# Dish subscribers, be aware of the Fox/DirecTV dispute



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

For those who aren't aware of it, check out the thread Fox / Newscorp channels possibly suspended Nov. 1. For those of you who are new or have short memories, you may also want to review the thread Dish Retrans Dispute with Fox over 50% Hike (Channels Off 10-1-2010).

In the last two years, News Corp (aka Fox) has forced its broadcast channel affiliates to agree to pay News Corp $1 per month per subscriber from retrans fees which the affiliates will have to collect from you. Those affiliates that disagreed Fox dumped. That's how they play the game.

In a gutsy move I would have only expected from Dish's Charlie Ergen, after months of negotiations DirecTV has notified New Corp management that without an acceptable contract by November 1 it will drop FX, National Geographic Channel, Speed, Fuel TV, Fox Soccer, Fox Soccer Plus, Fox Movie Channel, Fox Deportes and the 19 Fox regional sports networks.

If that actually happens, I intend to tell neighbors who have DirecTV that they can come to my house to watch programming from the channels I get that DirecTV dropped.

IMHO the retransmission fee issue must be addressed directly by those who end up paying, meaning we the viewers whenever we can. We know Congress isn't going to help, though New Corp's recent highly publicized criminal activities have made the company less desirable for politicians to be associated with. It's up to us.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

We can only hope this happens... not to "get even" so DirecTV customers get to experience something Dish customers have seen recently... but so that the negotiations between the channels and the cable/satellite companies will start being a bit more reasonable.

When Dish was the one fighting most publicly people tended to dismiss Dish... and DirecTV would take advantage (yeah, Dish takes advantage when the shoe is on the other foot)... but IF DirecTV took a bunch of these channels off-air OR were forced to do so by FOX... that would let everyone know it isn't just Dish being the odd man.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

For once I wish DTV good luck. And to News Corp. let me remind them that I was a regular viewer of Sons of Anarchy until they pulled the plug on DISH. It lasted long enough that I never went back to SOA after service was restored. Guess that was one case where Gordon Geko was wrong. Greed just cost them a viewer.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> FX, National Geographic Channel, Speed, Fuel TV, Fox Soccer, Fox Soccer Plus, Fox Movie Channel, Fox Deportes and the 19 Fox regional sports networks.


You know, I haven't watched anything on FX since the mess last year. I've watched a few things on NatGeo and maybe one or two on Fox Movies, but none of the others. To me, this should be a package provided free to the carriers supported only by their advertising and sports contracts. It just isn't worth anything at all to me.

Many of the programs on FX are available OTA if you get a Fox affiliate anyways.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

There must be some mistake. This stuff only happens to Dish. I've read that right here in these forums.


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

I support Dish Network when this has happened, and I support DirecTv in their fight. The broadcasters should be happy for the extra eyes on their programs and commercials (even with a DVR, you see bits of them and I have actually gone back to see what some were), but they have to try to bleed us too. I think they should pay the sat companies to get on their systems!

Good luck, DirecTv!


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

I'm not one who believes in governmental intervention, however in the case of pay-TV it's getting ridiculous. The networks want it both ways, subscriber fees and advertizing revenue. Tell FOX, O.K. you want $1 per sub, then show NO COMMERCIALS - you are the same as HBO. 

My EPG is full of the same listing: "paid programming"  For every one of those scheduled that is how much the subscriber fee drops. There are so many now they should pay me to have the channel turned on.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I wouldn't even mind if they ran a few scamfomercials over night if the regular programming was commercial free.


----------



## dishman1999 (Sep 26, 2011)

Charise said:


> I support Dish Network when this has happened, and I support DirecTv in their fight. The broadcasters should be happy for the extra eyes on their programs and commercials (even with a DVR, you see bits of them and I have actually gone back to see what some were), but they have to try to bleed us too. I think they should pay the sat companies to get on their systems!
> 
> Good luck, DirecTv!


no way I would wish Directv anything! Curbstomp them out of biz so Dish network can own them!


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> I wouldn't even mind if they ran a few scamfomercials over night if the regular programming was commercial free.


