# Echostar/Turner dispute thread



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

EchoStar's new target: Turner
1 month after Viacom rift, Dish customers may lose cable channels

EchoStar Communications Corp. and Time Warner's Turner Broadcasting, which owns CNN and the Cartoon Network, could soon enter into a contract showdown similar to last month's EchoStar-Viacom battle.

During that dispute, customers of EchoStar's Dish Network lost some of Viacom's channels for two days.

In the EchoStar-Turner talks, a deadline is approaching for a new contract on programming and costs. Their current contract was to have expired Dec. 31, but they agreed to an extension.

Neither has said when the extension expires, but it would be unusual for them to push the date back more than a few months, industry experts said. One hundred days will have passed as of Friday night.

If the extension expires without a new agreement, Dish Network could lose access to Turner channels such as CNN, CNN Headline News, CNNfn, TBS, TNT, the Cartoon Network, Turner Classic Movies, Boomerang and Turner South.

On Wednesday, trade publication CableFAX Daily, citing anonymous sources, said that could happen Monday night. CableFAX reported that EchoStar chief executive Charlie Ergen plans to make the announcement during his "Charlie Chat" message to customers Monday evening.

EchoStar spokesman Steve Caulk would not comment on what Ergen plans to say during the program. He and Turner spokeswoman Shirley Powell also declined to comment on the CableFAX report or the status of the talks.

"Negotiations are still in progress," Powell said. "We are hopeful we will reach an agreement."

EchoStar has been fighting the programmers over price increases in an effort to close the gap between its program costs and those of its cable competitors.

*Full Story*


----------



## obrienaj (Apr 8, 2004)

Interesting. I don't think either party can afford this. CNN is in a big batttle with Fox New Channel for ratings and Charlie can't afford another nasty customer riot.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

obrienaj said:


> Interesting. I don't think either party can afford this. CNN is in a big batttle with Fox New Channel for ratings and Charlie can't afford another nasty customer riot.


What "nasty customer riot"? I think you overstate subscriber response to the brief Viacom shut-off.

Barely a ((( ping ))) on the sonar.

I believe the Turner channels are _more_ important to E* subs including myself. I tune in to CNN daily, and I watch almost all Braves games which are telecast mostly on TBS and Turner South. I have Adelphia as backup to sat and I get all the Turners on cable except Turner South, so I'm not going to be completely without. :grin:


----------



## skaeight (Jan 15, 2004)

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!

So Glad I'm A Directv Customer!


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Well Skaeight you might want to know that your new owner has indicated that he too will play hardball on these things.


----------



## skaeight (Jan 15, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> Well Skaeight you might want to know that your new owner has indicated that he too will play hardball on these things.


He has a little more leverage than Charlie does. He actually owns assets that are important to other people, unlike Charlie.


----------



## Big Bob (May 13, 2002)

skaeight said:


> He has a little more leverage than Charlie does. He actually owns assets that are important to other people, unlike Charlie.


Which is exactly why you will hear a quote something like
"we couldn't come to an agreement during the contract negotiations for CNN so we will have to discontinue offering it as part of our package"


----------



## cicijay (Jan 6, 2003)

skaeight said:


> He has a little more leverage than Charlie does. He actually owns assets that are important to other people, unlike Charlie.


Wasn't D* unloaded because it was so unprofitable?


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

D* was unloaded because those at GM thought that Satellite was a mature industry that had nowhere to go but down based on capacity restraints in regards to the looming switchover to HD as well as the "blockbuster" status of VOD. (I laugh at this last one, but a lot of money people seem to think this is the case)

They also had a massive Pension Fund shortfall they had to cover and needed the cash for help with that issue as well....

Overspending on many deals including Sunday Ticket didn't help. Now that there is a more mercurial leader at the helm, look for Charlie's strong arm tactics to come soon to D*. Rumored hurdles include threatened elimination of Commercial Skip features, expiration dates on PVR recordings, and the dropping of multiple equipment providers and platforms in favor of a company-centric model similar to E*'s (This was all stated in an industry interview with Rupert a month ago).

I think that D*'s deal with Viacom was their last "easy" one as Rupert also shifts to using more hardball tactics to restrain cost increases.... I wouldn't gloat over E*'s negotiations as I expect the same game plan to be adopted by D* soon.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

The relevant asset of DTV in these negotiations is the number of subs. While DISH does not have as many theya re still a major player at that level. No one likes these shutdowns or threats of same. But they are a fact of life in the cable and satellite business. Sorry skaeight but it this can happen to DTV as well----and the change in leadership makes it somewhat more likely.


----------



## Jeraden (Aug 12, 2003)

The Viacom channels impacted me. I can safely say the channels listed above could be turned off for months before I'd ever notice.


----------



## donm (Aug 19, 2003)

I could care less about any of the channels listed above. especially CCN what a wast of a channel IMHO.


----------



## Tornado25 (Mar 11, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> The relevant asset of DTV in these negotiations is the number of subs. While DISH does not have as many theya re still a major player at that level.


Realistically, the true difference in subs between D* and E* is negligible, in the sense that they are both fairly large (although D*'s 3M sub advantage is nothing to sneeze at) and should be able to control negotiations. The problem is, for either of them, the programmers have what the subs want and they are willing to wedge the subs between themselves and the satellite companies.

Quite honestly, I can agree that a loss of Turner channels would impact me less than the loss of Viacom channels. I do occasionally watch TNT (I assume it would be affected, although not noted here) but watch my news on MSNBC and never watch Cartoon Network.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

DIRECTV was sold by GM because they had to get money to shore up their pension fund obligations.

