LIN Media and Dish Network failed to reach a retransmission consent deal prior to Friday midnight deadline, resulting in loss of 27 LIN stations in 17 markets. "LIN Media is simply being greedy," says Dish in a statement.
RETRANS WARS
Dish Subs Lose LIN Stations In 17 Markets
There was no last-minute deal to save Dish Network viewers in 17 markets from losing their local LIN Media stations.
On Saturday, LIN Media announced that it and Dish could not reach an agreement on retransmission consent fees that would have enabled Dish to continue carrying the 27 LIN stations. The old agreement expired at midnight last Friday.
LIN says that it had offered to extend the old agreement and negotiations another 30 days, but that Dish declined.
The 27 stations include affiliates of all the major broadcast networks.
Affected markets: Albuquerque, N.M.; Austin, Texas; Buffalo, N.Y.; Columbus, Ohio; Dayton, Ohio; Fort Wayne, Ind.; Grand Rapid, Mich.; Green Bay, Wis.; Indianapolis; Lafayette, Ind.; Mobile, Ala.; New Haven, Conn.; Norfolk, Va.; Providence, R.I.; Springfield, Mass.; Terre Haute, Ind.; and Toledo, Ohio.
“We only want what is fair for our stations so that we can continue providing the premium news, sports, entertainment and other local programming that is most important to viewers,” said LIN CEO Vince Sadusky in a statement. “We will continue negotiating with Dish so we may reach an agreement.”
BRAND CONNECTIONS
The language from Dish was much stronger.
“It’s unfortunate that LIN Media, a corporate media conglomerate, pulled its channels down at midnight, holding viewers in 17 markets across the nation hostage while attempting to coerce DISH Network to submit to outrageous demands.
“Even more disappointing is the fact that LIN Media didn’t even make an effort to keep negotiating during the final hours and failed to respond despite our numerous attempts to reach them. LIN Media also refused to grant the contract extension DISH Network proposed. DISH Network offered LIN Media a fee increase comparable to market rates already agreed to with more than 1,000 other TV stations. However, in the last few days, LIN Media increased its fees even more, demanding more than a 175 percent rate increase in the first year alone.
“LIN Media is simply being greedy, insisting on a rate increase so immense that DISH Network and its customers couldn’t possibly absorb it. Their onerous demands and burdensome contract terms would result in payments of millions of dollars more each month, exceeding current market rates and demanding more money than we pay most of our popular national networks.
“We are pleased the FCC met this week to propose changes to this outdated retransmission consent process between broadcasters and pay-TV operators. We believe the system is broken and are happy to see the FCC recognize it is time to make changes that put consumers’ needs at the forefront.
“DISH Network remains open to further talks with LIN Media in hopes of reaching a fair deal to restore the channels.”
Comments (17)
Heidi Gillis says:
March 7, 2011 at 8:34 am
Wonder if Dish and Direct would have this same attitude if it was ESPN — what is fair ?
Robert Feder says:
March 7, 2011 at 8:59 am
LIN “didn’t take Dish down”, they simply wanted fair compensation for thier product. Why does everyone overlook the fact that most consumers will still be able to watch the LIN Stations over the air for FREE?
As an industry we don’t pound this point hard enough.
Warren Harmon says:
March 7, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Right On! OTA is the answer, it addresses greed from rebroadcasters AND content providers. Lets get the OTA viewrship up and thwart the FCC Julious (sell-out) Genachowski Spectrum Grab.
Miriam McSpadden says:
March 7, 2011 at 9:29 am
The real culprits are the networks who have squeezed its affiliates for more the 100% of what affilaties can get for retrans rates forcing affiliates to increase their demands from MSO and satellite. The FCC should focus on that issue as this will be a widespread problem by year end with what the networks are currently extorting from their affiliates bodies as we speak.
kendra campbell says:
March 7, 2011 at 9:34 am
Dish is right – retrans. is out of control. The Lin stations are worth maybe 25 cents a month. Subscribers have had enough of this nonsense.
jeff lee says:
March 7, 2011 at 4:30 pm
So how much will your bill go down with the stations off of Dish?
