# No Stanley Cup on Dish



## mowingnut1

OLN will have exclusive coverage of conference finals and the first two games of the Cup finals. If E* doesn't end it's pissing contest with Comcast, we miss those games. I have emailed [email protected] to demand coverage of those games. If you love hockey, you should too.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

What's the pissing contest?

OLN cheated their contract after buying rights to NHL and refused to transmit the games unless Dish renegotiated the contract in the middle of its term.

People, especially hockey fans, should be mad at OLN for pulling this trick. Dish was standing up for itself and to some extent customers by refusing this extortion tactic.


----------



## Geronimo

I don't know who is p***ing and who did or did not violate the contract. butt here is very little hope ofa settlement before the playoffs.


----------



## mowingnut1

There's more to this than Comcast cheating their contract. If that was all that happened, it would be a breach of contract and a legal solution would entail. Charlie's never been shy about going to court. The fact that they haven't tells me Dish signed a contract giving them limited rights and now they have to fix it. There's always more to the story. Sometimes it doesn't pay to be too tight.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

mowingnut1 said:


> There's more to this than Comcast cheating their contract. If that was all that happened, it would be a breach of contract and a legal solution would entail. Charlie's never been shy about going to court. The fact that they haven't tells me Dish signed a contract giving them limited rights and now they have to fix it. There's always more to the story. Sometimes it doesn't pay to be too tight.


In a lawsuit what would Dish actually gain if they won?

Not everything can be solved in a lawsuit, especially when it costs money to sue people.


----------



## FTA Michael

HDMe said:


> In a lawsuit what would Dish actually gain if they won?


You're kidding, right?

* A public record clearly and impartially declaring that OLN violated its contract

* Restoration of OLN to Dish under the pre-existing contract terms (unless OLN went out of business)

* Cash damages to cover Dish's lost subscribers, legal fees, and maybe Charlie's emotional distress 

In an earlier thread, I covered the extensive evidence supporting the idea that OLN did not violate the letter of its contract, and the paucity of evidence to the contrary. We can all agree that we're not happy about the way that OLN does business, but there is very little to suggest that OLN actually broke its contract with Dish.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

carload said:


> You're kidding, right?
> 
> * A public record clearly and impartially declaring that OLN violated its contract
> 
> * Restoration of OLN to Dish under the pre-existing contract terms (unless OLN went out of business)
> 
> * Cash damages to cover Dish's lost subscribers, legal fees, and maybe Charlie's emotional distress
> 
> In an earlier thread, I covered the extensive evidence supporting the idea that OLN did not violate the letter of its contract, and the paucity of evidence to the contrary. We can all agree that we're not happy about the way that OLN does business, but there is very little to suggest that OLN actually broke its contract with Dish.


What would a public record do? In this case, I really don't see the gain for Dish in a lawsuit.

Returning OLN to Dish under the pre-existing contract terms is what Dish wanted then... by now I imagine they don't care if they get OLN back because clearly there hasn't been a mass exodus of customers leaving Dish.

IF Dish lost a whole bunch of subscribers over this, that might be worth a lawsuit... but frankly it appears as though Dish has gained... because the outcry hasn't been that big of a deal, I doubt they lost many customers AND they are no longer paying OLN for carriage, so that is extra bonus profit.

A lawsuit would cost Dish money... and they wouldn't be able to prove enough of a financial loss over the OLN thing to win anything for the effort.

So I don't see where Dish could gain with a lawsuit against OLN over a channel that clearly isn't that important to most folks.


----------



## FTA Michael

I can't argue with your logic. If you don't care about a public relations victory, and if you don't really want the channel back, and if you don't care about the money, then there's absolutely no reason to sue OLN. QED.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

carload said:


> I can't argue with your logic. If you don't care about a public relations victory, and if you don't really want the channel back, and if you don't care about the money, then there's absolutely no reason to sue OLN. QED.


I just seriously doubt Dish has lost any revenue over OLN... probably, as I mentioned Dish is resulting in a semi-profit since dropping the channel... and since Dish seems to always look like the bad guy anyway when they fight publically I think they are better off letting it go.


----------



## HCTXPablo

Actually, your letters should go to the NHL main office as well as the main office of your local hockey team. I believe that is going to be the only way to get some resolution--and probably not before the playoffs.

I have two major bones to pick with the "new" NHL regarding television. First is the OLN situation with Dish (and for a while, I understand with Direct). When you are coming off a washed out season, you have to do EVERYTHING to make sure your product is available to the largest audience. The moment this occured between OLN and Dish, the NHL should have stepped in immediately, been the mediator, and if it took financial incentives to either Dish or OLN, the NHL should have made sure not a single fan with Dish missed the opportunity to view a single minute of NHL coverage on OLN.