Don't under estimate the leverage that Echostar has now, it is not a small rural cable company, it has millions of homes. Yes DIRECTV has more homes and with FOX has more barganing power, but that does not mean that E* does not have any barganing power.


----------



## RJS1111111 (Mar 23, 2002)

...while they're down, if they go down at all.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I agree Tornado. I just think that Skaeight made a cavalier statement that is not supportable. But we are all entitled to our opinions I guess.


----------



## skaeight (Jan 15, 2004)

When I was referring to leverage, I meant Rupert's other holdings. Fox News Channel, Fox Sports, Fox Movie Channel, FX, Speedvision, Fox Studios, etc. He owns companies that produce content. This is particularly important in dealing with companies such as Time Warner, who also happen to own a cable system. If TW wants to screw Rupert on a contract, guess what's going to happen when TW is renegotiating with Fox?

That's what I was referring to by leverage. Echostar does not have this. Yes, Directv has been unprofitable in the past, and it was probably because they paid ridiculous amounts for content (i.e. Sunday Ticket). However, from what I can gather, they didn't really have a CEO with a set of cojones to negotiate for them. It seemed like they'd just accept what the networks threw at them.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of something like this happening to D*. However, I am saying that I feel D* is in a much better bargaining position than E* is. Charlie needs to stop being a cowboy and try to align himself with a content producer so that he isn't threating to drop channels every other month.

If he does end up dropping channels again within a month of the Viacom thing, he will be hemorrhaging subscribers. I can promise that for your average joe consumer, another $1 credit and ppv coupon will not cut it.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

To me, TBS, TCM, and most definitely CNN and HNN will be missed much more than any of the Viacom content was. Many others would undoubtedly miss Cartoon Network, Boomerang, TNT, and Turner South Sports.

But, if E loses the Turner channels for any length of time, so close to the Viacom mess, it will most definitely affect E in a negative way. Despite the "blip in the radar" comment above, the Viacom issue was noticed by many, causing many subscribers to switch to D or Cable, and many prospective satellite subs to choose D. (I certainly would have, if their 3LNB dish worked at my location. Damn 101 sat!) 

It will be a terrible mistake fom a PR standpoint. There can be no arguing that fact. Denying it would be just plain blind or stupid.


----------



## skaeight (Jan 15, 2004)

garypen said:


> To me, TBS, TCM, and most definitely CNN and HNN will be missed much more than any of the Viacom content was.
> 
> But, if E loses the Turner channels for any length of time, so close to the Viacom mess, it will most definitely affect E in a negative way. Despite the "blip in the radar" comment above, the Viacom issue was noticed by many, causing many subscribers to switch to D or Cable, and many prospective satellite subs to choose D. (I certainly would, if a 3LND dish worked in my location.) It will also be a terrible mistake fom a PR standpoint. There can be no arguing that fact. Denying that would be just plain stupid.


Also the whole fiasco drew a lot of news coverage. To a lot of people who don't follow things very closely dish network is now "the satellite company without MTV."

I think that Time Warner knows that dish doesn't now want to be the "the satellite company without CNN."


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2004)

skaeight said:


> Also the whole fiasco drew a lot of news coverage. To a lot of people who don't follow things very closely dish network is now "the satellite company without MTV."
> 
> I think that Time Warner knows that dish doesn't now want to be the "the satellite company without CNN."


 ATLEAST E* IS NOT THE SATELLITE COMPANY WITHOUT AN RSN


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Again we are all entitled to our opinions and that is what they are at this point. But I question the legality of linking those properties. But yes Murdoch has the nerve to try it. 

I am not sure how much business E* lost over the VIACOM deal. I guess we will never know. But I agree DISH is heavily incentivized to settle here.


----------



## skaeight (Jan 15, 2004)

UN-LUCKY said:


> ATLEAST E* IS NOT THE SATELLITE COMPANY WITHOUT AN RSN


Ha, you got me there. My situation is not the norm. But they have made things right for me for the time being.

I'd rather go without my rsn before I'd want to lose a chunck of 5 channels though (especially since I'm a pittsburgh fan. In about a month I may be calling directv in agony telling them to please cancel my sports pack because I can't take any more pirates baseball :grin: ).


----------



## dbronstein (Oct 21, 2002)

The biggest difference between this and the Viacom dispute is that no locals are involved this time. That gives E* a heck of a lot more leverage in this one, because locals still have the biggest impact.

And from a personal standpoint, I don't care about any of these channels, unlike some of the Viacom ones, so I hope Charlie plays total hardball.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

UN-LUCKY said:


> ATLEAST E* IS NOT THE SATELLITE COMPANY WITHOUT AN RSN


In my area, D provides FSN-Bay Area, no problem.

It's a moot point for me, though, as I discovered their 3LNB dish can't hit 101 from my balcony. 

It looks like I'm stuck with Dish for now. Um uh.... What I mean is I _*LOVE*_ Dish, and they can do no wrong. Now...somebody pass the Kool-Aid.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Sounds like Turner was waiting until the baseball season started to threaten to yank TBS's Braves games. In previous years, this would be a horrible prospect, but this year, I'm catching up on my American League games on Extra Innings.

There are a couple of shows I watch on Cartoon Network, and CNN is where I turn when something explodes, but I can get by without them for a while. This is nothing like the whammy of CBS and the 4-year-old's shows on Nick and Noggin.

Maybe we'll all get another $1! Maybe if we can line up enough "rolling blackouts" like this, we can all get Dish for free! :grin:


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

The BJU koolaid ?


