You can view each side's latest arguments here and make your own judgement if you care.http://www.channel3000.com/technolog...19/detail.htmlhttp://www.dishnetwork.com/campaigns...-2012/Morgan2/
After reading all I could about this, and based on how I understand a national service like Dish works, I still tend to side with Dish. Dish can't afford to set precedents for locals that can have such a huge impact nationally. They have to offer market rates for their market, which isn't the same as local cable and Uverse. Those services have localized unique infastructure. Dish is national on a few birds. Sure, I'd like to see them carry all the subchannels. But if you look at that from a national perspective, it would cost a lot for them to do that everywhere. And in my opinion, Dish has the most value for the money compared to Direct TV, Charter or Uverse. I don't want to see my rates go up even more because of a precedent set by this agreement.
Yeah, sure I'd like to see a local business like WISC thrive, but not at the potential cost of seeing my Dish rates go up.
Both sides statements aren't without some hype.
Dish says they've offered fair market, but I understand they offered what WISC is paid by Direct TV under a 2 year old deal. I have to agree that under a new deal WISC should get some nominal increase over what Direct TV pays.
It's likely true that WISC is asking for just over 2 cents, but that's per subscriber per day. That likely does add up to millions for the thousands of subscribers in this market over an agreement that lasts for years.
What Dish pays for national cable networks should in no way be the same as what they pay for a local. Sure, a local is watched more locally, but not nationally. Apples and oranges.
My understanding is locals have been included at no charge in most Dish packages for quite some time.