the "must carry" rule, then cable operators didn't have to pay them any retransmission fees.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

IIRC they got that changed a few years back so that even if they invoke must carry they are still allowed to charge a fee. And I believe they used some vague wording like "reasonable fee" or some such, so they can pretty much charge whatever they want and the only recourse the MSO has is to take them to court and let them decide if it's "reasonable" or not.


----------



## qz3fwd (Jul 6, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> IIRC they got that changed a few years back so that even if they invoke must carry they are still allowed to charge a fee. And I believe they used some vague wording like "reasonable fee" or some such, so they can pretty much charge whatever they want and the only recourse the MSO has is to take them to court and let them decide if it's "reasonable" or not.


You mean like the cable companies do to us for cablecards???
Oh my. What comes around goes around.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

No Dan, it's either "must carry" or fees, not both.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> IIRC they got that changed a few years back so that even if they invoke must carry they are still allowed to charge a fee. And I believe they used some vague wording like "reasonable fee" or some such, so they can pretty much charge whatever they want and the only recourse the MSO has is to take them to court and let them decide if it's "reasonable" or not.


This is not correct. If a station elects must-carry, they cannot demand fees from the provider.

The whole fees thing is that broadcast stations of the major networks draw audiences that providers cannot afford to lose. If they lose ABC for example, customers are going to switch. Also, what IS mandated is that broadcast channels must be put in every package, so customers cannot opt-out of paying for broadcast channels.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

When the NAB was first lobbying for "must carry" legislation, what they were trying for was colloquially referred to in the trades as "Must Carry-Must Pay", but cable spent enough on lobbying to rein that in somewhat, but ever since I've had little sympathy for TV broadcasters.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

These feuds are ridiculous. The cable companies own the conduit to the users. They should put messages up every time one of these greedy stations demands more money telling users to call the station and complain about how they are charging too much. Would be pretty funny.

The law should be written to require that any OTA signal is free for the cable company to take and re-transmit, as long as the content is un-altered. These shenanigans are just ridiculous. As much as government regulation of carriage fees sounds awful, it's almost to the point where that needs to happen.

I wonder what happens when an incumbent cable company with limited competitive exposure decides that they're not playing ball anymore and sets take-it-or-leave-it carriage rates that they are going to pay the stations... That would be great, although they might fear losing some subs who only ever watch local channels to OTA...

This is another place where, as terrible as an idea as it sounds, I wish D* and E* and Comcast and TWC and all them could get together and price fix what they will pay for retrans fees. Completely blacking out stations except for OTA would make them shape up fast!

Point is, something has to be done about these greedy bastards who seem to want more and more and more and when you give them more, they just want MORE!


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Point is, something has to be done about these greedy bastards who seem to want more and more and more and when you give them more, they just want MORE!


This statement could describe the cable companies as well as it describes the networks.



Bigg said:


> This is another place where, as terrible as an idea as it sounds, I wish D* and E* and Comcast and TWC and all them could get together and price fix what they will pay for retrans fees. Completely blacking out stations except for OTA would make them shape up fast!


Besides the fact that price fixing collusion is illegal, if you think that allowing Comcast to merge with TWC will help, just remember that Comcast owns NBC Universal, so Comcast IS one of the very "greedy bastard" network owners you are complaining about.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> This statement could describe the cable companies as well as it describes the networks.
> 
> Besides the fact that price fixing collusion is illegal, if you think that allowing Comcast to merge with TWC will help, just remember that Comcast owns NBC Universal, so Comcast IS one of the very "greedy bastard" network owners you are complaining about.


Comcast may be require to sell NBC/Universal in order to obtain the merger.

Early in the year when Comcast was fighting (with CBS) in another part of the country, I think Comcast should said "We will pay your retrans fee, but we will remove ALL commercials from your broadcast or we will pay zero $ and you can keep commercials.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Bigg said:


> The law should be written to require that any OTA signal is free for the cable company to take and re-transmit, as long as the content is un-altered. These shenanigans are just ridiculous. As much as government regulation of carriage fees sounds awful, it's almost to the point where that needs to happen.


It already happened. Remember Aerio? The Broadcasters went all the way to the Supreme Court to put that company out of business.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> This statement could describe the cable companies as well as it describes the networks.


Not really. The vast majority of the cost increases that we've seen in cable TV are due to the content providers hiking up rates, force bundling, and their other savory practices. At the very minimum, they should be forced to offer their channels to the cable providers a-la-carte, so that the cable providers could create packages people actually want, as opposed to the mess that we have now...



> Besides the fact that price fixing collusion is illegal, if you think that allowing Comcast to merge with TWC will help, just remember that Comcast owns NBC Universal, so Comcast IS one of the very "greedy bastard" network owners you are complaining about.


That's true. They should be forced to divest NBCU if they want to get TWC. Price fixing is illegal and for good reason, there's just occasion that I wish it was legal. The cable companies need more negotiating power against these networks.

With NBCU divested, however, Comcast-TWC would have a really good bargaining position with content providers to make take-it-or-leave-it deals with them, which is what they should do, and then expose the truth of what is going on if the broadcasters choose to black out their channels.

How do Significantly Viewed locals factor into things? If the in-DMA CBS channel is trying to extort even more money out of the cable company, but there's an SV CBS on the cable system, can they just do a take-it-or-leave-it deal for the in-DMA CBS, and continue carrying the SV CBS?



Banker257 said:


> It already happened. Remember Aerio? The Broadcasters went all the way to the Supreme Court to put that company out of business.


Aereo had nothing to do with cable retransmission. That was just corrupt legislating from the bench, in bold faced violation of the then-current law, which was extremely clear that Aereo was 100% legal. I'm talking about laws for cable retransmission.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

"Aereo had nothing to do with cable retransmission. That was just corrupt legislating from the bench, in bold faced violation of the then-current law, which was extremely clear that Aereo was 100% legal. I'm talking about laws for cable retransmission."

According to the SC majority, Aereo was acting as a "Cable Company" (they weren't) which is why they needed to pay retransmission fees. Basically agreeing with what the Broadcasters unsuccessfully argued in two lower courts.