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

skaeight said:


> When I was referring to leverage, I meant Rupert's other holdings. Fox News Channel, Fox Sports, Fox Movie Channel, FX, Speedvision, Fox Studios, etc. He owns companies that produce content. This is particularly important in dealing with companies such as Time Warner, who also happen to own a cable system. If TW wants to screw Rupert on a contract, guess what's going to happen when TW is renegotiating with Fox?
> 
> That's what I was referring to by leverage. Echostar does not have this. Yes, Directv has been unprofitable in the past, and it was probably because they paid ridiculous amounts for content (i.e. Sunday Ticket). However, from what I can gather, they didn't really have a CEO with a set of cojones to negotiate for them. It seemed like they'd just accept what the networks threw at them.
> 
> ...


If I am not mistaken part of the merger approval requires News Corp to negotiate in good faith. And I believe submit to binding arbitration if there is an impass.

EDIT: look what I found.

The FCC has said it will not allow News Corp to withhold Fox broadcast programming or the regional Fox Sports networks from cable operators during a complicated dispute resolution process, which can be called upon should either side be unhappy with negotiations. Other conditions mandate that News Corp must offer existing cable programming on non-discriminatory terms and conditions to rivals, and that the company must allow small local cable operators to bargain carriage deals collectively.


----------



## Crazy 1 (Oct 21, 2002)

Ooh, it's getting interesting again.


----------



## psycaz (Oct 4, 2002)

The one thing Rupert has that Charlie doesn't is a media outlet - Foxnews - to get his side out. Should Rupert go hard-ball on them, you get bet Foxnews will give it a lot of airtime as to the unfairness of it all.

Charlie need to start making behind the scene phone calls to Rupert to suggest they team up to get things better for the both of them. Rupert may not take the call though.

It will be noticed in our household if they turn off Turner's, but I'll live with it for a while to let them work it out.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

psycaz said:


> The one thing Rupert has that Charlie doesn't is a media outlet - Foxnews - to get his side out. Should Rupert go hard-ball on them, you get bet Foxnews will give it a lot of airtime as to the unfairness of it all.


That's right! And, there's no better source for impartial and unbiased news than Fox. "Fair and Balanced". Yup. That's what they say...over and over and over and over again, so it must be true.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2004)

Chris Blount said:


> EchoStar's new target: Turner
> 1 month after Viacom rift, Dish customers may lose cable channels
> 
> EchoStar Communications Corp. and Time Warner's Turner Broadcasting, which owns CNN and the Cartoon Network, could soon enter into a contract showdown similar to last month's EchoStar-Viacom battle.
> ...


I'd be very, very, very surprised if they don't reach a deal. Too big a PR hit for Charlie and company, CNN needs every viewer they can get, and frankly both have been partnered ever since there was a DISH Network.

Might go down to the wire, but they'll strike a deal.

-Earl
Yankee born Southern bred and livin' life in High Definition.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2004)

psycaz said:


> The one thing Rupert has that Charlie doesn't is a media outlet - Foxnews - to get his side out. Should Rupert go hard-ball on them, you get bet Foxnews will give it a lot of airtime as to the unfairness of it all.
> 
> Charlie need to start making behind the scene phone calls to Rupert to suggest they team up to get things better for the both of them. Rupert may not take the call though.
> 
> It will be noticed in our household if they turn off Turner's, but I'll live with it for a while to let them work it out.


What you suggest is highly illegal.

-Earl
Yankee born Southern bred


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

I hate Cartoon Network. Do they even have "kids" cartoons? Take off TBS as well, time for you Braves fans to suffer just like the Twins, Phillies, Padres, Blue Jays and Expos fans have to deal with...NO HOME TEAM COVERAGE ON DBS


----------



## finniganps (Jan 23, 2004)

carload said:


> There are a couple of shows I watch on Cartoon Network, and CNN is where I turn when something explodes, but I can get by without them for a while. This is nothing like the whammy of CBS and the 4-year-old's shows on Nick and Noggin.
> 
> Maybe we'll all get another $1! Maybe if we can line up enough "rolling blackouts" like this, we can all get Dish for free! :grin:


I agree, I look forward to the $1 credit on my bill. I think that Turner realizes that Charlie wants to be fair to his subscribers and is willing to pay up to what otehrs pay, but not more.....I see nothing wrong with this and hope he continues to stand up to the networks.

D* will have to stand up as well because the price gap will continue to widen (between E* and D*) without standing up for subscribers. Whenever people ask me about the two I tell them to look at the channel lineup...if they like them both I tell them to go with E* which is almost always cheaper.


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> EchoStar has been fighting the programmers over price increases in an effort to close the gap between its program costs and those of its cable competitors.


Chris, does this mean E* pays more for some channels than some cable operators do? If so, why?



psycaz said:


> Charlie need to start making behind the scene phone calls to Rupert to suggest they team up to get things better for the both of them.


This may already have happened. I seem to remember Charlie suggesting, in one of his chats a few months ago, that it might make sense for E* and D* to share satellite capacity. Yes, I know there are technical issues with that, but it seems silly to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to launch satellites only to duplicate what they transmit.

There would be *nothing* illegal about Charlie and Rupert talking together. Only their actions could be illegal, if they broke some trade laws. But there is nothing improper about them talking with each other, and such talks could potentially benefit both companies and consumers.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

Skaeight,
Just curious but why do you hang out here on the Dish threads? Since I don't have D* and no near term plans to switch, it would seem like a lost use of my time to be jumping into the D* threads.

..Doyle


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Charlie's an excellent businessperson.  I wonder if all these flareups don't have a larger goal in mind, namely to lend support to the slowly growing concensus on the hill that something needs to be done to level the playing field for subscription TV consumers. 

