# DirecTV™'s Fox agreements end at the end of November? (answer is "no")



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

My brother is a DirecTV™ subscriber but hasn't made the jump to HD yet. While at the Minnesota State Fair this summer, he signed up for DISH and their HD upgrade. He put off the installation until after a vacation to New England at the end of September. When he got back he heard about DISH losing the Fox RSN, and he does not want to lose Fox Sports North, so he put off the installation again until this is settled. In talking to the DISH scheduler he was told that DirecTV™'s Fox agreements run out at the end of November and that they will have the same problem negotiating with Fox. Does anyone here know if what the DISH guy told my brother is true?

I told him that he should call DirecTV™ about an upgrade and mention that he had signed up with DISH but hasn't installed yet and could they give him a great deal, including whole home. I hope they do.


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

Even if it is true, I put a bit more faith in DIRECTV to get the job done before it's an issue anyway.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Next year maybe or the year after. I'm sure it isn't this year. The COO of Fox is the former CEO of DirecTV. I like our chances.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Dish does seem to have more of these tiffs with carriers. DirecTV has a very strong sports customer base, not one they want to upset, at least the mainstream (we did lose Versus for quite a while until NHL season.)


----------



## kiknwing (Jun 24, 2009)

Hoosier205 said:


> Next year I believe...not sure what month. The COO of Fox is the former CEO of DirecTV. I like our chances.


With that and that directv group is a division of liberty media which owns a few fsn's. Odds are very good that there won't be a problem.


----------



## gphvid (Jun 19, 2007)

MikeR7 said:


> My brother is a DirecTV™ subscriber but hasn't made the jump to HD yet. While at the Minnesota State Fair this summer, he signed up for DISH and their HD upgrade. He put off the installation until after a vacation to New England at the end of September. When he got back he heard about DISH losing the Fox RSN, and he does not want to lose Fox Sports North, so he put off the installation again until this is settled. In talking to the DISH scheduler he was told that DirecTV™'s Fox agreements run out at the end of November and that they will have the same problem negotiating with Fox. Does anyone here know if what the DISH guy told my brother is true?
> 
> I told him that he should call DirecTV™ about an upgrade and mention that he had signed up with DISH but hasn't installed yet and could they give him a great deal, including whole home. I hope they do.


Sounds more like the scheduler is trying to keep a DISH subscriber from bolting...


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

The spat with Comcast over Versus is the ONLY dispute I can ever remember that caused a channel loss (Versus has been back since May-ish)


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Only Senior Team members at DirecTV would know when the current carriage licenses expire. The DISH guy was just trying to help stem what must feel like an exodus at DISH right now.

I don't see DirecTV risking losing the number of customers that DISH already has because of their failure to negotiate a new contract with FOX.


----------



## Joe Diver (Oct 12, 2006)

gphvid said:


> Sounds more like the scheduler is trying to keep a DISH subscriber from bolting...


I agree. Dish is scrambling to keep customers.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

gphvid said:


> Sounds more like the scheduler is trying to keep a DISH subscriber from bolting...


+1


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> The spat with Comcast over Versus is the ONLY dispute I can ever remember that caused a channel loss (Versus has been back since May-ish)


This isn't really a channel loss, but back in late 2001 Directv and the WWF got into a contract dispute carriage of their ppv's and they were not aired on there for a few months I don't think.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

zimm7778 said:


> This isn't really a channel loss, but back in late 2001 Directv and the WWF got into a contract dispute carriage of their ppv's and they were not aired on there for a few months I don't think.


Haha...the sounds more like a win for humanity.  Too bad it ended.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

kiknwing said:


> With that and that directv group is a division of liberty media which owns a few fsn's. Odds are very good that there won't be a problem.


IIRC they aren't anymore, and when they split from Liberty they also got Game Show Network and the FSN RSN's that Liberty had.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Haha...the sounds more like a win for humanity.  Too bad it ended.