What is "overnight" for you is not so to other viewers. Remember satellite TV serves the CONUS plus Alaska and Hawaii. So a 3 AM infomercial in eastern time is 12 midnight on the West Coast and even earlier in AK/HI.

If the broadcast networks want to show paid programming they need to significantly discount the per subscriber fees and not ask for these outrageous increases. Broadcast stations in particular should not be asked for these fees as long as the same channel is made available for free OTA.

Like I said before I'm not one to get the government involved, however if content providers can't play fair maybe we need to sic Congress on their sorry behinds.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Charise said:


> I support Dish Network when this has happened, and I support DirecTv in their fight.
> Good luck, DirecTv!


+1


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

Maybe I don't it get but what does this have to do with E*?


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

cj9788 said:


> Maybe I don't it get but what does this have to do with E*?


Dish will likely face the same issue with Fox.


----------



## dishman1999 (Sep 26, 2011)

klang said:


> Dish will likely face the same issue with Fox.


dish already sign a contract with fox and I call the said it a long term deal!"After prolonged negotiations to reach a fair deal, we're pleased to enter into a long term agreement with Fox and to assure our customers that they can continue to enjoy these channels," said Dave Shull, senior vice president of programming for Dish Network in a statement. "We thank our customers, our retail and channel partners, and our employees for their support through these negotiations, which we believe resulted in a fair deal that reinforces Dish Network's position as the best value in television."

http://www.multichannel.com/article/459190-Dish_Fox_Reach_Retrans_Deal.php


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

cj9788 said:


> Maybe I don't it get but what does this have to do with E*?


It doesn't have anything to do with Dish Network directly. If nothing else we need to provide a sympathetic ear to those on this forum who are DirecTV customers.

Right now News Corp (aka Fox) is the worst example, but what the cable and broadcast channel owners have been doing is picking off piecemeal one signal provider after another demanding large retransmission fee increases.

These fee increases will ultimately get passed on to the subscriber. At some point, if the satellite and cable systems don't fight back TV is going to become unaffordable for a lot of people.

Dish Network consistently has resisted fee increase demands including against News Corp (see the thread Dish Retrans Dispute with Fox over 50% Hike (Channels Off 10-1-2010)). That DirecTV has taken a really aggressive stance is worth noting and supporting as a TV programming consumer even if my provider is Dish.

I personally don't care where my neighbors get their TV signals, but I do know we're all in the same boat when it comes to the big media conglomerates. If one provider aggressively takes on big media and my neighbors are affected, I'll do what I can to encourage them to just sit back and let the battle unfold. If they are going to miss some programming, I'll invite them to come to my house to watch rather than grumble at DirecTV.

We Dish subscribers know that the next big one for Dish is likely to be Disney which includes cable channels and ABC owned and operated broadcast locals.


----------



## dishman1999 (Sep 26, 2011)

phrelin said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with Dish Network directly. If nothing else we need to provide a sympathetic ear to those on this forum who are DirecTV customers.
> 
> Right now News Corp (aka Fox) is the worst example, but what the cable and broadcast channel owners have been doing is picking off piecemeal one signal provider after another demanding large retransmission fee increases.
> 
> ...


well I guess see ya ESPN I don't care I will tap into my cable!


----------



## bnborg (Jun 3, 2005)

Competition is good. I support DirecTV in their fight.

I do admit I watch Speed and Hockey on FOXN. It seems that Hockey is the only game in town now.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

phrelin said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with Dish Network directly. If nothing else we need to provide a sympathetic ear to those on this forum who are DirecTV customers.
> 
> Right now News Corp (aka Fox) is the worst example, but what the cable and broadcast channel owners have been doing is picking off piecemeal one signal provider after another demanding large retransmission fee increases.
> 
> ...


Wise words. "The enemy of my enemy is sometimes my friend".


