# If you are interested and have the time...



## dougmcbride (Apr 17, 2005)

I'd ask that you lobby Dish to add National Geographic HD when it becomes available. I don't think it has to be wordy, but just something to let the programming department know if you are interested. I used the email link at http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/faq/index.shtml and just said I'd be very interested in receiving National Geographic HD. I received a reply after just a few hours that they would pass the input along.

Thanks,

Doug


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

Clearly I need _yet another _hi-def channel showing me world terrain. :nono:


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

More HD content is a good thing.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

There is a conflict of interest because National Geographic HD and DirecTV are both owned by FOX. If Dish buys National Geographic HD, some of that money will find its way into new DirecTV satellites. DirecTV thinks that people will be less likely to choose Dish if there is no National Geographic HD. The result is there is little incentive for Dish and National Geographic HD to reach an agreement on price.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

Hmmm..... Maybe that is one of the reasons that FX is not HD. I would surely take FX in HD over National Geographic but as with all of this, it kind of boils down to personal preferences. 

..Doyle


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> There is a conflict of interest because National Geographic HD and DirecTV are both owned by FOX. If Dish buys National Geographic HD, some of that money will find its way into new DirecTV satellites. DirecTV thinks that people will be less likely to choose Dish if there is no National Geographic HD. The result is there is little incentive for Dish and National Geographic HD to reach an agreement on price.


DirectTV is still in the business to make money. I'm sure they are trying to work out a reasonable agreement on NGHD. If NewsCorp wanted to play hardball like that, they would have done it with FoxNews.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

CNN got premium placement in AT60, whereas FoxNews got the misfortune of being in AT120. I think a big reason for this placement is the conflict of interest.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

For me it would seem that FoxNews is in the AT120 and above tiers as an incentive for people to upgrade to a higher Tier than AT60. If all of the good stuff is in the lowest Tier then there is minimal incentive to upgrade. Similarly, if you want Golf or Military Channel, you have to go for the AT180. 

..Doyle


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> CNN got premium placement in AT60, whereas FoxNews got the misfortune of being in AT120. I think a big reason for this placement is the conflict of interest.


I very seriously doubt NewsCorp specifically asked for less subscribers for FoxNews in order to spite Dish.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

FoxNews would prefer to be AT60, but Dish won’t let them move up. From a channel’s point of view, AT60 is the best place to be. It’s hard to get favorable contract terms when you are competing with your customers. Dish would be offering NGHD better terms if there was not the DirecTV association. If Dish does add NGHD, it’s likely Dish will be paying a lot less than it pays for Discovery HD.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> FoxNews would prefer to be AT60, but Dish won't let them move up. From a channel's point of view, AT60 is the best place to be. It's hard to get favorable contract terms when you are competing with your customers. Dish would be offering NGHD better terms if there was not the DirecTV association. If Dish does add NGHD, it's likely Dish will be paying a lot less than it pays for Discovery HD.


Of course FoxNews would prefer to be in AT60. Dish is not stupid, though. They will place a popular channel wherever they think they can get the most value, regardless of who owns them. FoxNews recently jacked up their fees to all providers (well deserved IMHO). I'm sure the increased rate had alot to do with FoxNews staying in it's current tier.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> ..They will place a popular channel wherever they think they can get the most value, regardless of who owns them....


 How does the current state produce more value than FoxNews in AT60 and CNN in AT120? How does DHD produce more value than NGHD?


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> How does the current state produce more value than FoxNews in AT60 and CNN in AT120? How does DHD produce more value than NGHD?


Because in AT60, Dish would have to pay FoxNews for all the extra subscribers. So the question is, would Dish get more money in increased subs with FoxNews in AT60 vs the extra money they would have to pay Fox for same. Also, as DoyleS said, they may also be thinking they can entice people into the higher tier with that channel.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> Because in AT60, Dish would have to pay FoxNews for all the extra subscribers.