The saddest part was after the ruling, Aereo went back to court and said "fine, we're a Cable Company, let's negotiate retransmission fees"

The Broadcasters screamed "no fair" and the court agreed, denying Aereo another day in court and effectively putting them out of business.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Banker257 said:


> "Aereo had nothing to do with cable retransmission. That was just corrupt legislating from the bench, in bold faced violation of the then-current law, which was extremely clear that Aereo was 100% legal. I'm talking about laws for cable retransmission."
> 
> According to the SC majority, Aereo was acting as a "Cable Company" (they weren't) which is why they needed to pay retransmission fees. Basically agreeing with what the Broadcasters unsuccessfully argued in two lower courts.
> 
> ...


Pretty much.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

This is one situation where competition actually sucks and costs the consumer more money. If there was only one pay TV provider the locals couldn't change anything and that pay TV provider would have much more control over forced bundling of cable channels and consumers would be better protected from abuse by the pay TV provider as it would be a regulated monopoly. 

Instead the locals and cable channels play cable and satellite companies against each other and extract more $$ than they would be able to if there was only one pay TV provider. The consumer gets hosed by everybody, the OTA channels, the bundling of cable channels, and then by the pay TV providers because regulation is relaxed due to the supposed "competition" which is actually working against the consumer.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

While you folks are *****ing here about the mainstream OTA networks asking for re-transmission fees, don't you realize the highest fees are going to ESPN and the other sports networks, national and regional. And then all that money goes to all the sports teams and athletes. That my friends is the biggest ripoff going on.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

MScottC said:


> While you folks are *****ing here about the mainstream OTA networks asking for re-transmission fees, don't you realize the highest fees are going to ESPN and the other sports networks, national and regional. And then all that money goes to all the sports teams and athletes. That my friends is the biggest ripoff going on.


Not if you're a sports fan!


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

MScottC said:


> While you folks are *****ing here about the mainstream OTA networks asking for re-transmission fees, don't you realize the highest fees are going to ESPN and the other sports networks, national and regional. And then all that money goes to all the sports teams and athletes. That my friends is the biggest ripoff going on.


True. ESPN (and all the Disney/ABC-owned cable and local channels that go with it) cost pay TV customers the most. And now there are more and more sports-related cable channels, and they all want the same business. I could almost buy season tickets to a few local sports teams each year and pay less than it would cost me to get a cable package with all of the sports channels. Luckily neither my wife nor I care enough to pay for the sports channels. I have the $19.99 Welcome Pack on Dish which includes none, and I don't miss it one bit. For the sports enthusiast, you're paying a high price.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

unitron said:


> When the NAB was first lobbying for "must carry" legislation, what they were trying for was colloquially referred to in the trades as "Must Carry-Must Pay", but cable spent enough on lobbying to rein that in somewhat, but ever since I've had little sympathy for TV broadcasters.


Ok I thought I had read they got that passed. I guess not.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> This is one situation where competition actually sucks and costs the consumer more money. If there was only one pay TV provider the locals couldn't change anything and that pay TV provider would have much more control over forced bundling of cable channels and consumers would be better protected from abuse by the pay TV provider as it would be a regulated monopoly.
> 
> Instead the locals and cable channels play cable and satellite companies against each other and extract more $$ than they would be able to if there was only one pay TV provider. The consumer gets hosed by everybody, the OTA channels, the bundling of cable channels, and then by the pay TV providers because regulation is relaxed due to the supposed "competition" which is actually working against the consumer.


Competition exists with cable providers, what country do you live in? The cable companies are monopolies in most places in the US where people have a choice of either Comcast, or Time Warner cable. http://www.informationweek.com/stra...-monopoly-that-keeps-on-taking/d/d-id/1114115


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> Competition exists with cable providers, what country do you live in? The cable companies are monopolies in most places in the US where people have a choice of either Comcast, or Time Warner cable. http://www.informationweek.com/stra...-monopoly-that-keeps-on-taking/d/d-id/1114115


I'm pretty sure Comcast and TWC consider FIOS, U-verse, DirecTV and DISH competition.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Most consumers don't even have the choice between Comcast and TWC for cable TV service. I live in a metro area of about 1 million population and the only choice I have is TWC (ugg!). SatTV is not a viable choice for many due to site (obstructions) or legal (e.g., Home Owner's Assoc..) limitations, not to mention very unattractive terms (e.g. forcing you to own your equipment and pay to upgrade it).

Regardless of whether the various providers consider each other as competition, they are not such for most consumers.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

dlfl said:


> Most consumers don't even have the choice between Comcast and TWC for cable TV service. I live in a metro area of about 1 million population and the only choice I have is TWC (ugg!). SatTV is not a viable choice for many due to site (obstructions) or legal (e.g., Home Owner's Assoc..) limitations, not to mention very unattractive terms (e.g. forcing you to own your equipment and pay to upgrade it).
> 
> Regardless of whether the various providers consider each other as competition, they are not such for most consumers.


Satellite forces you to own your own equipment? I thought the whole TiVo argument was you CAN'T buy your own equipment.

Not to mention all my equipment from DirecTV, including the installation, was free.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

dlfl said:


> Most consumers don't even have the choice between Comcast and TWC for cable TV service. I live in a metro area of about 1 million population and the only choice I have is TWC (ugg!). SatTV is not a viable choice for many due to site (obstructions) or legal (e.g., Home Owner's Assoc..) limitations, not to mention very unattractive terms (e.g. forcing you to own your equipment and pay to upgrade it).
> 
> Regardless of whether the various providers consider each other as competition, they are not such for most consumers.


Neither Dish or DirecTV encourage equipment ownership any more, although technically you can still do it. Both include the equipment in their free installation packages when you sign your 2 year commitment.

Also, HOAs cannot prevent you from putting up a dish on your property per the OTARD rules:

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule

So, that pretty much leaves obstructions as the only real obstacle to switching away from cable for video content.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Aereo had nothing to do with cable retransmission. That was just corrupt legislating from the bench, in bold faced violation of the then-current law, which was extremely clear that Aereo was 100% legal. I'm talking about laws for cable retransmission.


No, Aereo was simply taking and selling copyright protected programming without paying for the rights to do so and calling it an antenna rental service. Nobody would pay to rent a tiny antenna, it was the programming that provided value. There would be no retransmission fees if that was legal, all cable companies would just do the same.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> Competition exists with cable providers, what country do you live in? The cable companies are monopolies in most places in the US where people have a choice of either Comcast, or Time Warner cable. http://www.informationweek.com/stra...-monopoly-that-keeps-on-taking/d/d-id/1114115


In the context of this thread and according to regulators it does.