----------



## cabletech (Jan 20, 2011)

There is referance to watching some of these stations on cable, WELL I HATE TO TELL YOU, but the cable company's have the same problem as were do you think they get the programing to put on the cable? FROM THE SATELLITES. I have a neighbor that works for the local cable company and I also used to work for them and I can tell you this last go around for a retrans fee form a major network work cost the cable co. $1.25 a sub, now x that by 600,000 (just in my area) and the network gets $750,000 A MONTH.

Networks get rich, every one else goes broke.


----------



## gsocal2011 (Oct 23, 2011)

Dish subscribers shouldn't be affected by this. It's negotiations between Fox and DirectTV right?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Apparently you're not familiar with the recent history of this dispute.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

gsocal2011 said:


> Dish subscribers shouldn't be affected by this. It's negotiations between Fox and DirectTV right?


Yes. However, based on Dish losing Fox channels last year for about 3 weeks I fully expect it to happen again the next contract. I'm just curious as to how long D* will go dark on those channels. If it does.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I'd still like to know who blinked last year and how that might affect any blackout with Direct.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

How were the RSN's outside of those FOX Sports Net markets affected. I heard that inside those markets they took off the Fox sports net Programing, but was the fox sports net programing on other RSN's affected for those outside of those FOX sports net markets.


----------



## wildbilll (Aug 29, 2011)

I don't get the retransmission fees.
A programming source wants someone to pay to carry the signal?
They get money for the commercials based on the number of viewers, right?
So when Direct TV stops retransmitting these signals, doesn't the number of viewers of the show and commercials go down? Does this not mean less cash to the originator of the program?
What am I missing?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

wildbilll said:


> What am I missing?


Corporate greed and consumer complacency.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

wildbilll said:


> I don't get the retransmission fees.
> A programming source wants someone to pay to carry the signal?
> They get money for the commercials based on the number of viewers, right?
> So when Direct TV stops retransmitting these signals, doesn't the number of viewers of the show and commercials go down? Does this not mean less cash to the originator of the program?
> What am I missing?


Nothing except the role of greed in human nature.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

wildbilll said:


> I don't get the retransmission fees.
> A programming source wants someone to pay to carry the signal?
> They get money for the commercials based on the number of viewers, right?
> So when Direct TV stops retransmitting these signals, doesn't the number of viewers of the show and commercials go down? Does this not mean less cash to the originator of the program?
> What am I missing?


Well... technically what you are missing is that the ad rates are typically set during "sweeps" weeks... so as long as the channels aren't pulled during those weeks, the ad rates are already set for the upcoming period AND usually the commercial ads are already sold... so it isn't like FOX had to give refunds on the advertising revenue they had already collected.

Now IF it ran through a "sweeps" period, then it might translate to lower ad revenue in the future if the advertisers refused to pay the old/higher rates due to the channel being off-air for some time in the past.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Greed, SCHMEED.

This is the way capitalism works boys, the seller wants the highest possible price for his wares and the buyer wants to pay the least he has to pay.

It is a negotiation, we as the end consumer may be temporarily disappointed with not having our beloved channels (REALLY - REMEMBER ITS ONLY TV) it is not the end of the world if Fox goes dark for a while, you might rediscover your family.

I really hate the overuse of the term greed, MSNBC has a show called American Greed. Well if it werent for American Greed we would be still in the dark ages.

Greed propels all economies, without it there is stagnation.

Even the Occupy Wallstreet kind are really just jealousy about greed, the "rich" have it and I want it.

My greed is good, your is bad.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> Greed, SCHMEED.
> 
> This is the way capitalism works boys,


Worked out real good for Enron. I would have no problem with the way it worked, if I could negotiate. Since I am forced to use a proxy (DirecTv, Dish, Comcast, etc), I have no say in the matter except to switch providers if my proxy doesnt negotiate in my best interests.

For example, I personally would negotiate a price per channel, say the price paid to HBO for each channel, and then subtract a percentage for each and every commercial shown. I see no reason I should have to pay to watch commercials. I would much prefer a commercial free option for a higher price. Since I am not involved in negotiations, I have no way to make that happen. So, its not exactly capitalism in this case.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

On the tangent of greed...

There are two kinds of greed to me...

1. Greed that drives you to excel in order to "have the most toys"

2. Greed that drives you to try and get the most toys.

The difference is subtle.