The second issue I have is with hockey on HDNet. Anytime my home team, Dallas Stars, are on HDNet, it is blacked out in favor of the Fox Sports Southwest feed or the local UHF channel feed. OK, maybe, I can understand blacking out the home games, but not the road games. Actually, needing to capture and bring back as large an audience and fan base as possible, it should not be blacked out EVER. I realize that this goes back to contracts between the local and RSN affiliates, but again this is where common sense by the league should have taken over. To me, it is not the same product, since one is in SD and one is in HD. But no matter, the league should have offered whatever financial and other considerations to get the blackout rule lifted. All I heard during the lockout was how big a High-Def presence the NHL wanted to have post-lockout, but the only HD hockey I have been able to watch this season was during the Olympics. It is awesome and the NHL should have done EVERYTHING possible to get their games in HD. Yes, I could watch the game of the week on HDNet, but I chose to watch the Stars in SD because it was on at the same time.

This is all very frustrating...with all of the need to build up good will after losing a year and what happens? Well, if the Stars make it to the conference finals (should I say WHEN Dallas plays Detroit in the west finals), I guess I better have a seat in the AAC or become a barfly--otherwise I will not get to see it. That would be VERY bad. Same goes I guess for Dish subs in Detroit, Denver, Philly, NYC, Carolina, and anywhere else their team will have a chance to play deep in the playoffs.

Write those letters...mine goes out tomorrow!!! Good luck...go Stars...go Dish...

Pablo


----------



## mowingnut1

I agree with you Pablo, the NHL should have stepped in. I have written numerous letters and emails to the NHL with out a response. Seems typical of the league, they are paying Comcast to broadcast their games, but are getting less exposure than they paid for. Btw, I would like to see Dallas and the Wings play in the finals, and like you, won't be able to unless I switch to Direct. A distinct possibility! Of course, if you look at my handle, you can guess who I think will win the Cup!


----------



## mrbo

HCTXPablo said:


> The second issue I have is with hockey on HDNet. Anytime my home team, Dallas Stars, are on HDNet, it is blacked out in favor of the Fox Sports Southwest feed or the local UHF channel feed. OK, maybe, I can understand blacking out the home games, but not the road games. Actually, needing to capture and bring back as large an audience and fan base as possible, it should not be blacked out EVER.


I hear you, Pablo! Exactly the same frustration here. Not only do I have HDNet but I also have Center Ice, and there were at least 2 Stars games that I can think of, that were carried on Fox Sports Net, that were also carried in high definition on the Center Ice package, but us poor slobs here in Dallas had to watch them on channel 416, because the damn HD feed was blacked out!!! Nevermind the fact that it was the exact same channel (i.e. FSN). In fact, on the SD channel, it even said "Tonights game is broadcast in high definition where available". Nothing can piss you off more than knowing that you can't watch the game in HD, simply because some stupid paper pusher sitting a cubicle somewhere decided these idiotic blackout rules. To put it another way, who do they think will watch the game, if not Stars fans? If you black it out in the home market, you instantly remove the largest portion of your potential audience. Duh!



> Well, if the Stars make it to the conference finals (should I say WHEN Dallas plays Detroit in the west finals),


I like the way you put that. 

Go Stars!

Bo


----------



## wingnut1

Is there any new information on this situation. This is really making me ill. I see that most of the Redwings first round games are on OLN. Does this mean that they won't be carried on NHL Center Ice?


----------



## mowingnut1

Hey Wingnut, No, as far as I know,there is nothing new as far as OLN. I'm not just fed up with this issue, but, what will be the next channel that Dish takes down. I want consistant programming, not this constant "give me what I want or I take down your channel" crap. This doesn't happen on Direct and their fees are comparable to Dish's. I just called a local Direct retailer. I will have my new system in time for the Wings game Friday night. After 10 years it's adios Dish for me.


----------



## Paul Secic

wingnut1 said:


> Is there any new information on this situation. This is really making me ill. I see that most of the Redwings first round games are on OLN. Does this mean that they won't be carried on NHL Center Ice?


umm yes. The NHL season is DONE!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

mowingnut1 said:


> Hey Wingnut, No, as far as I know,there is nothing new as far as OLN. I'm not just fed up with this issue, but, what will be the next channel that Dish takes down. I want consistant programming, not this constant "give me what I want or I take down your channel" crap. This doesn't happen on Direct and their fees are comparable to Dish's. I just called a local Direct retailer. I will have my new system in time for the Wings game Friday night. After 10 years it's adios Dish for me.


After Dish won their dispute with LifeTime, DirecTV then complained to LifeTime and wanted the same deal Dish had fought to earn... Why didn't DirecTV fight to begin with? Because maybe they don't care?

OLN tried to cheat, Dish again fought it but DirecTV caved as usual... I applaud Dish in these kinds of efforts.