The way locals get the cable company (and the satellite companies) to pay retransmission fees is the threat that their customers will switch to another provider. In my area it is TWC, if there were no satellite companies and one of the locals wanted money TWC would have the upper hand without TWC the local channel risks loosing any of it's viewers that couldn't receive the channel with an antenna. Without the threat of customers moving to satellite what would TWC risk by not carrying a local? Not much - sure people would bit**, but most want the other cable channels so they would use an antenna if they could and live with it.

On the regulation side cable is not regulated as a monopoly with the primary reason being Satellite.

Which brings me back to where I started the consumer gets the hosed by everyone.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

One more thing in regards to these retransmission fees. Everyone should remember that pre-2007ish they didn't exist so this is added revenue for providing the same thing. I would also like to note that from the 1960s to now the content:commercial ratio changed from 52:8 in the 60s to 42:18 per hour now. 

The bottom line is OTA networks are charging more money and providing less content simple because they can, not because it is necessary for a successful business model. As the consumers there is no reason to find that acceptable and no reason to support OTA networks using government regulations to enable it.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Banker257 said:


> I'm pretty sure Comcast and TWC consider FIOS, U-verse, DirecTV and DISH competition.


Only if you live in certain areas is there competition. Most people in the US, live in areas which are only served by one cable company. That is why Comcast has way over 50% of all customers in the US, and Time Warner is around 30%. It is called a monopoly. Comcast also has the distinction of being selected by consumers two out of the last three years as the worst company in the US... 

This is one reason why people are cutting the cord, they are fed up with the cable companies. http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ble-lost-1-1-million-video-customers-in-2013/


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Chris Gerhard said:


> No, Aereo was simply taking and selling copyright protected programming without paying for the rights to do so and calling it an antenna rental service.


5 Judges disagreed with your opinion.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> Only if you live in certain areas is there competition. Most people in the US, live in areas which are only served by one cable company. That is why Comcast has way over 50% of all customers in the US, and Time Warner is around 30%. It is called a monopoly. Comcast also has the distinction of being selected by consumers two out of the last three years as the worst company in the US...
> 
> This is one reason why people are cutting the cord, they are fed up with the cable companies. http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ble-lost-1-1-million-video-customers-in-2013/


Dish and Directv offer service to anyone in the US with an unobstructed view of the southern sky. I have 50' trees to the south of my property, and I can still get Dish.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

ncted said:


> Dish and Directv offer service to anyone in the US with an unobstructed view of the southern sky. I have 50' trees to the south of my property, and I can still get Dish.


I live in a condo complex, and I had Direct TV for a couple of years. When the wind would blow, the trees near my condo, would sway, and my picture would cut in an out. Two neighbors that live a couple of hundred feet from me, can't get HD on their Direct TV, only SD, because of the trees which are all over in Atlanta.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Banker257 said:


> 5 Judges disagreed with your opinion.


I think if Aereo ( which I had, and was one of the first in Atlanta) had not had the DVR function, they probably could have got away with the re transmission angle of the suit against them. They would have been seen as just an antenna. The fact that you could time shift the programs, convinced the Supreme Court, that they were re transmitting.

By the way, my personal experience with Aereo was not good. I have good internet service, and stream content on my Roku all the time, but streaming Aereo was a major problem with constant buffering especially during prime time hours. Because I was one of their beta testers, I was in constant communication with them about this, and they could offer no help at all. I think that they didn't want to admit that they didn't have the server capacity that they needed to insure reliable streaming. At the same time that Aereo was cutting in an out, I was getting perfect Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu Plus all in HD.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> I live in a condo complex, and I had Direct TV for a couple of years. When the wind would blow, the trees near my condo, would sway, and my picture would cut in an out. Two neighbors that live a couple of hundred feet from me, can't get HD on their Direct TV, only SD, because of the trees which are all over in Atlanta.


Then they should switch to Dish. Dish's satellites are higher in the sky in the eastern US markets, so less susceptible to ground obstacles. In any case, there are tens of millions of satellite tv customers, so saying there is no competition for cable TV is just incorrect.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> It is called a monopoly.


Comcast et al are most definitely not a monopoly, in fact the 1992 Cable Act specifically prohibits local franchises from allowing such. And you also have satellite almost everywhere as pointed out above.

You might not like the big cableCos, but they don't have a monopoly on TV.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

ncted said:


> Then they should switch to Dish. Dish's satellites are higher in the sky in the eastern US markets, so less susceptible to ground obstacles. In any case, there are tens of millions of satellite tv customers, so saying there is no competition for cable TV is just incorrect.


The majority of people today usually bundle there ISP with their TV provider and sometimes phone, to get a better deal. That eliminates Dish and Direct TV from being a good choice. Probably why Satellite has a bit less than half of the market share that cable has.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

slowbiscuit said:


> Comcast et al are most definitely not a monopoly, in fact the 1992 Cable Act specifically prohibits local franchises from allowing such. And you also have satellite almost everywhere as pointed out above.
> 
> You might not like the big cableCos, but they don't have a monopoly on TV.


http://gizmodo.com/comcast-twc-would-be-a-monopoly-but-that-probably-won-1529826032

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140726/10180428015/quantifying-comcasts-monopoly-power.shtml

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-monopoly-20140213-story.html


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> The majority of people today usually bundle there ISP with their TV provider and sometimes phone, to get a better deal. That eliminates Dish and Direct TV from being a good choice. Probably why Satellite has a bit less than half of the market share that cable has.


Much like the people buying OTA Roamios, only because they have the perception that they are saving money by bundling.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> The majority of people today usually bundle there ISP with their TV provider and sometimes phone, to get a better deal. That eliminates Dish and Direct TV from being a good choice. Probably why Satellite has a bit less than half of the market share that cable has.


Doesn't change the original argument that Cable is NOT a monopoly. You have choices if you don't like your TV provider.

Stop moving the goalposts!


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

ncted said:


> Much like the people buying OTA Roamios, only because they have the perception that they are saving money by bundling.