Plus, for every customer E* may lose, they also gain some when potential subs read or hear about Charlie fighting for lower prices. If you're about to invest in a satellite system, it might be a consideration.


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

lee635 said:


> Charlie's an excellent businessperson.  I wonder if all these flareups don't have a larger goal in mind, namely to lend support to the slowly growing concensus on the hill that something needs to be done to level the playing field for subscription TV consumers.
> 
> Plus, for every customer E* may lose, they also gain some when potential subs read or hear about Charlie fighting for lower prices. If you're about to invest in a satellite system, it might be a consideration.


Good assessment  In McCain's hearing the guy from ESPN got broiled by quite a few senators, along with the Cox Cable chairman. Cable is perilously close to severe re-regulation.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

If channels lose market share would it be acceptable to raise rates, keep rates the same or lower rates? If so, how much? It has been mentioned that Rupert owns content. Has it been mentioned that DirecTV has announced yearly cost increases to subs for several years? Who is standing up for the consumer? Damn the torpedos full speed ahead.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2004)

I cant wait till the D*-ABC war Does anybody Know when that will begin to boil?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> CableFAX reported that EchoStar chief executive Charlie Ergen plans to make the announcement during his "Charlie Chat" message to customers Monday evening.


Funny that it wasn't mentioned during the retailer chat earlier this week, if a deadline was close.

Somehow I doubt if this will happen THIS Monday.

JL


----------



## psycaz (Oct 4, 2002)

Earl Zuberbelt said:


> What you suggest is highly illegal.
> 
> -Earl
> Yankee born Southern bred


Why would it be illegal for them to both to come out and say they are going to take a united stand against pricing that seems unfair to them compared to Cable if that is their position?

If smaller cable operations can combine their negotiationsfor content as a stipulation of the acqisition of D* for Rupert, he should be able to do the same thing to someone else where his sat company is concerned.


----------



## kwajr (Apr 7, 2004)

thats fine settle for rate increases


----------



## kwajr (Apr 7, 2004)

i think they both use 110 i know that i think d* used 110 here for locals for a short while



Stosh said:


> Chris, does this mean E* pays more for some channels than some cable operators do? If so, why?
> 
> This may already have happened. I seem to remember Charlie suggesting, in one of his chats a few months ago, that it might make sense for E* and D* to share satellite capacity. Yes, I know there are technical issues with that, but it seems silly to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to launch satellites only to duplicate what they transmit.
> 
> There would be *nothing* illegal about Charlie and Rupert talking together. Only their actions could be illegal, if they broke some trade laws. But there is nothing improper about them talking with each other, and such talks could potentially benefit both companies and consumers.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2004)

skaeight said:


> When I was referring to leverage, I meant Rupert's other holdings. Fox News Channel, Fox Sports, Fox Movie Channel, FX, Speedvision, Fox Studios, etc. He owns companies that produce content. This is particularly important in dealing with companies such as Time Warner, who also happen to own a cable system. If TW wants to screw Rupert on a contract, guess what's going to happen when TW is renegotiating with Fox?
> 
> That's what I was referring to by leverage. Echostar does not have this. Yes, Directv has been unprofitable in the past, and it was probably because they paid ridiculous amounts for content (i.e. Sunday Ticket). However, from what I can gather, they didn't really have a CEO with a set of cojones to negotiate for them. It seemed like they'd just accept what the networks threw at them.
> 
> ...


Time Warner is the only programmer that Rupert has an advantage with over Charlie since they own a cable system. Rupert is just as vulnerable to people like Viacom as Dish is, as you notice that they bent over and took Nicktoons and the price increase(more than the increase to Dish) with a smile.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2004)

I honestly don't think we will see any more channels pulled. Turner can't have it happen because CNN and their other channels are plummeting in ratings, and Dish doesn't want to piss their customers off again. Expect another extension or a last minute agreement. Would be VERY shocked if more channels were yanked, I think Charlie knows when enough's enough.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

obrienaj said:


> Interesting. I don't think either party can afford this. CNN is in a big batttle with Fox New Channel for ratings and Charlie can't afford another nasty customer riot.


Riot?? I must have slept through that one. Ripple may be. I liked it when Charlie pushed back last time, and I'm glad he's doing it again. I say stuff it to the media conglomerate.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Customers will think that channels will be pulled on a regular basis if these Turner channels get pulled so soon after the Viacom dispute. This may start to concern some customers. The only Turner channel I watch is CNN Headline News and now I get that off of yahoo news than off of CNN Headline News anyways.


----------



## ClaudeR (Dec 7, 2003)

finniganps said:


> Whenever people ask me about the two I tell them to look at the channel lineup...if they like them both I tell them to go with E* which is almost always cheaper.


I agree with the cost factor, except for all the FEES that E* has, $5 PER DVR, $$ to change sub level, $$$$ for warranty, etc.

I would like to see a la carte programming - I only need a 1/2 dozen channels.


----------



## amit5roy5 (Mar 4, 2004)

I feel that Charlie doesn't care about his subscribers, just about his profits. He won't mid if certain programs are taken off the air.


----------



## music_beans (Mar 21, 2003)

If the Turner networks start to run crawls about this, who wants to bet that DISH will obscure them like Viacom?


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I expect to see program rate increases no matter what deal he gets.


----------



## shilton (Nov 20, 2002)

ClaudeR said:


> I would like to see a la carte programming - I only need a 1/2 dozen channels.