----------



## koji68

wingnut1 said:


> Is there any new information on this situation. This is really making me ill. I see that most of the Redwings first round games are on OLN. Does this mean that they won't be carried on NHL Center Ice?


The local FOX station or Fox Sports Net will have the Red Wings games that are on OLN. Also people in Detroit can get the games on Channel 9 CBC.


----------



## mowingnut1

HDMe said:


> After Dish won their dispute with LifeTime, DirecTV then complained to LifeTime and wanted the same deal Dish had fought to earn... Why didn't DirecTV fight to begin with? Because maybe they don't care?
> 
> OLN tried to cheat, Dish again fought it but DirecTV caved as usual... I applaud Dish in these kinds of efforts.


Dish keeps fighting these battles, ostensibly for the good of their customers, but have your rates dropped? Mine haven't. The package rates for both E* and D* are so close as to be identicle. All of this hard nosed dealing may help keep Charlie on the Forbes list, but it's his customers that have to suffer the loss of programming. Beyond the OLN issue; which channel will get yanked next due to "unfair pricing on the part of the broadcaster". We all subscribe to watch TV. When a provider denies expected and paid for programming, for what ever reason, they have broken their agreement with their customers. I have always been a fan of Dish. Many others have purchased systems based on my recommendation. As Dish grows,however, they become more and more like the cable system I dropped more than 10 years ago. If both satellite providers don't recognize this, there will no longer be a clear reason to choose sat over cable.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

mowingnut1 said:


> Dish keeps fighting these battles, ostensibly for the good of their customers, but have your rates dropped? Mine haven't. The package rates for both E* and D* are so close as to be identicle. All of this hard nosed dealing may help keep Charlie on the Forbes list, but it's his customers that have to suffer the loss of programming. Beyond the OLN issue; which channel will get yanked next due to "unfair pricing on the part of the broadcaster". We all subscribe to watch TV. When a provider denies expected and paid for programming, for what ever reason, they have broken their agreement with their customers. I have always been a fan of Dish. Many others have purchased systems based on my recommendation. As Dish grows,however, they become more and more like the cable system I dropped more than 10 years ago. If both satellite providers don't recognize this, there will no longer be a clear reason to choose sat over cable.


It isn't so much about prices going down... but not going up as fast as they might. If Dish didn't fight these kinds of battles, then every channel would want the same kinds of increases every year, and then you'd see just how nasty our bills could become fast!

With regards to OLN in particular... I've seen more than one ESPN report again lately talking about the poor NHL ratings on TV this season, even when stadiums are supposedly getting high attendance... in large part due to the OLN exclusive contract and OLN not being available everywhere. So it isn't just a handful of folks on this forum or a few Dish executives that think OLN and the NHL is off to a bad start.


----------



## Greg Bimson

HDMe said:


> What's the pissing contest?
> 
> OLN cheated their contract after buying rights to NHL and refused to transmit the games unless Dish renegotiated the contract in the middle of its term.


Funny, Dish Network didn't mind renegotiating their contract with the NFL Network in the middle of the term, so they could receive the late season Thursday/Saturday package.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Greg Bimson said:


> Funny, Dish Network didn't mind renegotiating their contract with the NFL Network in the middle of the term, so they could receive the late season Thursday/Saturday package.


Firstly... who said Dish had to negotiate anything? Dish has had the NFL Network since last summer, so they may not have had to renegotiate.

Secondly, please don't mistake mutual desire to renegotiate with one-sided forced negotiations.

IF (and say IF) Dish renegotiated with NFL Network, then it was their choice to do so.

But I applaud the decision not to be taken advantage of by OLN.

I continue to be amazed at the people who want to say Dish is evil for raising rates but also evil for not paying whatever a channel wants. You can't have it both ways people.


----------



## JohnL

HDMe said:


> Firstly... who said Dish had to negotiate anything? Dish has had the NFL Network since last summer, so they may not have had to renegotiate.
> 
> Secondly, please don't mistake mutual desire to renegotiate with one-sided forced negotiations.
> 
> IF (and say IF) Dish renegotiated with NFL Network, then it was their choice to do so.
> 
> But I applaud the decision not to be taken advantage of by OLN.
> 
> I continue to be amazed at the people who want to say Dish is evil for raising rates but also evil for not paying whatever a channel wants. You can't have it both ways people.


HDme,

There are reports that OLN could be back on Dish by Saturday, we will see.

There are a several reports from "Users" that have FTA receivers that an information screen on Dish Channel 151 that states OLN will be back on Dish by Saturday April 22nd, this screen and channel is uplinked but NOT available to current subs.

I really hope that does happen as I will be missing alot of Playoff hockey that is exclusive to OLN and not Available on my Center Ice package.

John


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I've seen some of the posts as well, regarding the possible return of OLN.

If it comes back, then good for the folks who want to watch hockey... assuming NHL comes with the OLN return to Dish. I hope, that as in the LifeTime case, Dish ultimately won the standoff.