The extra subscribers benefit Fox more than Dish. The payment goes the other way. Dish basically pays off channels to be in the higher tiers. Every channel placement is about tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs are influenced by ownership.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> The extra subscribers benefit Fox more than Dish. The payment goes the other way. Dish basically pays off channels to be in the higher tiers. Every channel placement is about tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs are influenced by ownership.


Extra subcribers benefit Fox more than Dish???? Really?? Let's see. An extra sub for Dish is minimally $30/month. An extra sub for FoxNews is roughly 50cents/mos.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

Maybe Dish wanted a news channel in the Dish 60 package and thought Fox, as an entertainment channel, fit in the top 120 and higher.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

This pretty much seems like Marketing 101 to me. The first job is to get customers in the door. You do that with the AT60 tier. You have to give services that are superior to what they would get from OTA reception. CNN was one of the original distinctions in that category. Their news was worldwide, and they had coverage that surpassed what was available from the Networks. They were in pretty much the original tiers for both Cable and Satellite. So in one aspect, they are expected when you go to a service like Dish or Cable or why would you bother? Then along came the competing channels. MSNBC, Fox News, Bloomberg, BBC. AT this point, the marketing guy looks at his offerings and says which ones will people pay an additional premium for. Fox News is in that category. When you go to the 2nd Tier you get a bit wider variety of News stations. Fox News, MSNBC, BBC America. At the same time they throw in better music with Sirius and more depth in sports etc. When you go to the AT180 you really get a few premium channels (Golf, Bloomberg, Military etc and a bunch of movie channels along with all of the Discovery channels. There would be no advantage to putting a lot of premium channels in the lowest tier. Dish would have to pay Turner or Fox or whoever for each subscriber. Probably a lower fee but Dish would still pay more. The goal for Dish is to make more margin for Dish and have premium channels for those willing to pay the extra for it. The golf nut pretty much has to go for the top package if he wants to watch golf. ( although it seems that you might have been able to order golf as an ala carte)

Personally I am coming up on a transition in my viewing. With all of the new HD stations, there is enough content there that I no longer need the AT 180 tier. I am not interested in watching Low Rez movies and that is pretty much the differentiator between the AT180 and the AT120. I can do better with Netflix or what is available from the HD movie channels along with my 622.

..doyle


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Here is a news story on conflicts of interest where TV programmers compete with their customers.

http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=dji-00075920060321&feed=dji&date=20060321


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

That's a good article and it really shows how much infighting is going on trying to maintain each of their turfs against new competitors. The difficulty is that your technology only gives you a market advantage until the next new technology comes along. OTA had the advantage then Cable upstaged them with more channels. Direct and Dish entered along with some has beens and were able to get a foothold because of their delivery method into markets that Cable could not service because the wires were not in place. Now the phone guys are entering in because of the bandwidth available due to Fiber and the fact that their wires are pretty much in place. Blockbuster took a major chunk out of HBO and Showtime which forced both of them into more specials and original programming (Sopranos, Deadwood, etc). Netflix pretty much has eaten Blockbusters lunch by eliminating late fees and 1 day delivery at a fixed cost per month. As soon as the sports guys figure out how to take advantage of a nationwide market, you will see a lot of the blackouts eliminated as well as out of market restrictions. Each of these guys just wants a fair share. I saw in the paper the other day that although Apple sells most all CDs for $9.95, the record companies get a higher per album profit than they do selling CDs for $15-$17 each through traditional markets. Apple wasn't greedy they gave the record companies a better deal than they were getting and in exchange put money in their own pocket using iTunes and an infrastructure that was already in place. 

I personally think Dish sees the next big competition in the HD field. They just have had a major rollout of new receivers with great features along with beefing up their HD offerings and restructuring their pricing to entice rapid adoption of HD. Content will be key so look for more of these negotiations as each side tries to lock down their content. 