Or "owning" their equipment.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> I think if Aereo ( which I had, and was one of the first in Atlanta) had not had the DVR function, they probably could have got away with the re transmission angle of the suit against them.


They didn't need to "get away" with anything. They followed the letter of the law according to 5 Judges from 3 different courts. It was only when a Supreme Court Justice decided to legislate from the bench that they were doing something "illegal".

That's what happens when Judges "move the goalposts" and make stuff up as they go along. If Aereo is "illegal" so is Cablevision's Cloud DVR service. The very ruling Aereo followed to the letter and the Supreme Court didn't have a problem with.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> One more thing in regards to these retransmission fees. Everyone should remember that pre-2007ish they didn't exist so this is added revenue for providing the same thing. I would also like to note that from the 1960s to now the content:commercial ratio changed from 52:8 in the 60s to 42:18 per hour now.


Does that include all the super obvious product placement they have now? Like when you're watching a show and someone suddenly starts talking about the nav system in their new Prius or they zoom in to specifically show someone using Bing on their phone? In some cases it's ridiculous and turns into a 30 second infomercial in the middle of the program.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Does that include all the super obvious product placement they have now? Like when you're watching a show and someone suddenly starts talking about the nav system in their new Prius or they zoom in to specifically show someone using Bing on their phone? In some cases it's ridiculous and turns into a 30 second infomercial in the middle of the program.


I actually don't mind product placement, as long as it is done subtly. When done properly, product placement can make a show more realistic.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It's not bad when they causally ask for a Pepsi or they show the badge on the car when they're driving down the road. But when the actors go into a diatribe about how cool their new Ford is or do a close up of their cell phone so you can see it's a Samsung then it comes off as cheesy.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> It's not bad when they causally ask for a Pepsi or they show the badge on the car when they're driving down the road. But when the actors go into a diatribe about how cool their new Ford is or do a close up of their cell phone so you can see it's a Samsung then it comes off as cheesy.


Especially when it is any Microsoft product placement. These always stand out to me as artificial. Although, I loved this:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2468382,00.asp


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Banker257 said:


> Satellite forces you to own your own equipment? I thought the whole TiVo argument was you CAN'T buy your own equipment.


You use a TiVo and you think that is the "whole TiVo argument"? Seriously?


Banker257 said:


> Not to mention all my equipment from DirecTV, including the installation, was free.


You know that's not true, right?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> It's not bad when they causally ask for a Pepsi or they show the badge on the car when they're driving down the road. But when the actors go into a diatribe about how cool their new Ford is or do a close up of their cell phone so you can see it's a Samsung then it comes off as cheesy.


I've missed those really obvious 30 second infomercials. What show(s), if you happen to remember?

I have noticed how most laptops in shows I watch seem to be Microsoft Surfaces.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> One more thing in regards to these retransmission fees. Everyone should remember that pre-2007ish they didn't exist so this is added revenue for providing the same thing. I would also like to note that from the 1960s to now the content:commercial ratio changed from 52:8 in the 60s to 42:18 per hour now.
> 
> The bottom line is OTA networks are charging more money and providing less content simple because they can, not because it is necessary for a successful business model. As the consumers there is no reason to find that acceptable and no reason to support OTA networks using government regulations to enable it.


Then there are the local news programs. I've never bothered to measure it but the content-to-(commercials + teasers) ratio seems like about 1:1.

I suspect the largest part of the revenue growth for OTA stations is from their retransmission fees and much of it goes to pay for network program production. And they probably do it because they can get away with it, as you say. The business model of an OTA station and broadcast network supported only by advertising revenue is gone.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

dlfl said:


> You know that's not true, right?


Typically, there is no upfront fee for DirecTV installation unless you want a pole mount or something else they consider custom. There is a monthly "lease" fee.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> It's not bad when they causally ask for a Pepsi or they show the badge on the car when they're driving down the road. But when the actors go into a diatribe about how cool their new Ford is or do a close up of their cell phone so you can see it's a Samsung then it comes off as cheesy.


Watch the movie* The Truman Show*, now that is real product placement.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

dlfl said:


> I've missed those really obvious 30 second infomercials. What show(s), if you happen to remember?
> 
> I have noticed how most laptops in shows I watch seem to be Microsoft Surfaces.


I remember one in an episode of Bones I watched recently, although I think I'm a couple seasons back. Her and Booth are in the car talking normally and then they some how bring up the new car and she goes on to show us how the nav system works. That one really stood out. My wife was watching some cooking show (I think) the other night while I was surfing on the iPad and they had to get something out of the fridge and they had this whole segment on how cool the fridge was. (it was one with the little door you can open to grab a soda real quick) Then there is the biggest loser where they actually incorporate segments about Jenny-O turkey and some breakfast bars into the show, like the trainers are telling them about these things as some sort of tip to make it not seem like a commercial.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> ...Which brings me back to where I started the consumer gets the hosed by everyone.


Except when the consumer cuts the cable, which will be solved when laws are bought that mandate paying for TV access, even if you use an antenna.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

dlfl said:


> You use a TiVo and you think that is the "whole TiVo argument"? Seriously?
> 
> You know that's not true, right?


What's not true?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

MikeAndrews said:


> Expect when the consumer cuts the cable, which will be solved when laws are bought that mandate paying for TV access, even if you use an antenna.


That wont happen. We own the airwaves, and part of the deal with them getting to use them is that they provide the content for free.

Now what they might do is start shifting the "premium" content over to cable and relegating the OTA channels to reruns and news.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> I remember one in an episode of Bones I watched recently, although I think I'm a couple seasons back. Her and Booth are in the car talking normally and then they some how bring up the new car and she goes on to show us how the nav system works. That one really stood out. My wife was watching some cooking show (I think) the other night while I was surfing on the iPad and they had to get something out of the fridge and they had this whole segment on how cool the fridge was. (it was one with the little door you can open to grab a soda real quick) Then there is the biggest loser where they actually incorporate segments about Jenny-O turkey and some breakfast bars into the show, like the trainers are telling them about these things as some sort of tip to make it not seem like a commercial.


Hells Kitchen pushes Henckel Knives, and I seem to remember them pushing (Kenmore)? appliances.

I realize these are more like "plugs" than product placements. This goes back to almost any game show you can think of.