Sounds like a neat idea on the outside but what many (including your friendly Senators and Congressmen who are looking into soaring prices) do not realize is that a la carte would mean MAJOR rate hikes and would also kill off many smaller channels as well. If Dish has to charge say $2.00 per sub for ESPN, how much do you think you'd have to pay if you were only one of a few thousand or ten thousand who wanted it? You'd be looking at your 1/2 dozen channels and a $70.00 bill per month for less programming. One of the simple laws of business is that with volume comes better pricing. More channels in the packages keep our prices low.


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

kwajr said:


> i think they both use 110


These satellite numbers you hear are slots in the sky, not satellites themselves. Each orbital location has multiple satellites in them. E* and D* share orbital locations, but not the satellites parked in them.

For example, at 110W, E* has two satellites, and D* has one:

http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm


----------



## mboy (Jan 17, 2004)

Jeraden said:


> The Viacom channels impacted me. I can safely say the channels listed above could be turned off for months before I'd ever notice.


Ditto!


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

Chris Walker said:


> Time Warner is the only programmer that Rupert has an advantage with over Charlie since they own a cable system. Rupert is just as vulnerable to people like Viacom as Dish is, as you notice that they bent over and took Nicktoons and the price increase(more than the increase to Dish) with a smile.


Dish got a sweetheart deal. Yes they had to add Nicktoons, but they have in writing that Viacom will not charge Dish competitors less than what Dish pays per sub.

In the end Charlie walked away with a big $#it eating grin.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

psycaz said:


> The one thing Rupert has that Charlie doesn't is a media outlet - Foxnews - to get his side out. Should Rupert go hard-ball on them, you get bet Foxnews will give it a lot of airtime as to the unfairness of it all.
> 
> Charlie need to start making behind the scene phone calls to Rupert to suggest they team up to get things better for the both of them. Rupert may not take the call though.
> 
> It will be noticed in our household if they turn off Turner's, but I'll live with it for a while to let them work it out.


If they do that I don't want to hear anyone claim that FOX News is anews outlet. At that point it becomes a corporate PR/propaganda vehicle.


----------



## van_gogh (Apr 9, 2004)

Jacob S said:


> Customers will think that channels will be pulled on a regular basis if these Turner channels get pulled so soon after the Viacom dispute. This may start to concern some customers...


I for one am moving to a new home and am contemplating switching from E* to D*. (For one reason, I'd get a better offer as a new subscriber to D* than a long-time loyal E* customer - but that's a rant for a different thread.) I don't think either carrier will pull channels regularly, but on the other hand I don't want to have to research each companies' contracts with content providers before I sign a new one year contract.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> At that point it becomes a corporate PR/propaganda vehicle.


.

At that point? I thought it _already was_.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Chris Walker said:


> Time Warner is the only programmer that Rupert has an advantage with over Charlie since they own a cable system. Rupert is just as vulnerable to people like Viacom as Dish is, as you notice that they bent over and took Nicktoons and the price increase(more than the increase to Dish) with a smile.


DirecTV was bent over right before Rupert got control. Now he's made DirecTV stand up straight and will fight off any huge increases.


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

rvd420 said:


> Dish got a sweetheart deal. Yes they had to add Nicktoons, but they have in writing that Viacom will not charge Dish competitors less than what Dish pays per sub.
> 
> In the end Charlie walked away with a big $#it eating grin.


If this is true, then Charlie did VERY well in the negotiations.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

obrienaj said:


> Interesting. I don't think either party can afford this. CNN is in a big batttle with Fox New Channel for ratings and Charlie can't afford another nasty customer riot.


Frankly I couldn't care less because I hardly watch TW channels.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

ypsiguy said:


> If this is true, then Charlie did VERY well in the negotiations.


Actually I understand that deals like that are common----which explains why supliers hold out.

And apparently TIme Warner owns 12 broadcast TV stations.

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cach...1.html+Time+Warner+TV+stations&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


----------



## dbronstein (Oct 21, 2002)

shilton said:


> Sounds like a neat idea on the outside but what many (including your friendly Senators and Congressmen who are looking into soaring prices) do not realize is that a la carte would mean MAJOR rate hikes and would also kill off many smaller channels as well. If Dish has to charge say $2.00 per sub for ESPN, how much do you think you'd have to pay if you were only one of a few thousand or ten thousand who wanted it? You'd be looking at your 1/2 dozen channels and a $70.00 bill per month for less programming. One of the simple laws of business is that with volume comes better pricing. More channels in the packages keep our prices low.


Exactly. If everything was a la carte, everyone would end up paying the same or more for less channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stosh said:


> For example, at 110W, E* has two satellites, and D* has one:
> 
> http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm


Nice list. Inaccurate, but nice.

TW channels will not be going away Monday night. But IF they ever do, the replacement channels from higher packages will be brought in to serve AT60 subs, such as was done with the Viacom outage.

*AT60's:*
138 TNT
176 The Cartoon Network
200 CNN
202 CNN Headline News
230 TBS

I expect to see 174 Toon Disney, 205 Fox News and 209 MSNBC brought down to AT60 for the week. Possibly 239 WGN as well. (Not that the outage will last a week, but the channels will remain "free" for the rest of the week.)

*AT120's:*
132 Turner Classic Movies
206 CNNfn

Perhaps 140 Fox Movies and 203 Bloomberg for the week, if any replacement is done.

*AT180's:*
175 Boomerang

Nicktoons is coming April 14th. AT180's and AlmostEPs won't get replacements.

*Regional:*
437 Turner South

Sorry ... no replacement.

There is a plan to keep E* customers reasonably happy, if they have to lose any channels at all.

JL


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

At this time, the only article citing a problem is the Denver Post which was reprinted in the Miami Herald. Nothing in the finance pages. This covers "general" media, not "industry" media.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

And or those that have AT180 or AEP will get no channels to replace the ones that they lost, unless they actually add new ones.