I expect OLN has been hurting from the lack of viewership after shelling out for the NHL exclusive rights... and then being dropped from Dish probably had to lower their ad rates for commercials.


----------



## TNGTony

I posted this on the Channel Chart:

OLN NEWS!!! Reported by Anyon that there is a slate on channel 151 that states: ""Get ready to spend a little more time indoors... Outdoor Life Network is coming back to DISH Network channel 151! Look to enjoy this year's NHL Playoffs on OLN starting this Saturday the 22nd!"
Interestingly enough, this channel is no longer FTA to MPEG 2 (Non-Dish Network receivers) as of about 11 PM

See ya
Tony


----------



## Greg Bimson

HDMe said:


> Firstly... who said Dish had to negotiate anything? Dish has had the NFL Network since last summer, so they may not have had to renegotiate.


From Multichannel.com, bold type where my emphasis is added:


> EchoStar Communications Corp.'s Dish Network will air NFL Network's eight-game Thursday- and Saturday-night National Football League game package, according to officials at the satellite provider.
> 
> Dish currently carries NFL Network on its "America's Top 120" programming tier, although network officials are negotiating to move the service to the higher-penetrated "America's Top 60" package.
> 
> *Dish joins DirecTV Inc. as the second major distributor to reach a deal for the new package.*


So Dish Network renegotiated a contract with a channel because the NFL games weren't included in the pricing of the current channel.


HDMe said:


> Secondly, please don't mistake mutual desire to renegotiate with one-sided forced negotiations.


Huh?

NHL lands deal with OLN, OLN then asks for rate increases from their customers, or else the NHL games will not be available. It is your belief that this is "one-sided forced negotiations".

NFL places their late season Thursday/Saturday package on NFL Network, then NFL Network asks for rate increases from their customers, or else the NFL games will not be available. This is also "one-sided forced negotiations".

Dish Network chooses not to agree to OLN's demands, but says yes to NFL Network.


HDMe said:


> IF (and say IF) Dish renegotiated with NFL Network, then it was their choice to do so.
> 
> But I applaud the decision not to be taken advantage of by OLN.


But instead be taken advantage of by the NFL Network?


HDMe said:


> I continue to be amazed at the people who want to say Dish is evil for raising rates but also evil for not paying whatever a channel wants. You can't have it both ways people.


You can't pat the company on the back for holding the line on a channel that wants to receive a rate increase against their current contract, and then see the company sign a contract with another content distributor that increases the rates while in the middle of a current contract.

And now it appears that Dish Network has signed with OLN, while in the middle of their current contract.


----------



## tsmacro

Greg Bimson said:


> From Multichannel.com, bold type where my emphasis is added:So Dish Network renegotiated a contract with a channel because the NFL games weren't included in the pricing of the current channel.Huh?
> 
> NHL lands deal with OLN, OLN then asks for rate increases from their customers, or else the NHL games will not be available. It is your belief that this is "one-sided forced negotiations".
> 
> NFL places their late season Thursday/Saturday package on NFL Network, then NFL Network asks for rate increases from their customers, or else the NFL games will not be available. This is also "one-sided forced negotiations".
> 
> Dish Network chooses not to agree to OLN's demands, but says yes to NFL Network.But instead be taken advantage of by the NFL Network?You can't pat the company on the back for holding the line on a channel that wants to receive a rate increase against their current contract, and then see the company sign a contract with another content distributor that increases the rates while in the middle of a current contract.
> 
> And now it appears that Dish Network has signed with OLN, while in the middle of their current contract.


The biggest problem here is that you're comparing NFL games to NHL games! :lol: Talk about comparing apples to oranges!


----------



## JohnL

tsmacro said:


> The biggest problem here is that you're comparing NFL games to NHL games! :lol: Talk about comparing apples to oranges!


The other point was that OLN didn't just want a Rate increase but they also wanted their channel to be placed into a lower tier as well, which in essence is a DOUBLE price increase since Dish would have to pay the price increase as well as retransmission fees for thousands more subscribers as well.

NFL Network just wanted more money.

John


----------



## Geronimo

JohnL said:


> The other point was that OLN didn't just want a Rate increase but they also wanted their channel to be placed into a lower tier as well, which in essence is a DOUBLE price increase since Dish would have to pay the price increase as well as retransmission fees for thousands more subscribers as well.
> 
> NFL Network just wanted more money.
> 
> John


OLN wanted the lower tier but we do not know if they wanted more money per sub (although being on a lower tier means more revenue with the sae rate per sub).


----------



## Greg Bimson

JohnL said:
 

> The other point was that OLN didn't just want a Rate increase but they also wanted their channel to be placed into a lower tier as well, which in essence is a DOUBLE price increase since Dish would have to pay the price increase as well as retransmission fees for thousands more subscribers as well.
> 
> NFL Network just wanted more money.