A years supply of Turtle Wax? That would be one can for me, as much as "I" wax my car.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> That wont happen. We own the airwaves, and part of the deal with them getting to use them is that they provide the content for free.
> 
> Now what they might do is start shifting the "premium" content over to cable and relegating the OTA channels to reruns and news.


That is exactly what the Broadcasters threatend to do if the Aereo trial didn't go their way.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> That wont happen. We own the airwaves, and part of the deal with them getting to use them is that they provide the content for free.


It is unlikely to change, but laws certainly can be changed to favor the broadcasters, especially now that we are living in the era of legalized corruption through unlimited corporate campaign contributions. In Britain, for example, if you watch the BBC over-the-air, then by law you have to pay a yearly license fee directly to the BBC. And there have been subscription over-the-air networks in the U.S. before as well.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> It is unlikely to change, but laws certainly can be changed to favor the broadcasters, especially now that we are living in the era of legalized corruption through unlimited corporate campaign contributions. In Britain, for example, if you watch the BBC over-the-air, then by law you have to pay a yearly license fee directly to the BBC. And there have been subscription over-the-air networks in the U.S. before as well.


While that is true, the BBC also doesn't run commercials. It's against the law.

They're entitled to make money somehow, right? I like the "subscription plan". I would LOVE the subscription plan if I could also choose stations Ala Carte.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Banker257 said:


> A years supply of Turtle Wax? That would be one can for me, as much as "I" wax my car.


You're suppose to wax your car?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> Not if you're a sports fan!


It's still a rip-off even if you are a sports fan.



Chris Gerhard said:


> No, Aereo was simply taking and selling copyright protected programming without paying for the rights to do so and calling it an antenna rental service. Nobody would pay to rent a tiny antenna, it was the programming that provided value. There would be no retransmission fees if that was legal, all cable companies would just do the same.


Aereo was 100% within their legal rights, since they were just renting the antenna and the equipment, and it was legally no different from using an OTA antenna at your house. Unfortunately, the court legislated from the bench to "protect" the idiotic broadcasters. They should have welcomed Aereo, as it would mean more eyeballs for them. But they were too shortsighted to see that.

By you nonsensical "logic", no one would ever buy an OTA antenna, because it's the programming, not the antenna that's valuable. 

Cable cos can't do the same, because it's not technologically reasonable to do so. The cost to set up some sort of 1:1 antenna system that uses VOD/SDV to send the channels to users would cost way more than just paying the carriage fees.



Captainbob said:


> The majority of people today usually bundle there ISP with their TV provider and sometimes phone, to get a better deal. That eliminates Dish and Direct TV from being a good choice. Probably why Satellite has a bit less than half of the market share that cable has.


Surprisingly not. Satellite was bundling with DSL for a while, although now DSL is too slow for most users, so satellite users either have to pay the unbundling tax to get cable internet, or get U-Verse if they are in an AT&T area that can get it. FIOS is absurdly priced for internet only.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Surprisingly not. Satellite was bundling with DSL for a while, although now DSL is too slow for most users, so satellite users either have to pay the unbundling tax to get cable internet, or get U-Verse if they are in an AT&T area that can get it. FIOS is absurdly priced for internet only.


I don't know about other cable companies, but, by replacing TWC with Dish (me) or DirecTV (my folks), and keeping TWC Internet, it is very easy to pay as much or less than the "bundle" price for TWC Cable & Internet. Plus you get a much better TV viewing experience than TWC's standard offering (i.e. not Tivo).

TWC's whole home DVR (2 tuners, 75 Hours) and a client box cost me $40/month to rent on top of the bundle price, then they charge $6/month for the cable modem. That is the big lie in their marketing. Yes, you can get Cable and Internet for $89/month, but only for 12 months, and it does not include the $46 in fees for equipment, so $135 + taxes. They don't seem to publish their rates post-promotion any more, but the non-promotional rate used to be about $30 more, so roughly $165 + taxes.

For comparison, Dish's Hopper and 1 Joey (3-6 Tuners depending on how you use it, 500 Hours) cost me $19/month in equipment fees. If you get their equivalent 200 channel package for $70/month, that comes to $99. Add on TWC standard Internet for $55/month ($61 with modem), and you arrive at $160 + taxes. Dish's promotional rate is about $30 less for 12 months as well, so $130 in the first 12 months.

DirecTV is similarly priced, so you can have your cake a eat it to. The reality is, the costs are pretty close, and bundling (at least with TWC) doesn't really save you anything, as they will just find another way to rape you.

BTW: TWC has pretty good Internet where I live, so it is worth it to unbundle, even if it did cost more. I actually have their Extreme service at Standard pricing right now. Don't ask me how, I have no idea, and I don't know how long it will last. I hope Comcast doesn't ruin things before we get Google Fiber or some other alternative option.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

ncted said:


> TWC's whole home DVR (2 tuners, 75 Hours) and a client box cost me $40/month to rent on top of the bundle price, then they charge $6/month for the cable modem. That is the big lie in their marketing. Yes, you can get Cable and Internet for $89/month, but only for 12 months, and it does not include the $46 in fees for equipment, so $135 + taxes. They don't seem to publish their rates post-promotion any more, but the non-promotional rate used to be about $30 more, so roughly $165 + taxes.


Yeah TWC has some of the highest equipment rental fees, while at the same time having some of the worst equipment. And the rental fees seem to keep going up every year too. They even charge around $10 just for the first crappy cable box. Their high cable box and DVR rental fees are what finally pushed me over the edge to try TiVo, so I guess I should be thanking TWC for that. TWC probably isn't too happy that my cable bill is $60/month less now.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

All these retrans fees wouldn't be so bad if what they were transmitting was worthwhile to watch. 

For mei think it's findtv.net via AirPlay and ota for live events soon.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Ok I thought I had read they got that passed. I guess not.


Not as originally intended by the NAB, where cable would have had to carry any station in its coverage area and would have had to pay for the privilege.

This would have been somewhere back in I think the early/mid '80s.

Some of the trade magazines that came to the radio station covered both radio and TV, and that's where I saw it.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> http://gizmodo.com/comcast-twc-would-be-a-monopoly-but-that-probably-won-1529826032
> 
> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140726/10180428015/quantifying-comcasts-monopoly-power.shtml
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-monopoly-20140213-story.html


You can post all the links to articles you want, doesn't change the fact that cable doesn't have a monopoly on TV.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

slowbiscuit said:


> You can post all the links to articles you want, doesn't change the fact that cable doesn't have a monopoly on TV.