Janet Frankston Lorin says:
March 7, 2011 at 9:52 am
Dish Network calling someone greedy is like the Pope calling someone Catholic!
Manuel Morales says:
March 7, 2011 at 9:54 am
Dish is right, the retrans process is outdated- there is too much regulation at play with it. Affiliates will need to get MORE money to survive now that networks want their rightfully deserved piece of the pie. I don’t think LIN should have to lose money on a retrans deal (which is what they will be doing if they accept Dish’s rates- Net wants $.50, Dish pays $.35, LIN nets -$.15. Why should affiliates be further hamstrung in these negotiations?
Stephen Henry says:
March 7, 2011 at 9:55 am
Another retrans case of Scum vs Scum! I could care less about either company!
Miriam McSpadden says:
March 7, 2011 at 10:10 am
Affilates will be forced to go off cable and sattelite in the long run under sammy’s real life example above. to survive, affiliates will have no choice but to cutback on news and public affairs programming if they have to pay what the networks are currently demanding.
Manuel Morales says:
March 7, 2011 at 11:10 am
The affiliates will be able to make money still, but the retrans rates they get will have to go up, most likley north of $1 in 2-3 years. Guess what though? It costs money to produce news, buy syndicated programming, but net programming, etc. Affiliates simply should not have to pay for the right of MVPDs to carry local news and net programming. Let the free market work.
kendra campbell says:
March 7, 2011 at 11:32 am
David David: What public affairs programming will be cut back? You can’t cut something from nothing. News is a cash cow that will continue to expand and not be cut back no matter what happens with retrans. money. What other vehicle can you run 10 – 12 minutes of local inventory and generate a 50 margin?
Jill Colvin & Catherine Lucey says:
March 7, 2011 at 12:00 pm
The networks, more specifically FOX are going to kill the proverbial goose and cause the FCC to act. The affiliates take all the financial risks of doing battle with the cable/sat providers and with what FOX is demanding, stations can expect long drawn out battles until the FCC takes action.
Heidi Gillis says:
March 7, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Come on Satellite and Cable– give your customers what they want and a la carte the bill and tie your retrans fees to the most viewed– you would definitely be paying the local broadcasters the lions share..
Gene Johnson says:
March 7, 2011 at 5:26 pm
One problem with the a la carte model, at least from the perspective of MSOs and cable programmers, is that the current system financially supports cable only networks that might not survive based on viewership alone. Getting some kind of payment based on the number of subs a system has subscribing to the tier on which the service is provided guarantees a base income before a dollar of advertising is sold. Many of those cable networks are owned, at least in part, by MSOs. While an a la carte system would seemingly be more market based (people pay for what they want and don’t pay for what they don’t want), the argument you hear is that it would reduce the diversity of available content as the weaker programmers fail without the guaranteed base income. On the other hand, some premium services (e.g., HBO, Showtime, STARZ, etc.) might benefit if subscribers save money by not paying a tiered price for lots of channels they don’t want, and can put the additional money towards a premium service they would be interested in but don’t get now because of the tiered pricing structure (i.e., they feel they are paying enough already and don’t want to pay more, even if they might enjoy the additional program services). I happen to be just such a subscriber, unwilling to pay even more for additional service, but who never watches the vast majority of channels I have available. Of course, it also becomes more costly for MSOs to have to implement technology that allows each individual subscriber to pick and choose the channels they received. What we have now is a system that benefits primarily the MVPD operators, not the subscriber, with the side effect that it benefits some network providers and potentially harms others.
Teri Green says:
March 7, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Many people get dish/direct because they CAN’T receive OTA signals. Plus the additional viewers provided by dish and cable and U-Verse/Vios means that the TV stations can charge higher rates for ads.
matt fess says:
March 7, 2011 at 4:54 pm
If you read the second to last paragraph in the article, DISH is using LIN in their political game here. They are using LIN as a pawn to show the FCC that they need to get involved. All DISH cares about is getting the right to import distant signals and keep stations on the system while negotiations are ongoing. I had heard that LIN offered DISH a standstill agreement which would have kept the stations on for an additional 30 days at the same rate and DISH declined. Why? To stir up the FCC. All political.