I used to feel differently, but now having not watched, read about, or cared about anything they do since February I totally agree. I know it's predetermined, but 20 minutes of in ring action on a 2 hour show doesn't sound like "wrestling" to me.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Nice of you to make sure we all know that "DirecTV" is a trademarked name. However, it's actually a _registered_ trademark, so it takes a circle-R, not just a "TM." Perhaps you should leave all that business to the lawyers.

There was a full-page ad in the L.A. Times today reiterating that some Fox channels had already been removed from Dish, and that the local Fox affiliate was in danger of being dropped from Dish November 1st. It suggested switching to another provider, with the DirecTV logo right in the middle of the logos of all the other local providers. I think that's a pretty good sign that Fox is happy with DirecTV at present.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Can only hope. That's why I'm happy I'm out of contract and I'm avoiding any upgrades, etc., that would bind me to another two-year agreement. If this happens to DirecTV, I'll bolt.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

RAD said:


> IIRC they aren't anymore, and when they split from Liberty they also got Game Show Network and the FSN RSN's that Liberty had.


Yup .. DIRECTV is an independent company now. Sure, Liberty (and Malone) still own some stock, but last I checked, his voting power stopped @ 24%.

Still, I think DIRECTV & Fox have a much better relationship than DISH & Fox. Now, that being said .. a DISH CSR as the source of DIRECTV's contract situation .. well, let's just say, I'm not sure that's the best source. Sounds more like a tools to keep the customer than actual news.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

The only people who really lose in these situations are the customers who either have to wait for some time in order for the two sides to have a meeting of the minds, or they have to pay expensive early termination fees to change to a new provider.

Fox will end up getting its money from DISH, and DISH will compensate by getting more money from its customers.

Here's a thought, Charlie..."Cut to the chase and let's watch TV".


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

trainman said:


> Nice of you to make sure we all know that "DirecTV" is a trademarked name. However, it's actually a _registered_ trademark, so it takes a circle-R, not just a "TM." Perhaps you should leave all that business to the lawyers.


I just copied it from a heading on another forum for this site, and I like the way it looks. :lol:


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

FOX negotiations? No problem. How much do you want? No problem. March is coming soon when we zonk all of our subs with big package rate increases. We'll just add some to it to cover your new rate. Maybe we'll up the DVR fee another buck next time too to make up for those annoying subs who are getting HD for free.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Title thread...Not true


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"Satelliteracer" said:


> Title thread...Not true


Well that settles that! Thx satracer!


----------



## tenpins (Jan 19, 2010)

+1, perhaps the only other person to speak eloquently on the subject would be "The Shadow".


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I didn't think so...funny how rumors start.


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

Todays lesson not to trust CSRS from both sides on contract negotiations they are clueless.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

Actually, the official trademark is DIRECTV.


----------



## adkinsjm (Mar 25, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Yup .. DIRECTV is an independent company now. Sure, Liberty (and Malone) still own some stock, but last I checked, his voting power stopped @ 24%.
> 
> Still, I think DIRECTV & Fox have a much better relationship than DISH & Fox. Now, that being said .. a DISH CSR as the source of DIRECTV's contract situation .. well, let's just say, I'm not sure that's the best source. Sounds more like a tools to keep the customer than actual news.


Malone's voting power is 3 percent now.

http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=480109


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

adkinsjm said:


> Malone's voting power is 3 percent now.
> 
> http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=480109


well, there you go ..


----------



## SWORDFISH (Apr 16, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> Title thread...Not true





thelucky1 said:


> Well that settles that! Thx satracer!


That really didn't settle anything. All SR said is that the title of the thread is not true. The agreement could end November 1st or December 15th or whatever. We'll probably never know, unless the two sides start publicly bickering.

SF


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

SWORDFISH said:


> That really didn't settle anything. All SR said is that the title of the thread is not true. The agreement could end November 1st or December 15th or whatever. We'll probably never know, unless the two sides start publicly bickering.