Try this:


> Dish currently carries NFL Network on its "America's Top 120" programming tier, although network officials are negotiating to move the service to the higher-penetrated "America's Top 60" package.


tsmacro writes:


> The biggest problem here is that you're comparing NFL games to NHL games! Talk about comparing apples to oranges!


I am not talking content, but everyone else is. Funny how everyone appreciates standing up to OLN for their drastic pricing increases, when the NFL...


> Most current affiliation deals do not include the $300 million eight-game package, which begins Thanksgiving night.
> 
> Operators with knowledge of the deal say the monthly rate card jumps from the current 20 cents to 25 cent range per subscriber to 50 cents to 75 cents including the live eight-game package. The fee also includes the channel's on-demand fare.


...receives anywhere from a 100 percent to 275 percent rate hike.


----------



## tsmacro

Greg Bimson said:


> Try this:tsmacro writes:I am not talking content, but everyone else is. Funny how everyone appreciates standing up to OLN for their drastic pricing increases, when the NFL......receives anywhere from a 100 percent to 275 percent rate hike.


Well obviously we're talking about what makes business sense here. OLN wants more money for Hockey and Dish says no and the response from subscribers was somewhat underwhelming to say the least, so Dish wasn't risking much by "standing up" to Comcast. On the other hand when talking about the NFL network getting live football games we're in a completely different league here in many more ways than one! So yeah the NFL network gets it's increase because it represents something many more times popular than what OLN has to offer. It just makes financial sense in this case for Dish to quickly negotiate a deal rather than "fight" over this one. Like I said the two networks really can't be fairly compared to each other because the content they offer is just so different $$$-wise.


----------



## Geronimo

In other words agreeing toa new contract in mid term is OK if you like the product but not if you don't.


----------



## Geronimo

This thread is the first place I have seen it mentioned that OLN asked for a rate increase when the NHL was added. Can anyone confirm that?

I am nott rying to take sides but my recollection is that OLN gave DISH a feed w/out the NHL claiming that theur deal with the NHL required that the network be in basic tiers on all carriers. DISH refused to do that and eventually dropped the channel. But I don't recall a rate increase request at taht time.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

My understanding was that OLN wanted to be in a lower tier. This *may* have actually resulted in a reduction of the per-channel charge since OLN would make more money being in a lower tier with more subscribers.

Using fake math for a second...

IF OLN was taking $0.60 per AT180 subscriber and there are 2,000,000 AT180 subscribers, that would be $120,000.

OLN might be willing to drop to $0.50 per AT120 if there are 3,000,000 AT120 subscribers, yielding $150,000.

or even $0.30 per AT60 subscriber if there are 7,000,000 AT60 subscribers, yielding $210,000.

Of course all of my math is fake... but basically OLN could have been asking for less money per subscriber BUT wanting lower placement, which would give them access to more subscribers and yield them more money.

It's also possible they wanted a rate increase OR keep the same rate at a lower tier... so you can't just separate a rate increase from tier placement.

At the same time... and I've said this before... if the NFL Network pulled something similar and Dish wasn't able to get fair treatment, I would rather them fight even though I do watch the NFL. I would miss those games if it kept unfair rate increases in check, so I do put my money where my mouth is.


----------



## Geronimo

The comment that has been made in these forums (and in this thread) lately is that OLN asked for a DOUBLE increase by raising it's rate and requesting a lower tier. As far as I know all we really know is that they asked for the lower tier. We know nothing about a requested rate increase---or decrease.


----------



## tsmacro

Geronimo said:


> In other words agreeing toa new contract in mid term is OK if you like the product but not if you don't.


First of all: YES! and I don't see anything wrong with that myself. But to be honest here I don't think it has much to do with liking or not liking, but more to do with $$$.


----------



## Geronimo

Not liking the OLN position is fine---I was not too thrilled with it either. But that does not mean it is appropriate to change it into something it was not.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Regarding OLN and Dish Network, from Dish's original press release about the OLN dispute, just so we are all on the same page...


> ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 20, 2005--EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) confirmed today that it is no longer carrying Outdoor Life Network. The Comcast-owned programmer recently demanded that EchoStar force millions of additional DISH Network customers to pay for its outdoor programming as a condition to continued availability. EchoStar was unwilling to impose those additional costs on consumers.
> 
> "We work hard to provide choice for our customers and to keep prices low," said Eric Sahl, senior vice president of Programming for EchoStar. "Most of our customers have made the decision they do not want to pay the additional cost of watching that channel."


Yet this is exactly what they did with the NFL Network. I would believe most customers don't, "want to pay the additional cost of watching that channel."

Or, as HDMe pointed out earlier, "You cannot have it both ways."