..Doyle


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> Here is a news story on conflicts of interest where TV programmers compete with their customers.
> 
> http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=dji-00075920060321&feed=dji&date=20060321


Noone will argue that these conflicts can be an issue. I do not see it as applying to negotiations between NewsCorp and Dish, however. NewsCorp is primarily a content company that happens to also own DirectTV. They are not going to jeopardize their core business to theoretically perhaps steal some subs from Dish. As far as Dish goes, these Fox channels are far too valuable. They would lose alot more in lost subs than they might gain by sticking it to NewsCorp.

Finally, NewsCorp had to agree to allow FCC arbitration of any subscriber fee complaints as a condition of their being allowed to buy DirectTV. In other words, they promised to play fair and not use their content channels as leverage to help DirectTV. Any evidence of giving Dish a raw deal vs. other providers would bring trouble.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Although FOX/Dish agreements are not as extreme as sticking it to each other, some of their actions only make sense if you look at conflicts of interests as a reason. Another example is why not make Sunday Ticket a channel under their programming group and sell it to everyone? If a company has a conflict of interest, they cannot simply turn it off during negotiations.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> Although FOX/Dish agreements are not as extreme as sticking it to each other, some of their actions only make sense if you look at conflicts of interests as a reason. Another example is why not make Sunday Ticket a channel under their programming group and sell it to everyone? If a company has a conflict of interest, they cannot simply turn it off during negotiations.


I still fail to see any specific example of how any E*/NewsCorp agreements were influenced by conflicts of interest.

Regarding Sunday Ticket, this is NOT NewsCorp programming. Sunday Ticket is owned by the NFL. Of course it is in DirectTV's interest to get an exclusive license. They have no power (or reason since they don't own it) to market this to anyone else.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

It is a little easier with the Sports packages to keep this stuff locked up so that it is a competitive advantage for DirectTV. The NFL already has tons of restrictions with regard to blackouts tied to seat sales and programming in distant markets and rebroadcast of events. DirectTV basically can take advantage of that by negotiating and exclusive license. I am sure the dialog at that negotiation went along the lines of , 'If you want an exclusive on Sunday ticket it will be this price and if you allow us to sell it to Dish or the Cable guys, it will be this price". DirectTV pays a real premium to keep it exclusive and as a result, it would never show up in a channel package, it has to be sold as +$100/subscriber special. Fox News on the other hand as an ala Carte program might be worth at most $1-$1.50/month and even then it wouldn't bring Fox or Dish the revenue that it gets by helping push people towards higher tier packages. 

..Doyle


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

If I understand what you are saying it is that sports programming is so valuable that the value cannot be fully realized with simple customer dollars. Therefore, the total value can only be realized by combining a customer price plus a loss leader value. I’m from the school the money compensates for everything, so I don’t think the NFL’s strategy would work if D and Fox were separate. If the companies where separate, I think a more likely scenario would have been for Fox to outbid D with the intention of selling to everyone. The only other programmer that had this ability is Disney, but since they already have ESPN, a national network showing football games, they didn’t want to compete with themselves.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

Not exactly what I meant. With the NFL package, the price is very high with respect to a customers monthly bill. There is no way that D* or E* could put a package like that in their AT60/120/180 (I don't know what the D* packages are so I am using E* for examples) packages as it would inflate everyones bill heavily. As a result, it is an ala Carte package and those that want it have to bear the full cost of the package plus the necessary margin to DirectTV. People that really want that package first of all have to be D* subscribers. That is a competitive advantage for D*. Second, they have to pay the premium price for the package which they typically have no problem with. A person can be a bottom level subscriber to D* and still subscribe to the NFL package. There is no motivation coming from the NFL package to upgrade to a higher tier. 
The situation with Fox News is interesting. D* offers Fox News, BBC and Bloomberg in all of its packages. E* offers them in higher tiers only. Both add lots of movie channels for their top tier. Although, it is a little like comparing apples and oranges since both companies have structured their packages differently. 