#1 means you are motivated by your greed to innovate, create, and generally produce things that people want in order to increase your own self-worth. This kind of greed is good because it actually benefits everyone!

#2, however, means you are only motivated to increase your own self-worth... and care not if you actually innovate or create anything of value. This kind of greed is bad because it only benefits you, and only then for a short-term until the bubble collapses.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> On the tangent of greed...
> 
> There are two kinds of greed to me...
> 
> ...


+1

Very well said.

A little greed is good. It is part of the drive.

When greed is the entire, consuming focus it becomes destructive.

I don't know the schedule of contracts between Fox and Dish, nor how many contracts there are for that matter. DIRECTV might be the precursor to the Dish/Fox negotiation. (Just like the United Auto Workers would pick one of the automakers as the test case each time the next round started.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> On the tangent of greed...
> 
> There are two kinds of greed to me...
> 
> ...


Greed #1 is really great when it relies to low wages, bad working conditions, and a poor workforce to gain wealth.This kind of greed keeps the poor poor and makes the rich richer. (and is a microcosm of the debate going on in Washington)

I have watched countless families decimated here in the Midwest from Greed #1. It is neither healthly for the individual (since lying underneath is often Greed #2) nor is it good for society.

Just my opinion and I have no desire to debate this.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> +1
> 
> DIRECTV might be the precursor to the Dish/Fox negotiation. (Just like the United Auto Workers would pick one of the automakers as the test case each time the next round started.)
> 
> ...


Since Fox went dark for 29 days on Dish last fall I would say Dish was the precursor. I just wonder if DirecTV will let them go dark and if so for how long.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> On the tangent of greed...
> 
> There are two kinds of greed to me...
> 
> ...


The #1 greed is the kind that drove Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, among others.
Also with #1 greed would be the artists / producers that create the content we enjoy.

#2 greed is what drives the RIAA/ MPAA etc.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It has been interesting to see the "drop DirecTV" commercials on Fox channels, featuring the DISH Network logo as an option for continuing to receive programming.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

James Long said:


> It has been interesting to see the "drop DirecTV" commercials on Fox channels, featuring the DISH Network logo as an option for continuing to receive programming.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Well... technically what you are missing is that the ad rates are typically set during "sweeps" weeks... so as long as the channels aren't pulled during those weeks, the ad rates are already set for the upcoming period AND usually the commercial ads are already sold... so it isn't like FOX had to give refunds on the advertising revenue they had already collected.
> 
> Now IF it ran through a "sweeps" period, then it might translate to lower ad revenue in the future if the advertisers refused to pay the old/higher rates due to the channel being off-air for some time in the past.


Did someone say "sweeps" months?

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/public factsheets/tv/2011-2012-Sweeps-Dates.pdf


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

and they wonder why torrents are so popular............


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

brucegrr said:


> Greed #1 is really great when it relies to low wages, bad working conditions, and a poor workforce to gain wealth.This kind of greed keeps the poor poor and makes the rich richer. (and is a microcosm of the debate going on in Washington)
> 
> I have watched countless families decimated here in the Midwest from Greed #1. It is neither healthly for the individual (since lying underneath is often Greed #2) nor is it good for society.
> 
> Just my opinion and I have no desire to debate this.


I hear you... and not to debate you  but I tend to put what you describe into category #2 greed myself. Perhaps I oversimplify by only having two kinds though 

But... to my mind, there shouldn't be a need to stomp on people on your climb up the success ladder. I'm not perfect, and probably not fair all the time... but I would never consciously build my success on the suffering of someone else. It just wouldn't sit right with me to do that.

I worked for a company that before the economy went south was already looking to layoff people and cut contractor pay in order to boost quarterly profits. Instead of innovating or expanding their market by building better or newer product, they chose instead to cut costs and ask people to do more work for less money.

This is a bad way to do business... at best it is short-sighted... but at worst, should ultimately pave the way towards the eventual failure of your business.

But back to the topic at hand...