Correct, they have a near monopoly on non-wireless Internet access.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Banker257 said:


> What's not true?


Surely you realize the cost of the "free" equipment and/or installation is simply spread into subscription payments. If those items were really free, you would be able to acquire them without any commitment.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

ncted said:


> Correct, they have a near monopoly on non-wireless Internet access.


Now that I would agree with! As our gubmint continues to look the other way, thanks to the revolving door and other payoffs...


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

dlfl said:


> Surely you realize the cost of the "free" equipment and/or installation is simply spread into subscription payments. If those items were really free, you would be able to acquire them without any commitment.


I don't understand your point. If I'm paying X amount of dollars to an MSO to watch TV and they come and install a whole home DVR without raising my rates, that's not free?

Why do I care if they're free "with a commitment"? Free is free.

You're trying to use the old "give the razor away, so you can make it up on blades" business model.

Same analogy with Cell Phones. Neither of them fit any more. There are thousands of posts on this site alone that quash that old wives tale.

And stop calling me Surley...


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

What kinda makes me laugh is that if cable companies didn't carry broadcast TVs, cable boxes would just add new technology making it so that they picked up those signals OTA and integrated them into the cable lineup. It wouldn't be trivial, but it would 100% be do-able. We're essentially paying for this integration in our cable fees already...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> What kinda makes me laugh is that if cable companies didn't carry broadcast TVs, cable boxes would just add new technology making it so that they picked up those signals OTA and integrated them into the cable lineup. It wouldn't be trivial, but it would 100% be do-able. We're essentially paying for this integration in our cable fees already...


I had never even thought of that, but I guess a cable company could include an OTA tuner on its cable boxes if it wanted to.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> I don't know about other cable companies, but, by replacing TWC with Dish (me) or DirecTV (my folks), and keeping TWC Internet, it is very easy to pay as much or less than the "bundle" price for TWC Cable & Internet. Plus you get a much better TV viewing experience than TWC's standard offering (i.e. not Tivo).


How much is their unbundling surcharge? On Comcast, it's $15/mo, plus you lose the Double Play bundle discount, so it ends up being something like $20/mo or more, making DirecTV crazy expensive. In my town, we have a local cable co that has some really reasonable internet-only plans, but that's only for a few towns in the southeast corner of CT.



> TWC's whole home DVR (2 tuners, 75 Hours) and a client box cost me $40/month to rent on top of the bundle price, then they charge $6/month for the cable modem. That is the big lie in their marketing. Yes, you can get Cable and Internet for $89/month, but only for 12 months, and it does not include the $46 in fees for equipment, so $135 + taxes. They don't seem to publish their rates post-promotion any more, but the non-promotional rate used to be about $30 more, so roughly $165 + taxes.


That's nuts. Comcast's is steep at $20/mo for the DVR and $10/mo for the client boxes. No wonder TWC is so actively hostile towards TiVo users.



> For comparison, Dish's Hopper and 1 Joey (3-6 Tuners depending on how you use it, 500 Hours) cost me $19/month in equipment fees. If you get their equivalent 200 channel package for $70/month, that comes to $99. Add on TWC standard Internet for $55/month ($61 with modem), and you arrive at $160 + taxes. Dish's promotional rate is about $30 less for 12 months as well, so $130 in the first 12 months.
> 
> DirecTV is similarly priced, so you can have your cake a eat it to. The reality is, the costs are pretty close, and bundling (at least with TWC) doesn't really save you anything, as they will just find another way to rape you.


DirecTV is WAY more than DISH or cable. They have a premium product, and they market it as such. Cable is only as cheap as DISH when you use TiVos though over a 3+ year period of time. I'm biased against DISH because they don't compete in my market (due to lack of sports channels).



> BTW: TWC has pretty good Internet where I live, so it is worth it to unbundle, even if it did cost more. I actually have their Extreme service at Standard pricing right now. Don't ask me how, I have no idea, and I don't know how long it will last. I hope Comcast doesn't ruin things before we get Google Fiber or some other alternative option.


Comcast is much better as a cable TV company though, and their internet is pretty good.



tarheelblue32 said:


> I had never even thought of that, but I guess a cable company could include an OTA tuner on its cable boxes if it wanted to.


That wouldn't be an installation and support nightmare or anything.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> That wouldn't be an installation and support nightmare or anything.


They wouldn't necessarily have to support it. They could just stick an extra RF port with an OTA tuner on the back of the cable box as a bonus and tell the customer if you want to attach your own antenna to it, go ahead.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> They wouldn't necessarily have to support it. They could just stick an extra RF port with an OTA tuner on the back of the cable box as a bonus and tell the customer if you want to attach your own antenna to it, go ahead.


That's what satellite companies did for awhile, They also add the channels to your channel list and for the main networks provided guide data.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I had never even thought of that, but I guess a cable company could include an OTA tuner on its cable boxes if it wanted to.


That's what Dish and DirecTV did for years. The problem is that a lot of people pay for basic cable specifically because they can't get OTA reception and cable is an easy way to get the local channels. Cable actually started off with this as their primary business. They would put antennas in prime locations and then pipe the signal to homes that couldn't get good reception.



atmuscarella said:


> That's what satellite companies did for awhile, They also add the channels to your channel list and for the main networks provided guide data.


Jinx!


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Does that include all the super obvious product placement they have now? Like when you're watching a show and someone suddenly starts talking about the nav system in their new Prius or they zoom in to specifically show someone using Bing on their phone? In some cases it's ridiculous and turns into a 30 second infomercial in the middle of the program.


Oh, you watch "Warehouse 13"


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I do but I haven't watched the last season yet.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Banker257 said:


> I don't understand your point. .....


I agree .. you don't understand. It's so obvious I don't see any point in trying to explain further. The free razor principle is alive and well, as most recently illustrated by the $50 OTA TiVo.


Banker257 said:


> IAnd stop calling me Surley...


Would "surly" be better? Or "Shirley"?


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

dlfl said:


> I agree .. you don't understand. It's so obvious I don't see any point in trying to explain further. The free razor principle is alive and well, as most recently illustrated by the $50 OTA TiVo.