..Doyle


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

DoyleS said:


> The situation with Fox News is interesting. D* offers Fox News, BBC and Bloomberg in all of its packages. E* offers them in higher tiers only. Both add lots of movie channels for their top tier. Although, it is a little like comparing apples and oranges since both companies have structured their packages differently.
> ..Doyle


D* can offer FoxNews in the lowest tier because they don't have to worry about paying for the increased number of subs (they'd be essentially paying themselves).


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

DoyleS said:


> ...That is a competitive advantage for D*. ..


You are making the assumption that the value of this competitive advantage is greater than the combined value of Sunday Ticket to E, cable, and fiber. I on the other hand, think the increased sales from all those others would be greater than the single profit D makes from customer's moving/staying with D because of ST.

Basically, what I am saying is it is a bad business practice to complete with your customers. Fox is not somehow immune to this business rule and that is the reason there is not yet NGHD on Dish.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> D* can offer FoxNews in the lowest tier because they don't have to worry about paying for the increased number of subs (they'd be essentially paying themselves).


FoxNews is cheaper than CNN to both D and E.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> You are making the assumption that the value of this competitive advantage is greater than the combined value of Sunday Ticket to E, cable, and fiber. I on the other hand, think the increased sales from all those others would be greater than the single profit D makes from customer's moving/staying with D because of ST.


Once again, D* does not own Sunday Ticket. They cannot sell it to anyone else.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> FoxNews is cheaper than CNN to both D and E.


Not sure that's true after the latest rate increase.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> Once again, D* does not own Sunday Ticket. They cannot sell it to anyone else.


What do you call buying exclusive rights, if not ownership? If Fox bought ST without D, they would have negotiated a resale deal, like ESPN.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> What do you call buying exclusive rights, if not ownership? If Fox bought ST without D, they would have negotiated a resale deal, like ESPN.


What are you talking about? D* bought exclusive rights to carry ST thru 2009. How does this translate into ownership? They did not buy exclusive rights to do whatever they want with ST, ie. resell to cable cos.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

I would assume that D* has negotiated an exclusive license for delivery of Sunday Ticket on their system. Nothing more. Similar to buying a CD. You have a limited use right. NFL lawyers would have to be incredibly limited to have allowed D* the right to sell ST to other people. Highly unlikely we will know the details of that level of negotiation so pretty much all is speculation.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> What are you talking about? D* bought exclusive rights to carry ST thru 2009.


That is one way of looking at it, except I look this deal differently. I see it as Fox bought rights to ST. Who do you think owns the rights Fox purchased?



DoyleS said:


> NFL lawyers would have to be incredibly limited to have allowed D* the right to sell ST to other people.


Are you trying to tell me there is some legal reason the NFL sold the rights to resale games to Disney (ABC & ESPN), but not Fox (ST). In fact, Fox already resells games in the form of franchised local networks.

If you are trying to say Fox did not choose to buy the ability to resell ST, than that I agree. What we disagree on is why Fox made this choice. Show me how this choice is made because of something other than Fox ownership of D?


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> If you are trying to say Fox did not choose to buy the ability to resell ST, than that I agree. What we disagree on is why Fox made this choice. Show me how this choice is made because of something other than Fox ownership of D?


What makes you assume the NFL offered Fox resale rights for ST? NFL certainly got Premium pricing for ST from D* due to the exclusivity. If NFL wanted to sell ST to the rest of the Cable Cos and E*, they would have done so themselves.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> Are you trying to tell me there is some legal reason the NFL sold the rights to resale games to Disney (ABC & ESPN), but not Fox (ST). In fact, Fox already resells games in the form of franchised local networks.


Comparing Apple to Oranges. ABC & ESPN are channels. D* is a service provider.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> What makes you assume the NFL offered Fox resale rights for ST?..


Because the NFL offered resale rights to everyone else.