If there was ala carte then the price increases would affect each channel more since the customer could choose to drop that particular channel to go with another one particularly if they wanted to increase prices a good bit or often. 

Right now, as it is, the customers do not have a choice as they are all packaged together, they either pay the price that they want or get no channels. Its almost like a monopoly in a way. Ala carte would cause more competition to get your business among the companies that own those channels.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Aren't HBO and Cinemax Time Warner properties, too? These wouldn't be included in the Turner negotiations, would they?


----------



## kwajr (Apr 7, 2004)

ClaudeR said:


> I agree with the cost factor, except for all the FEES that E* has, $5 PER DVR, $$ to change sub level, $$$$ for warranty, etc.
> 
> I would like to see a la carte programming - I only need a 1/2 dozen channels.


 every comp that offers dvr has fees


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

The 501 and 508 were fee-less DVRs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

garypen said:


> Aren't HBO and Cinemax Time Warner properties, too? These wouldn't be included in the Turner negotiations, would they?


Movie channels, such as Showtime in the Viacom situation, are negotiated separately.

One of the negotiating points is tier placement. Putting a channel at AT60 gets more subscribers than at AT180. When E* pays per subscriber the tier can make a difference. (Not that it is likely that any channels are going to move to a higher tier without major difficulties.)

Movie channels are sold by the package. You want HBO? Any sub can have the package ala carte - no AT60 required. Discounts are given when purchasing WITH an AT package or another movie package, and they are in the AlmostEverythingPack. But in general, they are alacarte add ons.

JL


----------



## amit5roy5 (Mar 4, 2004)

I think people forgave the Viacom issue, but I'm not sure about this issue. Otherwise, people will start to think of this as a norm and leave.


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

garypen said:


> "No soup for you!"


Since you changed your avatar, shouldn't you change your tag line too?

"No duck soup for you!"

OK, forgive me, it's late...


----------



## zman977 (Nov 9, 2003)

dbronstein said:


> The biggest difference between this and the Viacom dispute is that no locals are involved this time.


Wouldn't WTBS Channle 17 in the Atlanta locals pack be affected by this?


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

zman977 said:


> Wouldn't WTBS Channle 17 in the Atlanta locals pack be affected by this?


It would depend on weither Turner elected must carry for WTBS (17) or if they chose to do re-trans consent.

If they chose must carry, then there is nothing Turner could do to take away WTBS at this time, now if Turner choose re-trans consent, then it is a different story.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

Nick said:


> What "nasty customer riot"? I think you overstate subscriber response to the brief Viacom shut-off.
> 
> Barely a ((( ping ))) on the sonar.
> 
> I believe the Turner channels are _more_ important to E* subs including myself. I tune in to CNN daily, and I watch almost all Braves games which are telecast mostly on TBS and Turner South. I have Adelphia as backup to sat and I get all the Turners on cable except Turner South, so I'm not going to be completely without. :grin:


The damage done to Dish from the Viacom shutoff was not from existing customers but from the loss of potential customers. The damage to their image was EXTREME. MOST PEOPLE WHO HEARD ABOUT THIS STILL THINK DISH DOESN'T HAVE THE VIACOMS.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

music_beans said:


> If the Turner networks start to run crawls about this, who wants to bet that DISH will obscure them like Viacom?


Again, blacking out the crawls from your own customers just like Saddam spreading propaganda that they were winning the war to his people. The rest of the world will see the crawls and that's where the damage is done, and VIAOM and Time Warner know this. The crawls will be like free advertising for Time Warner cable to convince their customers to never leave for Dish. Dish should be suing big time over these for hundreds of millions.


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2004)

skaeight said:


> Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!
> 
> So Glad I'm A Directv Customer!


Yea must be nice to be with a company that dosent mind passing higher costs to it's customers instead of one that want to keep your rates low


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Except for the fact that D charges $2 less for HBO, and gives a dozen or so more channels for your $40 than E does.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Lots of providers sell their channels in different packages. In this case HBO, Cinemax and the the rest of the TW OTA channels are apparently not part of the Turner package.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

garypen said:


> Except for the fact that D charges $2 less for HBO, and gives a dozen or so more channels for your $40 than E does.


I can make Direct sound more expensive also by being selective in what I compare like was done in the above quote. Yes Dish charges $1.99 more for HBO, it does have 8 channels compared to 7 for Direct. Dish does not have a $40 package. The Top 180 at $44.99 has many more channels than TC+ if that is what you are trying to compare, including many movie channels. And HBO plus Cinemax cost $23 with Direct, and only $17.99 with Dish if you have top 120 or Top 180, and Dish gives you two more Max channels than Direct does for a total of 13 channels with Dish and 10 for Direct costing $5 more!


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

tampa8 said:


> I can make Direct sound more expensive also by being selective in what I compare like was done in the above quote. Yes Dish charges $1.99 more for HBO, it does have 8 channels compared to 7 for Direct. Dish does not have a $40 package. The Top 180 at $44.99 has many more channels than TC+ if that is what you are trying to compare, including many movie channels. And HBO plus Cinemax cost $23 with Direct, and only $17.99 with Dish if you have top 120 or Top 180, and Dish gives you two more Max channels than Direct does for a total of 13 channels with Dish and 10 for Direct costing $5 more!


I was responding to the nitwit that said something about DirecTV not keeping costs low for their subs like Dish, when in fact they do a comparable job to Dish, in some cases even providing better value. But, you are right about various packages of the two services having varying values compared to the competitor's.