"Free razor" is still used all the time by many companies, like the Tivo OTA as you mentioned, the Inkjet printer folks to sell the ink which is extremely expensive, cellphone providers that give you the phone, but it winds up costing you $5-600 rolled into your 2 year contract, etc, etc...... That business model will always be around.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> How much is their unbundling surcharge? On Comcast, it's $15/mo, plus you lose the Double Play bundle discount, so it ends up being something like $20/mo or more, making DirecTV crazy expensive. In my town, we have a local cable co that has some really reasonable internet-only plans, but that's only for a few towns in the southeast corner of CT.


Used to be about $30. Like I stated before, they no longer publish their non-promotional rates. I doubt they have changed. They probably have increased.



Bigg said:


> DirecTV is WAY more than DISH or cable. They have a premium product, and they market it as such. Cable is only as cheap as DISH when you use TiVos though over a 3+ year period of time. I'm biased against DISH because they don't compete in my market (due to lack of sports channels).


The DirecTV non-discounted cost for Choice Xtra, Genie and Genie Client is $103.99, so only $5 more than Dish. Obviously, if you get their sports packages, the price goes up, but so would Dish's or TWC's.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> That wouldn't be an installation and support nightmare or anything.


It wouldn't, no. You think installing an antenna is a support nightmare when they are literally running a wire from sometimes hundreds of miles away into your house before plugging it into your TV?

It's trivial. It's nothing. Even if they had to install a small external antenna on your house, it's still going to be simpler than what Dish and DTV go through.

There's a balancing act here... if the cost to carry them on cable ever goes above the cost to just install an antenna and integrate the broadcast into the cable box, then the cable companies will do that instead. As long as it is cheaper to carry the channels, they will do that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> They wouldn't necessarily have to support it. They could just stick an extra RF port with an OTA tuner on the back of the cable box as a bonus and tell the customer if you want to attach your own antenna to it, go ahead.


Any equipment that an MSO sends out is their problem to support. Even if they don't officially support it. They still have to support it, because someone is going to call with questions or screw it up or god knows what. It's a nice idea, but not one that would work well in practice.



ncted said:


> Used to be about $30. Like I stated before, they no longer publish their non-promotional rates. I doubt they have changed. They probably have increased.


There should be a rate card available in every Comcast service center. They are really hard to read and downright comical, but they do exist...



> The DirecTV non-discounted cost for Choice Xtra, Genie and Genie Client is $103.99, so only $5 more than Dish. Obviously, if you get their sports packages, the price goes up, but so would Dish's or TWC's.


I haven't done a comparison recently myself, but IIRC, DISH is quite a bit cheaper...



Grakthis said:


> It wouldn't, no. You think installing an antenna is a support nightmare when they are literally running a wire from sometimes hundreds of miles away into your house before plugging it into your TV?


What the heck are you talking about? Cable RF signals are generated within a fairly short distance of most subs, maybe a few miles at most, and usually WAY less, since they have so many nodes with fiber pushed far out into the field. And even the plants, which used to be all RF before the days of HSI and VOD and voice have a pretty limited size, maybe 30 miles across at most.



> It's trivial. It's nothing. Even if they had to install a small external antenna on your house, it's still going to be simpler than what Dish and DTV go through.
> 
> There's a balancing act here... if the cost to carry them on cable ever goes above the cost to just install an antenna and integrate the broadcast into the cable box, then the cable companies will do that instead. As long as it is cheaper to carry the channels, they will do that.


Dish and DirecTV are a LOS thing. If they have LOS it works, if they don't, they don't. Not only would the cost be completely insane, but getting a signal is often iffy, and can change based on the seasons. And a lot of subs either won't get a signal at all, or they will not have a place that they can mount the antenna or they may not have a second RG-6 cable going inside for the ATSC-8VSB signals in their main room, assuming that the central box could ingest the OTA signals and blast them out to the other boxes over MoCA... There are so many problems with this approach. It's not technically impossible, and DirecTV used to do it, but with a very different target audience and on a much smaller scale. It would never be universal.


----------



## greenpad (Feb 17, 2011)

atmuscarella said:


> One more thing in regards to these retransmission fees. Everyone should remember that pre-2007ish they didn't exist so this is added revenue for providing the same thing. I would also like to note that from the 1960s to now the content:commercial ratio changed from 52:8 in the 60s to 42:18 per hour now.
> 
> The bottom line is OTA networks are charging more money and providing less content simple because they can, not because it is necessary for a successful business model. As the consumers there is no reason to find that acceptable and no reason to support OTA networks using government regulations to enable it.


I hate to take up for any TV network, but TV network viewership is probably 1/5 what it was in the 60's, so commercials don't pay as well as they used to.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> There should be a rate card available in every Comcast service center. They are really hard to read and downright comical, but they do exist...


I was referring to TWC. I don't know anything about Comcast, nor do I wish to find out.



Bigg said:


> I haven't done a comparison recently myself, but IIRC, DISH is quite a bit cheaper...


You don't have to do a comparison as I just did it for you.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> What the heck are you talking about? Cable RF signals are generated within a fairly short distance of most subs, maybe a few miles at most, and usually WAY less, since they have so many nodes with fiber pushed far out into the field. And even the plants, which used to be all RF before the days of HSI and VOD and voice have a pretty limited size, maybe 30 miles across at most.


I'm talking about the fact that they aren't mailing physical media to a place that is "a fairly short distance" or "a few miles, at most" from my house, chief.

Even if it's traveling via satellite for most of the distance, and only wire the last 15 miles, it doesn't actually change my point.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Like, who does that? What kind of person takes a larger point about technology, snips out a single piece of that point that is intended to be an exaggerated illustration, then nitpicks that point despite the fact that it doesn't even change the larger point? What kind of person thinks "oh, this is a useful contribution to the discussion. Let's do this."

It kinda pisses me off that I responded to it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> I was referring to TWC. I don't know anything about Comcast, nor do I wish to find out.


It would be the same for them.



> You don't have to do a comparison as I just did it for you.