LtMunst said:


> &#8230;If NFL wanted to sell ST to the rest of the Cable Cos and E*, they would have done so themselves.


Selling programming directly to cable and E is outside of the NFL's core competency. This is why they needed Fox as a middleman. In this case Fox is an NFL customer, and they don't want to be in the business of competing with their customers.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

NFL ST is a competitive advantage because even the D* CEO says it is.

"DirecTV has made Sunday Ticket the centerpiece of its subscriber-acquisition campaigns, and it ran a media blitz this fall, offering new customers that ordered Sunday Ticket four free months of its Total Choice programming package."

“Sunday Ticket is probably the most important feature of DirecTV to really establish it as a leader in subscription television,” DirecTV Group Inc. CEO Chase Carey told analysts on a conference call last week."

This is a quote from right after the D* outbid everyone and locked up ST until 2010. All of the other players folded when the price went from $400M/yr to $700M/yr, which was a 75% increase. With the latest deal, they did get a lot of increased rights including the ability to deliver over broadband in addition to DBS. NFL did not really want to give the deal to Comcast and the Cable boys as they felt it would steal viewership from their other contracts with CBS and Fox on Sunday regional broadcasts.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

DoyleS said:


> ..This is a quote from right after the D* outbid everyone and locked up ST until 2010...


 If Fox and D were independent, there would have been a bidding war between Fox and D and I think Fox would have won.



DoyleS said:


> ..NFL did not really want to give the deal to Comcast and the Cable boys as they felt it would steal viewership from their other contracts with CBS and Fox on Sunday regional broadcasts.


 If the NFL really cared about stealing viewership, they wouldn't offer ST at all.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

the_bear said:


> If Fox and D were independent, there would have been a bidding war between Fox and D and I think Fox would have won.
> 
> If the NFL really cared about stealing viewership, they wouldn't offer ST at all.


----------------------------------------------
From that same article,

"At that point, the league wouldn't consider selling the games to cable because of concerns that if every Sunday afternoon football game nationwide was available on digital cable, broadcast-TV carriers Fox and CBS would suffer significant ratings erosion."

Carrier Package Current	New
CBS AFC $500M $622M
Fox NFC $550M $712M
DirecTV	Sunday Ticket $400M $700M

(so much for trying to paste table data
-------------------------------------
With $1.3B on the table with Fox and CBS, NFL is trying to keep everyone happy. This obviously doesn't include Sunday Night, Monday Night or Thursday Night games.

I am actually kind of glad the 49ers haven't been doing so well the last couple years. I just don't have the time for that much Football.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

DoyleS said:


> ..At that point, the league wouldn't consider selling the games to cable because of concerns that if every Sunday afternoon football game nationwide was available on digital cable, broadcast-TV carriers Fox and CBS would suffer significant ratings erosion..


Yes, putting ST on just D causes less "ratings erosion" than putting it on every provider. What I am saying is the value of that erosion is less than the value of ST to all.



DoyleS said:


> Carrier Package Current	New
> CBS AFC $500M $622M
> Fox NFC $550M $712M
> DirecTV	Sunday Ticket $400M $700M


I would expect the value of ST to be more than CBS and Fox combined. If ST was widely available, there would be a lot more football watching. No matter how you slice it, more football watching means more $$$.


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

the_bear said:


> FoxNews is cheaper than CNN to both D and E.


Which is why you see FoxNews on E*'s entry level tier, the America's Family Basic tier. Sky Angel also carries FoxNews.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> Because the NFL offered resale rights to everyone else.


You are still comparing apples to oranges. Of course the NFL has to allow ABC and ESPN to resell the service. As a content channel, what else could they do? Can't sell football to ABC and then tell ABC you cannot use it on the various Cables/Broadcast affilliates. What would be the point?

D* is a totally different animal. It is a service provider, NOT a content channel. D* does not have to resell anything to make their money. D*'s money is made from the subscriber fee's.

