After a two-day extension, the group’s 33 stations in 26 markets are no longer available to the satellite provider’s lineup as retrans talks collapse.
RETRANS
No Deal: Hearst Stations Come Off Dish
Following protracted negotiations that included a 48-hour extension, Dish Network and Hearst Television failed to negotiate a renewal of the retransmission consent agreement for the carriage of Hearst’s TV stations on Dish Network’s systems. As a result, the stations are no longer available to Dish subscribers.
“While we had hoped to conclude our negotiations before the extended March 3 deadline, Dish has continued to insist on including material terms that are less favorable than our current agreement,” said Hearst. “In addition,” it added, “Hearst Television has made significant investments to deliver top quality programming to our viewers and Dish is seeking the right to carry our stations at below market rates, which is neither fair nor reasonable.
“We regret the inconvenience Dish’s demands have imposed on its subscribers.
“We have not ‘blacked out’ our stations” Hearst continued. “You may continue to receive our stations for free, over the air, and, where available, from your local cable or satellite operators.”
Dish issued a statement that said “Despite Dish’s offer to extend contract negotiations, tonight Hearst Television Inc. has blacked out Dish customers’ access to its local channels in 26 markets across 30 states. The broadcaster has used the move to gain deal leverage as it seeks above-market rate increases nearly double the current Dish rate, and other unreasonable demands. Hearst has also refused Dish’s offer to match the rates paid by other pay-TV providers.”
Warren Schlichting, Dish EVP of programming, said: “With Dish willing to grant an extension and a retroactive true-up on rates, Hearst had nothing to lose and consumers had everything to gain by leaving the channels up.”
BRAND CONNECTIONS
Dish’s R. Stanton Dodge, EVP-general counsel, used the impasse to push for retrans reform, saying: ““Hearst’s decision to cut ties with Dish customers is a prime example of why Washington needs to stand up for consumers and end local channel blackouts. Broadcasters like Hearst use their in-market monopoly power to put profits ahead of the public interests they are supposed to serve.”
Comments (7)
Sean Smith says:
March 3, 2017 at 8:40 am
What is it about DISH? Comcast, Cox, Direct TV and all of the other carriers seem to be able to work out their differences with station groups, networks, etc. and the rate of non-carriage in a dispute is rare with them. Is DISH asking for more than the other carriers? I’m sure the others have their protracted negotiations, but it always seems to be DISH yanking customers off its downlink. I don’t use DISH, and I’m positive that I never will. If they ever merge with my carrier, I’ll switch to somebody else immediately.
Veronica Serrano Padilla says:
March 3, 2017 at 12:32 pm
You’ve got it backwards… it’s the station groups who are asking for more money. DISH – whether right or wrong – is trying to hold the line on broadcast retransmission fee increases.
Hugh Haynie says:
March 3, 2017 at 12:37 pm
No Ridgeline.. you have it backwards. The other comment is not even difficult to understand.
Wagner Pereira says:
March 3, 2017 at 2:47 pm
As if that is a surprise. @RIDEGELINETV IN CAPS has to pay to be on Hooterville Cable in SD and for only 11 hours a day. He has ENVY of stations where the MVPD pays the Stations as they cannot exist without them.
Veronica Serrano Padilla says:
March 3, 2017 at 8:07 pm
@TVLaw & @Insider: Nothing “backwards” about my comment. FACT: Broadcasters are the ones who are asking for more money, NOT DISH network. And @Insider, no envy here. But it sure seems you feel threatened by me and my comments. Why would a supposed “insider” who works as a real “broadcaster” be threatened by my tiny, rural operation?
Veronica Serrano Padilla says:
March 3, 2017 at 8:18 pm
Oh, and @Insider: Yes, I do pay some to be on cable – but it’s a very, very low rate, and 2/3 less now that my coverage area has grown to five more counties without a fee increase. This is unlike “broadcasters” who had Congress / FCC create a special law which allows them to force their way onto MVPDs for free. In other words, my channel is a better example of free enterprise, not government putting their thumb on the business scale.
james abels says:
March 3, 2017 at 4:28 pm
What? there is a problem? I cut the cord a long time ago, and don’t miss a thing. I see OTT as supplanting strictly pay TV providers, at least in populated areas. If I want local content, the piece of wire hanging out of the back of the TV works great! More consumers are finding this out apparently, and I hope the trend continues.