Pay-TV carriage disputes

A couple of days ago, when I was watching Dr Phil via WLNS-TV 6 in Lansing, Michigan, I saw a crawl (screenshot shown above) on the bottom of the screen and a commercial warning DirecTV subscribers that they will lose WLNS-TV if the satellite provider doesn't come up with a new retransmission agreement by September 30. The ads tell DirecTV viewers to call the provider and tell them that they don't want to lose "6 News". This is part of a dispute between WLNS-TV's owner Media General and DirecTV. Needless to say, carriage disputes between pay-TV providers and broadcasters are becoming increasingly common over the past few years.

In the United States, by law, most broadcasters have to charge pay-TV providers to carry their programming on a provider's service. Also, by law, if a provider can't come up with an agreement between itself and the broadcaster, then the provider must remove the signal of the broadcaster immediately upon the last contract's expiration. Notable carriage disputes include Time Warner Cable vs. Fox (2009), DirecTV vs. Viacom (2012), and Buckeye CableSystem (Northwest Ohio) vs. Sinclair Broadcast Group (over WNWO-TV 24 in Toledo), the last of which resulted in a months-long channel blackout on Buckeye.
The reason for the majority of these disputes is that broadcasters are jacking up retransmission consent fees dramatically, oftentimes doubling or even tripling fees compared to a soon-to-expire contract.

To set off the discussion...
Have any television channels that you watch regularly been involved in carriage disputes between your television service provider? Do you think these disputes are even necessary? What do you think should be done to reduce carriage disputes?

Since I don't have cable or satellite at home, I'm not at risk of losing the local stations that I get with an antenna due to a dispute between a pay-TV provider. However, I've read up about numerous disputes over the years, including the ones I outlined above.
I believe that retransmission consent laws need to be overhauled, and that the FCC should act as a mediator during retrans disputes.
In hindsight, though, I wouldn't be surprised if Media General is asking DirecTV for significantly more money solely to finance their planned merger with Meredith Corporation (best known as the publisher of Better Homes and Gardens). It's also been speculated that Sinclair Broadcast Group has used exorbitant retransmission fees to finance acquisitions of competing station owners, including Four Points Media Group, Freedom Communications, and Barrington Broadcasting (the last one being the former owner of WNWO-TV.)

This isn't just happening to just satellite providers or cable providers; this happens too online with providers such as Hulu or Netflix.

Oftentimes this is just ridiculous extortion performed by the network itself because they foolishly believe they are making less money because of ___Insert Provider Here___ and want to jack the price up. I don't blame the providers for negotiating these ridiculous gouges off their service list. Given any such situation I don't ever encourage the transit provider who's contract is expiring to try to preserve the station; just let them lapse out. If there's a show I care about; I sail the seven seas if I please!

Carriage disputes, while annoying, are something I have no issue with. Both sides have the right in their contract to fight to a payment level that they feel is appropriate.

Another notable one was Dish vs. Turner last October where several of Turner's channels, including Cartoon Network, were off the air for Dish subscribers for a month because of a dispute between the two. It was annoying not being able to watch Toonami for a month, but I dealt with it by being pretty busy.