I thought that when Dish went through this late last year, they got a contract that would lock things up for a while... so probably no danger YET of a revisit with this at Dish... but I hope DirecTV does well in their negotiations because no doubt IF DirecTV takes a hard line and wins something, it will benefit Dish the next time the contract does come up.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

Several years ago the cable MSO COX went through the same thing. At the time our local FOX station was an O&O (one of the "New World" stations that previously was the long-time CBS affiliate). The slogan "put FOX on COX" was used to rally the viewers. The big difference here is you did not need cable to get the station, the transmitter site is passed by COX's lines. COX put several Encore theme channels in place of ch 8 until the dispute was resolved. All the viewers needed was rabbit ears to restore ch 8. No other FOX network (that I can recall) was affected. 

The fact that it go to the point where a local cable company had to pull a popular local station shows a pattern that the negotiation tactics of News Corp take for a long time.

Bottom line, they never learn or they are successful at getting what they want.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

I support all channel providers in their efforts to achieve fair pricing for their subscribers.


The thing I enjoy when channels go dark during negotiations is that that channel get's replaced by the channel provider with a channel you don't normally subscribe to.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> It has been interesting to see the "drop DirecTV" commercials on Fox channels, featuring the DISH Network logo as an option for continuing to receive programming.


Should have a PS under that Dish Logo (Disney and ABC Family HD viewers not included)


----------



## JWKessler (Jun 3, 2004)

cabletech said:


> There is referance to watching some of these stations on cable, WELL I HATE TO TELL YOU, but the cable company's have the same problem


My local cable company has even lost OTA broadcast networks this way. Local cable subscribers were without the local ABC affiliate for several months a couple of years ago. I'm not sure how a local channel losing thousands of viewers does that channel any good, but that is how they see it. Frankly I think they should be happy to have their ad supported signal delivered to their viewers at no cost to them.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

Tom Robertson said:


> +1
> 
> Very well said.
> 
> ...


If i remember correctly the Dish/News Corp contract was for 5 years.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

Our congress has gone too far to preserve the "free market" and has ended up destroying it so that only large corporations have an advantage and this discourages "greed #1 (innovation)." The free market does not mean an anarchist market and this is what our congress has failed to realize.

An example is the media where congress removed all of the ownership rules, passed retrans consent, and the satellite carriage rules. All of this is pro big business and anti consumer. Furthermore, with the media, it is anti-democratic because the the significant reduction in the number of voices that reach the masses.

The big balance is to try and encourage greed #1 and discourage greed #2. Instead, our congress has done the opposite. There is now little innovation in media and they are just trying to put on the cheapest crap that people will watch and trying to charge more for it.


----------



## john262 (Oct 26, 2011)

phrelin said:


> though New Corp's recent highly publicized criminal activities have made the company less desirable for politicians to be associated with. It's up to us.


You mean alleged criminal activities. They haven't been convicted of anything.


----------



## jlafount (Jan 29, 2003)

I just saw a banner while watching The Simpsons that my local Fox and ABC channels would be taken off Dish if the company, Max Media, doesn't get it's way. What a joke.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

jlafount said:


> I just saw a banner while watching The Simpsons that my local Fox and ABC channels would be taken off Dish if the company, Max Media, doesn't get it's way. What a joke.


I've started a thread specific to these "negotiations" - Montana & Kentucky channels may be pulled.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Let'em pull'em.

Let Fox get nothing.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

It was announced in the thread Fox / Newscorp channels possibly suspended Nov. 1 that a deal has been reached. In the NY Times, it is being reported:


> Notably, the deal includes DirecTV's distribution for the Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network and Fox-owned television stations. Those channels and stations were not immediately vulnerable to a blackout on Nov. 1, but Fox had warned that they could be affected by a feud in the near future.


This seems like DirecTV got at least some concessions by covering those additional channels in whatever deal was struck.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Did anyone seriously think DirecTV, given their history would let those channels go dark? What are the odds D* will settle with Belo toniight?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Yes, I thought it could happen. Remember Vs. and G4?

I'm very glad smart minds managed to keep the lights on.

Cheers,
Tom


----------