Yeah because a DISH CSR is more likely to lead in the right direction regarding a DIRECTV contract than SR is.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Let me be clearer. It's a non issue for a long time. The thread of the title is wrong.


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> Let me be clearer. It's a non issue for a long time. The thread of the title is wrong.


I beg to differ. The title of the thread can not be wrong because it is a question. Only the answers to the question, yes or no can be wrong. :lol:

Thanks SR though for making it clear the answer is no.

I have counseled my brother and he is really seriously looking at reupping with
DIRECTV®


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

You're right. There is a question mark. My apologies. D* will not be immune to programming disputes as well. I don't think any MSO can anymore with the way things are going in the industry.


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

As long as I can get my FOX locals for Nascar and shows I'm happy.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> Let me be clearer. It's a non issue for a long time. The thread of the title is wrong.


I have heard rumors that an agreement between the two has already been reached and even more unreliable rumors of collusion between the two companies. Just rumors for other sources, and should be taken with a grain of salt


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

Which sources Dodger because if it is true then it shows D as the top fish in sports period they dont want to piss off any of the sports viewers bottom line. And I am one of those sports viewers.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

cjrleimer said:


> Which sources Dodger because if it is true then it shows D as the top fish in sports period they dont want to piss off any of the sports viewers bottom line. And I am one of those sports viewers.


Just a person that works for them. They are reliable about many Direct issues, but the collusion part is just a rumor that they told me and cannot confirm it at all. Also, usually the business decisions are secret and employees know as much as us


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

As conservative as DIRECTV has generally been regarding all legal issues (24 hour rule, distant locals, etc.) .. I think "collusion" is probably nothing more than someone making a misinformed guess and not based on anything factual.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

"Doug Brott" said:


> As conservative as DIRECTV has generally been regarding all legal issues (24 hour rule, distant locals, etc.) .. I think "collusion" is probably nothing more than someone making a misinformed guess and not based on anything factual.


I think that too is the case. It is probably someone drawing this conclusion simply because they came to an agreement so quickly (assuming they did agree)


----------



## Avder (Feb 6, 2010)

Doesn't DirecTV hold controlling interest in a few of the Fox sports channels?


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Whether the rumors are true or not, one of two things are certain to happen:


DirecTV, like DISH and Cablevision, will lose channels for a considerable length of time in a carriage dispute, after which subscribers will be paying higher prices for the same programming, or
DirecTV will not lose channels for a considerable length of time because a carriage agreement has been worked out, after which subscribers will be paying higher prices for the same programming.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Ira Lacher said:


> Whether the rumors are true or not, one of two things are certain to happen:
> 
> 
> DirecTV, like DISH and Cablevision, will lose channels for a considerable length of time in a carriage dispute, after which subscribers will be paying higher prices for the same programming, or
> DirecTV will not lose channels for a considerable length of time because a carriage agreement has been worked out, after which subscribers will be paying higher prices for the same programming.


Or a carriage agreement has been worked out and we will not be paying higher prices or they did not go up very much, because:


Direct has a better working relationship with Fox
Direct has more viewers and can get a better deal
Direct has more people watching RSNs because of the sports packs so Fox was able to give them a better deal
A combination of some of the above or all of the above


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

DodgerKing said:


> Or a carriage agreement has been worked out and we will not be paying higher prices or they did not go up very much, because:
> 
> 
> Direct has a better working relationship with Fox
> ...


Combination, plus throw in:

- DirecTV has full time HD RSNs, which means the value is better for the price
- DirecTV's placing of channels and RSNs is more in line with what Fox wants.

Seems a large part of the Fox dispute with Dish is package levels.