However, Dish indeed has a $40 package - AT120 w/Locals, the same price as D's TC w/Locals. Except TC has about a dozen more real channels and far less shopping channels.
(D also only charges a flat $5/month for unlimited DVR's on the account, unlike Dish's $5 per unit, and a lower early term fee (which is waived if returnning the gear.)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

garypen said:


> I was responding to the nitwit that said something about DirecTV not keeping costs low for their subs like Dish, when in fact they do a comparable job to Dish, in some cases even providing better value.


Comparable? All services are comparable, some comparisons just come out with different winners. E* does well with the overall channel count (even excluding bonus shopping channels) and for the time being, nearly double the number of local markets served their own locals. But that isn't what this thread is about.

This thread is about one newspaper's speculation that TW channels are to be pulled on Monday night. Unfounded speculation hat is NOT supported by any other source.

We're already running a long thread based on an unsupported rumor. Let's not get too far off track with CNN bashing, E* bashing, and E* vs D* issues. It turns the entire thread into junk.

JL
:backtotop


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

One of the settlements for the contract with Viacom could have been a promise not to sue them for any damages caused by the scrolling banners.


----------



## Bobby94928 (May 12, 2003)

Jacob S said:


> One of the settlements for the contract with Viacom could have been a promise not to sue them for any damages caused by the scrolling banners.


Huh???? Would you care to elaborate just a little!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jacob S said:


> One of the settlements for the contract with Viacom could have been a promise not to sue them for any damages caused by the scrolling banners.


Not the banners specifically, but the agreement was reported to include dropping all lawsuits connected to the renewal issue.

JL


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

garypen said:


> I was responding to the nitwit that said something about DirecTV not keeping costs low for their subs like Dish, when in fact they do a comparable job to Dish, in some cases even providing better value. But, you are right about various packages of the two services having varying values compared to the competitor's.
> 
> However, Dish indeed has a $40 package - AT120 w/Locals, the same price as D's TC w/Locals. Except TC has about a dozen more real channels and far less shopping channels.
> (D also only charges a flat $5/month for unlimited DVR's on the account, unlike Dish's $5 per unit, and a lower early term fee (which is waived if returnning the gear.)


I agree. And they both indeed do have comparable costs. Although the consumer would not care so much, Dish does have more operating revenue partly because they have not gone for NFL and other expensive offerings. But that just makes Direct being in the same cost bracket all the more remarkable. Sorry we got off track here ...................


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

justalurker said:


> Comparable? All services are comparable, some comparisons just come out with different winners. E* does well with the overall channel count (even excluding bonus shopping channels) and for the time being, nearly double the number of local markets served their own locals. But that isn't what this thread is about.
> 
> This thread is about one newspaper's speculation that TW channels are to be pulled on Monday night. Unfounded speculation hat is NOT supported by any other source.
> 
> ...


You could've better served your purpose by not posting two of the three paragraphs above, then.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

garypen said:


> You could've better served your purpose by not posting two of the three paragraphs above, then.


Evidently you missed two of the points, including the most important:
... one newspaper's speculation that TW channels are to be pulled on Monday night. Unfounded speculation hat is NOT supported by any other source.​It may take untill Tuesday to convince people, but a shutoff isn't likely to happen.

JL


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

If you go back a few posts, I posted my prediction that the Turner channels aren't going anywhere, and the rates will stay the same for now. I think most would agree. (including the two of us, it would seem.)


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

JacobS: Yeah, and I would never have agreed to such a settlement unless it came with compensation from the damages of the crawls. MOST PEOPLE STILL THINK DISH DOESN'T HAVE THE VIACOM CHANNELS.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jeffwtux said:


> JacobS: Yeah, and I would never have agreed to such a settlement unless it came with compensation from the damages of the crawls.


Guess we still would be watching the Charlie apology channel then. Viacom's childish behavior is no reason not to come to a deal to get the channels reauthorized.

JL


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Here is what Charlie offered as "alternatives" to the types of programming on the affected Time Warner channels:
*CNN / Headline News* "News and Finance"
Fox News, CNBC World, MSNBC, BBC America, Bloomberg TV, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX​I don't consider BBC America to be a news channel. Note all of the alternatives are in AT120 or AT180 (except local/distant networks).
*Cartoon Network and Boomerang* "Children's Programming"
Toon Disney, Disney Channel, WAM!, Discovery Kids, Noggin, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Nicktoons​Locals listed again (but no PBS?) 3 AT180's and 2 AT120's to balance an AT60 and an AT60.
*Turner Classic Movies* "Movies"
AMC, Encore Themes (7), Fox Movie Channel​What? No ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX?  One AT120 and the rest AT180 or a la carte to balance out an AT120 channel.

From an AT120 and even more so from an AT60 perspective the reply to Charlie's statement about having other channels in the genres is: WE DON'T GET THOSE CHANNELS!
Sure, there will be replacements if the "Turners" get turned off temporarily. But doing a laundry list of higher package channels to minimize the value of core channels is bad poker.

JL


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

I dont see them turning off turner channels like Charlie said both sides are eager to get the agreement reached. He wasnt hostile towards them in his tone like he was with Viacom. Like he said turner wer the first to sign on to dishnetwork back when they were new. I just dont see something like a viacom channel blackout happening.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2004)

justalurker said:


> Here is what Charlie offered as "alternatives" to the types of programming on the affected Time Warner channels:


*Cartoon Network and Boomerang* "Children's Programming"
Toon Disney, Disney Channel, WAM!, Discovery Kids, Noggin, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Nicktoons​
None of those are true alternatives to Boomerang. I don't see any of them offering classic animation programs. Most of them air stuff form the last 10-15 years and that's a stretch on most.