This idea that NFL must have offered D* rights to resell Sunday Ticket to Comcast, Time Warner, etc. because they allow ABC to resell NFL programming is ludicrous.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Fifty Caliber said:


> Which is why you see FoxNews on E*'s entry level tier, the America's Family Basic tier. Sky Angel also carries FoxNews.


If FoxNews got anywhere near what they were asking for in the latest rate increase, they are no longer cheaper than CNN.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

I realize Fox’s ST programming is not literally “a channel” in the same way that FoxNews is a channel. But, apples to oranges, maybe grapefruit to oranges. ST is not a mass-market product where the seller defines it and then sees if it sells. The ST product definition was a collaborative effort with a definition created by both the NFL and Fox. The result of that collaboration should be to make the most money for all. I understand business decisions are motivated by money, so show me the money as a reason for current NFL and Fox actions.

We disagree as to Fox being underpaid for its programming (notice I didn’t say channels). The underpayment for ST, NGHD, and FoxNews are in terms of both hard and soft (eyeballs) $. The amount of bellyaching about Disney taking Dish to the cleaners vs. Fox gives me an idea as to the size of that underpayment in terms of hard $. To see the underpayment in soft $, look to how few Fox channels got into AT60. Since you don’t think Fox is being underpaid, we will also not be able to agree on where Fox’s struggle to find its own identity ranks in the reasons for that underpayment.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> Since you don't think Fox is being underpaid, we will also not be able to agree on where Fox's struggle to find its own identity ranks in the reasons for that underpayment.


I never said Fox was not being underpaid. I just indicated that they recently requested major increases in fees for FoxNews which, if they got what they asked for, would have put them at a higher price than CNN. Personally, I think FoxNews deserves every penny (more than twice the ratings of CNN & MSNBC combined).


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Hey guys, can we please get back on topic here. This thread is about the National Geographic HD channel. Thanks.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Chris Blount said:


> Hey guys, can we please get back on topic here. This thread is about the National Geographic channel. Thanks.


OK...I second the request for the addition of National Geographic HD. It's not just another pretty scenery channel. Lately they have done a number of good history programs.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

OK, back to NGHD. I too would like to watch NGHD. If Fox cannot work out a deal with Dish, the least they could do is put some NGHD content up on the web. I noticed there is a lot of HDNet content on CinemaNow, but as luck would have it, I already get all the HDNet stuff I want from Dish. If this pattern continues, once iTunes adds HD, there probably won’t be any NGHD there either. I looks like viewers only two choices are to switch to D or wait it out.


----------



## spykedvodka (Jan 31, 2006)

I e-mailed them about it... Here is the exact reply I just received:

Dear Mr. Strausser,

Thank you for your e-mail. Specific information regarding your request for National Geographic HD is not currently available. We would like to add that channel, to make viewers like you happy, but we do not know if or when this will happen. We will gladly forward your request to our Programming Department for further consideration.

We thank you for your input as we continually review our options in order to provide a compelling lineup for our viewers. Please stay tuned for consumer Charlie Chats that are broadcast monthly on Channel 101 or logon to our website for future programming announcements.

Your business is highly appreciated and we thank you for allowing us to be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions or concerns, please refer to www.dishnetwork.com or reply to this email.

Sincerely,

Mary B.

DISH Network eCare

Sounds like maybe there is some probs between the two companies.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

LtMunst said:


> I never said Fox was not being underpaid. I just indicated that they recently requested major increases in fees for FoxNews which, if they got what they asked for, would have put them at a higher price than CNN. Personally, I think FoxNews deserves every penny (more than twice the ratings of CNN & MSNBC combined).


From what I have reas they did not get that much. They have higher ratinga but it is the same viewers much of the time. advertisers and cable ops have always paid a premium for services with more unique viewers.

Still in all since their ratings are up I would guess that they did receive some increase---but we will probably never know the details.


----------