----------



## la24philly (Mar 9, 2010)

if im a betting man, i bet that directv and fox will reach n agreement before dish and cablevision does


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Satelliteracer said:


> Let me be clearer. It's a non issue for a long time. The thread of the title is wrong.





la24philly said:


> if im a betting man, i bet that directv and fox will reach n agreement before dish and cablevision does


Well since SatRacer said DirecTV and Fox don't have to renew their agreement for a long time looks like you'd win.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Yes, Virginia, there is nothing to see here ..


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

la24philly said:


> if im a betting man, i bet that directv and fox will reach n agreement before dish and cablevision does


Agreed, do you have any idea how stubborn Cablevision can be? Biggest market in the country and they quibble about such little things. That's the Dolans for you. I'll never forgive them for dropping the Yes Network in '02.

Rich


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

la24philly said:


> if im a betting man, i bet that directv and fox will reach n agreement before dish and cablevision does


It has already been done. I have heard from another source as well


----------



## d0ug (Mar 22, 2006)

trainman said:


> There was a full-page ad in the L.A. Times today reiterating that some Fox channels had already been removed from Dish, and that the local Fox affiliate was in danger of being dropped from Dish November 1st.


I've never understood the whole threat of dropping local affiliates. I thought cable and sat companies were mandated by the FCC to carry the locals and there was no money exchange taking place to carry the locals?


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

d0ug said:


> I've never understood the whole threat of dropping local affiliates. I thought cable and sat companies were mandated by the FCC to carry the locals and there was no money exchange taking place to carry the locals?


Not really a threat, since it's actually happened.


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

d0ug said:


> I've never understood the whole threat of dropping local affiliates. I thought cable and sat companies were mandated by the FCC to carry the locals and there was no money exchange taking place to carry the locals?


I believe they have to have the capability to carry the local and if the local elects for "must carry" status, then no money changes hands. If the MSO wants to provide a channel and the channel wants a carriage fee, then a contract must be agreed to.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Much to do about nothing.

Unlike 2 others...DirecTV will be dodging this viewing nightmare bullet.


----------



## calgary2800 (Aug 27, 2006)

I'm expecting a 3 dollar per month increase soon. Its fine with me, I left Dish knowing fair well I'll be paying more.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

calgary2800 said:


> I'm expecting a 3 dollar per month increase soon. Its fine with me, I left Dish knowing fair well I'll be paying more.


And you're basing that on what? I don't recall DirecTV doing a 'mid year' increase, they've been in the February/March time frame as far back as I can remember.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

d0ug said:


> I've never understood the whole threat of dropping local affiliates. I thought cable and sat companies were mandated by the FCC to carry the locals and there was no money exchange taking place to carry the locals?


"Must Carry" actually had a deadline (might be an annual deadline) in which that if any station is carried in a market, then any other station in the same market can claim "must carry" status and the satellite provider must carry that station as well. There are some other basic rules in place such that it must be an actual station, etc. etc.

However, 'must carry' does not imply 'must pay' .. A station that falls under must carry generally isn't going to also be asking for the sat provider to pay and I think the station simply can't have it both ways. Either it's must carry and there are no carriage fees or it's negotiated (not must carry) and there may be carriage fees. Often a local station is gonna say "thanks for carrying our signal" and be done with it, but other stations feel that their content is worth getting a kickback from the sat provider(a legal kickback, in this case).

So in other words, it doesn't work both ways. A sat provider can't claim must-carry against a content provider, but a content-provider can claim must-carry against the sat provider. If the content provider refuses to allow their content to be redistributed by the sat provider, then the sat provider would be in violation of Copyright laws if they didn't pull the signal.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

The current agreement does not end until well after 2010


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Since this thread's question has been asked and answered (now in the title itself, no less), I think we can close it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

ATARI said:


> Since this thread's question has been asked and answered (now in the title itself, no less), I think we can close it.


One would think so....otherwise some might interpret this as rubbing the Dish problems in their followers' faces.


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

ATARI said:


> Since this thread's question has been asked and answered (now in the title itself, no less), I think we can close it.


I agree:lol:


----------