*Turner Classic Movies* "Movies"
AMC, Encore Themes (7), Fox Movie Channel​
Not much in the way "Classic" Movies on these networks. TCM airs Movies from 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's. Not much in the way of that on any of those. 
AMC is pretty much crap these days.


----------



## Agent0042 (Mar 1, 2004)

So the channels are all still there. Did something happen? Is there still a possiblity of something happening?


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Either an extension was made or they inked a contract.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mike Richardson said:


> Either an extension was made or they inked a contract.


The newspaper that started the rumor was off its rocker.

JL


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

The latest from http://www.skyreport.com

Sides Keep Pressing DISH, Turner Deal

Both sides of the EchoStar/Turner networks programming carriage matter were apparently still negotiating a deal late Tuesday, and the Turner channels in question remained on DISH Network as of press time late Tuesday night.

Turner, controlled by media giant Time Warner, said in a statement released Tuesday afternoon, "We are in negotiations with EchoStar and remain hopeful that EchoStar will continue to make Turner's industry-leading networks available to its Dish Network customers." EchoStar didn't comment on the matter outside the fact that talks continue between the sides.

Channels impacted by the programming carriage discussions are CNN Headline News, Turner Classic Movies, Boomerang and Cartoon Network. Not part of the discussions, and covered by separate agreements, are TBS and TNT.

The sides are working under an extension of an agreement that expired at the end of 2003.


----------



## narnia777 (Mar 28, 2003)

On the repeat of Charlie Chat Wednesday night they edited out the part about the Turner dispute.

Could that indicate an agreement was reached?

Jim


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

narnia777 said:


> On the repeat of Charlie Chat Wednesday night they edited out the part about the Turner dispute.
> 
> Could that indicate an agreement was reached?
> 
> Jim


An extension is running through April 30th:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=26343


----------



## DWS44 (Apr 15, 2004)

My apologies if this has already been posted, but I thought you all might find Dish's response interesting.

Actually first off, I wasnt even writing about this issue...I emailed them to inquire it they would be carrying TNT-HD. Apparenty they didnt bother reading the email completely, saw "TNT",and assumed this mess was what I was emailing about.  Anyways, here is their response to the contract stuff...



> Thank you for your email. We are working hard with Turner to reach a reasonable solution so we can continue to provide CNN/Headline News, The Cartoon Network and Turner Classic Movies. Turner has said that they want to come to an agreement, and as always, DISH Network will continue to fight to bring you the widest range of programming at the lowest possible price. If Turner will not provide us with broadcasting rights at a fair and reasonable price and we cannot reach an agreement, we will be forced to remove these channels from our lineup. This is all the information we have at this time. Please stay tuned for consumer Charlie Chats that are broadcast monthly on Channel 101 or logon to our website for future programming announcements.


----------



## Bobby94928 (May 12, 2003)

DWS44 said:


> My apologies if this has already been posted, but I thought you all might find Dish's response interesting.
> 
> Actually first off, I wasnt even writing about this issue...I emailed them to inquire it they would be carrying TNT-HD. Apparenty they didnt bother reading the email completely, saw "TNT",and assumed this mess was what I was emailing about.  Anyways, here is their response to the contract stuff...


I'll bet your email was unseen by human eyes, it was a canned response. You're probably right, it keyed on TNT and dumped out the drivel.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Well, It's April 27th and still no deal. This Friday is the deadline. The clock is ticking.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> Well, It's April 27th and still no deal. This Friday is the deadline. The clock is ticking.





> From *SkyReport* in the other thread on April 15th:
> _As for the ongoing Turner/EchoStar discussions, word is the temporary extension the companies are currently working under expires April 30. No other news was available from the companies Wednesday._


I never saw where SkyReport got 'the word'. It seems odd that if April 30th is a deadline, we have not heard anything more about this in weeks.

Which explains why I'm not worried. 

JL


----------



## Brownside (Apr 22, 2004)

Tick tock! I know my younger brothers won't be too happy if Cartoon Network goes.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Is the latest programming skirmish involving EchoStar coming down to the wire?

EchoStar and Turner had nothing new to report, and apparently both companies are continuing discussions concerning carriage of key Turner nets: CNN Headline News, Turner Classic Movies, Boomerang and Cartoon Network. The companies didn't offer any details. The dispute doesn't involve other Turner networks, such as TBS and TNT.

The companies are working under a temporary agreement that has kept the networks on EchoStar's DISH Network since the beginning of the year. That agreement reportedly expires Friday.

EchoStar temporarily dropped MTV Networks and CBS owned-and-operated stations in February after the companies couldn't agree on a carriage deal. The channels were off the air for about two days before the companies reached a deal.

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Chris could you please edit your news byte for 4-28-04 which says



Chris Blount said:


> Remember, if Turner gets pulled from the Dish lineup, you could lose access to channels such as CNN, CNN Headline News, CNNfn, TBS, TNT, the Cartoon Network, Turner Classic Movies, Boomerang and Turner South. The latest news release is HERE.


The only channels up for renewal are: CNN Headline News, Turner Classic Movies, Cartoon Network, and Boomerang.

No need to cause a rucus with channels that are not in dispute...


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

What about CNN and CNNfn?


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

CNN and CNNfn are not in dispute.



Chris Blount said:


> both companies are continuing discussions concerning carriage of key Turner nets: CNN Headline News, Turner Classic Movies, Boomerang and Cartoon Network. The companies didn't offer any details. The dispute doesn't involve other Turner networks, such as TBS and TNT.


Thanks Chris


----------