It's tough to figure out what to compare to what, as they bundle it differently. However, for a quick comparison (excluding the fact that DISH is just plain missing channels completely):

For 4 rooms with DirecTV Extra, the normal fee is $116/mo

For 4 rooms with DISH Top 200, the normal fee is $106/mo

So yeah, DISH has rocketed up to right in the range of D*. Not sure why anyone would get DISH now that it's almost as expensive as D*.



Grakthis said:


> I'm talking about the fact that they aren't mailing physical media to a place that is "a fairly short distance" or "a few miles, at most" from my house, chief.
> 
> Even if it's traveling via satellite for most of the distance, and only wire the last 15 miles, it doesn't actually change my point.


WHAT? Your are making ZERO sense. And cable is NOT _literally_ delivering a signal over a wire from hundreds of miles away. With cable, the RF is generated maybe a mile or two away, likely much closer, and kept on hardline until the tap that's typically within 100-150' of the user, and then run on RG-11 or RG-6 from there to the customer. With OTA, you have to pick up a signal that might be many miles away, and deal with all the issues that come with RF signals going through the air and bouncing around and getting attenuated and whatnot. Cable is a far easier system to install and troubleshoot. OTA works fine for a lot of people, but there is no practical way to install and support it. It would be a complete nightmare. It's basically voodoo magic anyways with ATSC-8VSB.

Basically, your entire point makes no sense, and is factually incorrect.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> It's tough to figure out what to compare to what, as they bundle it differently. However, for a quick comparison (excluding the fact that DISH is just plain missing channels completely):
> 
> For 4 rooms with DirecTV Extra, the normal fee is $116/mo
> 
> ...


I have Dish because I do not have LOS for DirecTV. Dish's Eastern Arc satellites are higher in the sky and in a different direction. I quite liked the 2 x HR24 setup I had before I moved. After a couple of years using the Hopper, and playing around with my parents' Genie, I do think the Hopper is a better whole home DVR, unless you do actually need 5 discrete tuners.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> I have Dish because I do not have LOS for DirecTV. Dish's Eastern Arc satellites are higher in the sky and in a different direction. I quite liked the 2 x HR24 setup I had before I moved. After a couple of years using the Hopper, and playing around with my parents' Genie, I do think the Hopper is a better whole home DVR, unless you do actually need 5 discrete tuners.


True. It's a pretty extreme difference in angle here in New England, although due to lacking sports channels, DISH doesn't compete in the NYC market or anywhere in CT. Around here, if you have trees blocking DISH, you are WAY overdue for some tree work, as they are basically crowding out your house. It's entirely possible to not be able to get D*, although I think they have all the locals available as MPEG-4 HD on 99c/103c, so you don't need to hit 110 and 119 any more, which should make it a LOT easier, as 119 is fairly low on the horizon around here.

I wouldn't want the Hopper, mostly because of the lack of tuners. It basically only supports 2 tuners, since one is tied up with PTAT, I guess you can disable that to get 3. That sucks compared to 5 on the Genie, and you could add another HR24 for 7 total and still be within the limit of a SWiM 8 install. With TiVo, you could easily go to 12 or 18 if you really wanted, and even a single Roamio Pro has 6... You can add the SuperJoey, but that seems like kind of a kludge compared to just having it all in one box.

Plus, DISH's PQ sucks compared to D*. U-Verse < DISH <<< Comcast < D* < FIOS.

EDIT: Fixed <> symbols


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> True. It's a pretty extreme difference in angle here in New England, although due to lacking sports channels, DISH doesn't compete in the NYC market or anywhere in CT. Around here, if you have trees blocking DISH, you are WAY overdue for some tree work, as they are basically crowding out your house. It's entirely possible to not be able to get D*, although I think they have all the locals available as MPEG-4 HD on 99c/103c, so you don't need to hit 110 and 119 any more, which should make it a LOT easier, as 119 is fairly low on the horizon around here.
> 
> I wouldn't want the Hopper, mostly because of the lack of tuners. It basically only supports 2 tuners, since one is tied up with PTAT, I guess you can disable that to get 3. That sucks compared to 5 on the Genie, and you could add another HR24 for 7 total and still be within the limit of a SWiM 8 install. With TiVo, you could easily go to 12 or 18 if you really wanted, and even a single Roamio Pro has 6... You can add the SuperJoey, but that seems like kind of a kludge compared to just having it all in one box.
> 
> Plus, DISH's PQ sucks compared to D*. U-Verse >DISH >>> Comcast > D* > FIOS.


The 100'+ trees behind my house are not on my property, so there isn't much I can do about them. BTW: I think you got your greater than and less than symbols reversed. TWC is definitely behind Dish in PQ. Maybe Comcast could improve on that if the merger goes through. I've never had any issues with running out of tuners with the Hopper, and the Super Joey seems to work pretty well from what I hear. Of course, that doesn't matter if the programming you want isn't there.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> The 100'+ trees behind my house are not on my property, so there isn't much I can do about them. BTW: I think you got your greater than and less than symbols reversed. TWC is definitely behind Dish in PQ. Maybe Comcast could improve on that if the merger goes through. I've never had any issues with running out of tuners with the Hopper, and the Super Joey seems to work pretty well from what I hear. Of course, that doesn't matter if the programming you want isn't there.


Yeah, those are obviously backwards. FIOS is king, U-Verse is the bottom of the barrel. Comcast isn't known for good quality, they compress the crap out of their channels, but they can stat multiplex, since they don't use SDV. They have gotten a LOT better at compressing the crap out of their channels to the point where it's scary. 11-12mbps MPEG-2 is starting to look halfway decent, which is amazing. Still not great, but for the bitrates they are transmitting, nothing short of amazing.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The encoders available today are pretty impressive with how well they can look at low bitrates. But they use things like variable GOP lengths that really mess with the TiVo FF functionality, making it really hard to land where you want after a commercial.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The encoders available today are pretty impressive with how well they can look at low bitrates. But they use things like variable GOP lengths that really mess with the TiVo FF functionality, making it really hard to land where you want after a commercial.


Interesting. I didn't know that. As the pioneer of the tri-mux, I'd imagine Comcast is running some of the best encoding equipment out there... I've seen bitrates as low as 8mbps on 1080i, which is pretty darn scary, and does look like crap. But the fact that it even looked like the show is kind of amazing. Imagine if they stopped tri-muxing and went to an average of 14mbps a channel plus some SDs. It would look darned amazing.


----------