----------



## Geronimo

Greg Bimson said:


> Regarding OLN and Dish Network, from Dish's original press release about the OLN dispute, just so we are all on the same page...Yet this is exactly what they did with the NFL Network. I would believe most customers don't, "want to pay the additional cost of watching that channel."
> 
> Or, as HDMe pointed out earlier, "You cannot have it both ways."


That ress release indicates that OLN wanted to pass the existing cost on to subs in the lower tier---not that they asked for a "double increase" as is stated in this thread.

I never said that most of the lower tier (or even origianl AT 180 subs) wanted the charge. I simply said that they did not ask fora "double increase'.

As for similarity to the NFL Network deal I cannot say. I do not know what that network requested when regular season games were added. It is clear that DISH has an easier time reaching some kind of agreement and that the channel may be included in lower tiers later. But we don't know if they requested more money, wider carriage, or a combination.

But I agree wholeheartedly that the NFL is far more popular than the NHL and that gave the NFL Network considerably more leverage.


----------



## Greg Bimson

No, I agree with you Geronimo. The problem is that people quickly jumped on the bandwagon about OLN's audacity to demand an increase (whether in subs or pricing) while in the midst of their agreement with Dish Network. The issue here is that is exactly what the NFL Network did, and Dish Network renegotiated the contract.

I don't see those same people screaming that the NFL Network has upped their rates during the middle of their contract with Dish Network.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Greg Bimson said:


> No, I agree with you Geronimo. The problem is that people quickly jumped on the bandwagon about OLN's audacity to demand an increase (whether in subs or pricing) while in the midst of their agreement with Dish Network. The issue here is that is exactly what the NFL Network did, and Dish Network renegotiated the contract.
> 
> I don't see those same people screaming that the NFL Network has upped their rates during the middle of their contract with Dish Network.


One distinct difference between OLN and NFL Network is clearly the timing.

OLN didn't ask for an increase just after they signed the NHL. They waited until the NHL season started, then provided an "alternative" feed to folks who wouldn't immediately pony up for more money. There was literally no time to negotiate, so Dish was in a back-against-the-wall situation, so they reacted with their claws.

The NFL, on the other hand... made this announcement about starting next season (Roughly September or so before any games will be on their network)... so there is/was plenty of time to negotiate without forcing Dish's hand.

In my opinion, this is much smarter for the NFL in terms of timing.

What OLN *should* have done, in my opinion... was to carry the NHL and abide by all previous contracts with companies like Dish for this season... THEN if the NHL coming back and being in all our homes drove higher ratings for their channel they would have been in a much better position to ask for a new contract for the next season AND would have the entire off-season to work negotiations without threats from either side about pulling the channel.


----------



## Greg Bimson

HDMe said:


> One distinct difference between OLN and NFL Network is clearly the timing.
> 
> OLN didn't ask for an increase just after they signed the NHL. They waited until the NHL season started, then provided an "alternative" feed to folks who wouldn't immediately pony up for more money. There was literally no time to negotiate, so Dish was in a back-against-the-wall situation, so they reacted with their claws.


Uh, not really. Yes, timing may have been somewhat of a problem, but...

The NHL and OLN/Comcast signed their carriage deal on 19 August, 2005. A news article three days later suggested that OLN/Comcast would be going back to any distributor that didn't widely distribute OLN to seek greater carriage in a basic tier. Keep in mind at this point the start of the season is less than six weeks away.

The grumblings were there. No one listened.

And don't forget this dispute wasn't only with Dish Network; it was with Cablevision and parts of Cox and Adelphia, as well.


----------



## Geronimo

We are not parties to these contracts and can't see them. But, it was OLN's contention that their contract with the NHL required them to get carriage at a tier that met certain requirements. 

That is how we got into the whole situation where OLN claimed to have an OLN (no NHL) and and OLN plus (with NHL) and DISH countered that there was no such distinction and so dropped OLN altogether.

We will probably never know how or exactly when OLN notified DISH of the requirement for the feed without the NHL. We probably also won't know what price OLN wound up with or whether this whole delay was ended when the NHL decided they were better off with some DISH viewers than none.

The whole thing was a PR disaster all around. I am sure that the NHL wishes that they were still on ESPN. They made a similar "mistake" in the early 80s when they chose Sports Channel America. OLN I am sure wishes that they had gotten better carriage deals and DISH is probably tired of hearing from hockey, Tour De France and bull riding fans.


----------



## saltrek

A little history:

1. When that article came out, the feeling was that systems with OLN on a sports tier would be blacked out of NHL games. This means paying a premium over and above whatever tier you are on to get a handhul of sports oriented channels. Cablevision in NY was one of the systems that only provided OLN via a sports package. No one thought that any system that included OLN within a multi-channel tier would get blacked out.

2. The first game of the season was not blacked out from anyone. There was no alternate feed.

3. Most systems were blacked out during the second week including DirecTV and many cable systems that had OLN in their lower tiers. OLN admitted to having technical trouble in sending the game to the right people. It was still unclear whether Dish was supposed to be blacked out or not.

It wasn't until after the third week of the season when we knew what was happening to Dish. Also, the fact that Dish's EPG would show "NHL Hockey" up until an hour before game time didn't help matters. Then we started hearing about the 40% rule from OLN.


----------



## tsmacro

Greg Bimson said:


> No, I agree with you Geronimo. The problem is that people quickly jumped on the bandwagon about OLN's audacity to demand an increase (whether in subs or pricing) while in the midst of their agreement with Dish Network. The issue here is that is exactly what the NFL Network did, and Dish Network renegotiated the contract.
> 
> I don't see those same people screaming that the NFL Network has upped their rates during the middle of their contract with Dish Network.


Gee Really? Imagine That! Could it be that it was because that OLN is a niche channel w/ limited viewers? And that the NFL network was adding live football games, only the most popular sport on tv? Ya think that maybe that could have something to do with it possibly?:sure: I'm amazed that you seem to think both situations should be treated the same way!


----------



## Greg Bimson

saltrek said:


> 1. When that article came out, the feeling was that systems with OLN on a sports tier would be blacked out of NHL games. This means paying a premium over and above whatever tier you are on to get a handhul of sports oriented channels. Cablevision in NY was one of the systems that only provided OLN via a sports package. No one thought that any system that included OLN within a multi-channel tier would get blacked out.


I am sure I'll be able to find other articles. There was even a post here about the OLN carriage issue with Dish *before* the season actually started. With that kind of information, Dish was already aware of the issue before the start of the season.

The first game wasn't blacked out to anyone. The second game was blacked out to those below the carriage requirements, although there were technical difficulties to those above the carriage requirements. It was during the third game that the issue between Dish Network and OLN was known.


----------



## Greg Bimson

tsmacro said:


> Gee Really? Imagine That! Could it be that it was because that OLN is a niche channel w/ limited viewers? And that the NFL network was adding live football games, only the most popular sport on tv? Ya think that maybe that could have something to do with it possibly?:sure: I'm amazed that you seem to think both situations should be treated the same way!


Sure they should be treated the same way. Otherwise, it appears that the company is flip-flopping on the issue, as well as those that defend it.

Once again, the NFL Network (according to most observers if you believe the proposed rate card) will receive between a 100 to 275 percent rate hike. We don't know what OLN asked for, other than lower tier carriage.

It's just hypocritical.


----------



## Geronimo

tsmacro said:


> Gee Really? Imagine That! Could it be that it was because that OLN is a niche channel w/ limited viewers? And that the NFL network was adding live football games, only the most popular sport on tv? Ya think that maybe that could have something to do with it possibly?:sure: I'm amazed that you seem to think both situations should be treated the same way!


Actually OLN ISa niche channel. That was the problem with the whole deal with them. Which may explain why the NHL put certain restrictions on the deal---in the hopes that it would lead to wider carriage.

my own guess is that none of the parties is giving us the whole truth. At the very least they could all have handled it better and achieved a result that would have been better for all of them and the fans and viewers (not that we really matter)


----------



## Mikey

I see it as a business decision, not a matter of principle. If a provider doesn't carry NHL games, losing the few subs who would demand NHL games to another provider would have an acceptable impact on profits. Losing the many subs who would demand NFL games would have a substantial impact on profits. It's not the principle, it's the money.


----------



## tsmacro

Greg Bimson said:


> Sure they should be treated the same way. Otherwise, it appears that the company is flip-flopping on the issue, as well as those that defend it.
> 
> Once again, the NFL Network (according to most observers if you believe the proposed rate card) will receive between a 100 to 275 percent rate hike. We don't know what OLN asked for, other than lower tier carriage.
> 
> It's just hypocritical.


Flip-flopping on what exactly? Dish didn't feel what OLN was offering was worth it's while so they dropped them. On the other hand what the NFL network had to offer was worthwhile so they renegotiated with them. How is there any issue at with this? Sure the NFL network had leverage on their side, but it could be they also approached negotiations in a more agreeable way to begin with, who knows? It's all about what makes business sense not whether the same standards were applied to both situations no matter how much you want it to be. But for that matter even if the same standards weren't applied (we really don't know for sure) SO WHAT!!


----------



## tsmacro

Mikey said:


> I see it as a business decision, not a matter of principle. If a provider doesn't carry NHL games, losing the few subs who would demand NHL games to another provider would have an acceptable impact on profits. Losing the many subs who would demand NFL games would have a substantial impact on profits. It's not the principle, it's the money.


BINGO!!! Give the man a prize!:lol: I thought it was just about that obvious myself.


----------



## Greg Bimson

That is because you are reading the wrong issue. Take a look at the old OLN/Dish Network threads telling Charlie to hold the line. Then take a look at Dish Network's press release above regarding the pricing increase that OLN tried to implement.

I guess Dish Network should issue this press release regarding the NFL...


> ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April, 2006--EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) confirmed today it will be carrying the full slate of eight NFL games on the NFL Network this coming fall. The NFL-owned programmer recently demanded that EchoStar force millions of additional DISH Network customers to pay extra for these eight games as a condition to continued availability. EchoStar was willing to impose those additional costs on consumers.
> 
> "We work hard to provide choice for our customers and to keep prices low," said Eric Sahl, senior vice president of Programming for EchoStar. "However, since we want the NFL, our customer will expect a rate increase even though most of our customers have made the decision they do not want to pay the additional cost of watching that channel."


Dish Network held the line against Comcast and OLN for a modest rate increase or lower tier. But not for the NFL Network.

And if you ask the majority of customers, they won't want the extra cost on the NFL Network, either.


----------



## Geronimo

Greg Bimson said:


> That is because you are reading the wrong issue. Take a look at the old OLN/Dish Network threads telling Charlie to hold the line. Then take a look at Dish Network's press release above regarding the pricing increase that OLN tried to implement.
> 
> I guess Dish Network should issue this press release regarding the NFL...


What press release discusses an OLN price increase?

What it comes down is that the NFL had more leverage so DISH allowed a price increase (and potentially the addition to a lower tier). The NHL has less and was dropped for a time, did not get the tier addition they wanted and no mention was made ofa change in rate.


----------



## tsmacro

Greg Bimson said:


> That is because you are reading the wrong issue. Take a look at the old OLN/Dish Network threads telling Charlie to hold the line. Then take a look at Dish Network's press release above regarding the pricing increase that OLN tried to implement.
> 
> I guess Dish Network should issue this press release regarding the NFL...Dish Network held the line against Comcast and OLN for a modest rate increase or lower tier. But not for the NFL Network.
> 
> And if you ask the majority of customers, they won't want the extra cost on the NFL Network, either.


Well good to know that you're so sure what the majority of Dish's customers want. I'm sure you've done extensive research to back it up, so I won't even bother disputing it. :sure: By the way how do you know that Dish didn't stand up to the NFL network? Afterall for all we know the NFL network migt've started out by asking for twice as much as they got. You just seem to want to believe so badly that Dish just bent over and took it from the NFL and then are going to turn around and do the same to it's subscribers. The truth of the matter is that we don't really know. All we do know is that the negotiations for OLN got ugly and the ones for the NFL network didn't result in Dish dropping the channel.


----------



## Philly_Import

koji68 said:


> The local FOX station or Fox Sports Net will have the Red Wings games that are on OLN. Also people in Detroit can get the games on Channel 9 CBC.


HEY, I was wondering, who out there gets NHL games on CBC?? Naturally this question is more directed at those up north. Reason I ask is that my cousin leaves in the middle of New York, but does not receive the CBC's coverage of the NHL. Does anyone know where their coverage runs here in the States; perhaps cities like Detroit, Buffalo, Seattle maybe??????? I appreciate the help.


----------



## KyL416

OLN has been carrying some of the CBC Feeds for their games, and some other CBC games are carried via Center Ice. Also, if you live on the border and have a provider that carries the CBC, you would probably get them, unless OLN and/or iNDemand forces a blackout on those systems due to exclusive rights for the CBC Games in the US.


----------



## JohnL

Philly_Import said:


> HEY, I was wondering, who out there gets NHL games on CBC?? Naturally this question is more directed at those up north. Reason I ask is that my cousin leaves in the middle of New York, but does not receive the CBC's coverage of the NHL. Does anyone know where their coverage runs here in the States; perhaps cities like Detroit, Buffalo, Seattle maybe??????? I appreciate the help.


Philly,

The only US citizens that are able to get CBC are a VERY LIMITED few that can get a Canadian OTA signal or some Border cities carry CBC amoungst others on the local cable companies service.

Basically it boils down to being close enough to the Canadian OTA transmitter to pick up those channels, Cable is allowed to pick up "Significantly Viewed" channels and offer them as well. Significantly viewed is a clause that allows US cable companies to carry foreign (Non US channels) as long as a Significant geographic portion of that cable franchise could receive that or those signals via an OFF AIR Antenna.

Both DirecTV and Dish Network are UNABLE to carry CBC or Canadian channels as they would have to use scare bandwidth for a VERY LIMITED subset of subscribers as well as be REQUIRED to blackout portions of syndicated exclusive programs that air on their OWN local markets OTA stations.

Another way to get SELECT CBC NHL broadcasts is to subscribe to Center Ice. Center Ice has at least 2 games per week on from CBC. Another poster did mention that OLN uses some CBC feeds to carry games, but you will NOT always hear the CBC Audio on the OLN telecasts.

John


----------

