# Dish Retrans Dispute with Fox over 50% Hike (Channels Off 10-1-2010)



## James Long

On October 1st, 2010, the carriage contract that permitted DISH to carry Fox stations *FX*, *National Geographic*, 12 regional *FoxSports* channels and 7 other FoxSports feeds expired.

On DISH Network channel 136 FX has been replaced by HDNet and channel 186 National Geographic has been replaced by Discovery's HD Theater. Both channels are normally available only in the HD Platinum package (currently $10 for 17 HD channels). The feeds are being downconverted from HD for presentation on channels 136 and 186 for SD customers. HD customers also receive the HD feeds. Customers who lost a FoxSports channel can now receive every other available RSN on DISH and other sports channels on channels 9660-9682. Blackout rules apply.

DISH has set up a website to explain their side of the issue:
*http://www.jointhefightagainstfox.com/*
Fox has set up a website to explain their side of the issue:
*http://getwhatipaidfor.com/home*

Fox also owns Fox and MyTV stations in several markets. The contract allowing DISH to carry these channels (and others that Fox negotiates on behalf of) is expiring and unless renewed these channels will go dark on November 1st.

This thread exists to discuss the dispute between DISH and Fox ... it is not a free for all for discussing all topics marginally related to DISH vs Fox. In order to make this thread more valuable for people seeking information on the dispute please keep your comments on the matter focused on the issue of DISH vs Fox. Thanks.


----------



## SayWhat?

Note that there is a separate thread concerning the Cablevision vs Fox dispute:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=185368


----------



## Lakers_Fan_24

Noticed Dish has put up Center Ice and NBA league for sale on it's website. Is this any indication or do they want to take our money and laugh all the way to the bank?


I'm dying for the NBA package but I can't bring myself to buy it until after the 1st. If Dish dumps Fox local, goodbye Dish. I'll buy my NBA package elsewhere.


----------



## hiero4life

"Lakers_Fan_24" said:


> Noticed Dish has put up Center Ice and NBA league for sale on it's website. Is this any indication or do they want to take our money and laugh all the way to the bank?
> 
> I'm dying for the NBA package but I can't bring myself to buy it until after the 1st. If Dish dumps Fox local, goodbye Dish. I'll buy my NBA package elsewhere.


Not every customer is affected with the dispute, I'm in the LA area but I don't get the RSNs ( I have Absolute) so it doesn't matter to me. If I was a local NHL/NBA fan I would have left before the season and before I made my first payment towards CI. So E* advertising the passes means nothing.


----------



## grog

In many cases the local RSN's are not an issue for many subscribers but the actual FOX local stations may be especially if OTA is not possible and the locals get pulled at the 1st of the month.

The good news is only FOX owned stations can be pulled and not all FOX stations are owned by FOX. 

Today this article from NewsOK was posted.

http://newsok.com/dish-fsn-dispute-still-at-impasse/article/3505882


> Oklahoma's Fox stations would not be affected, but Fox owned-and-operated stations in Dallas, Houston and Austin, Texas, might be dropped from Dish on Nov. 1 - the date of a potential fifth game of the World Series - if a settlement is not reached.


Bottom line is to check the local FOX ownership in your area. You might not be effected if the FOX stations are pulled.


----------



## jaymz

As someone who doesn't want to read a zillion+ pages of replies on this topic, can anyone summarize the latest news on this issue? Does anyone know where things (negotiations) stand? Isn't there some Congressional committee that can put pressure on these two children to get this settled? What about the FCC? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

Jim


----------



## MysteryMan

Win, lose or draw when this dispute ends and the music stops playing the only one's left without a chair will be the subs.


----------



## SayWhat?

#6, Staus Quo......... Unchanged. I'm not sure Dish and Fox are even talking about Nov1. Dish may be waiting to see what happens in NY.


----------



## Hoosier205

Fox deserves to get paid. Dish Network deserves a fair rate. Both sides failed to come to an agreement before the deadline.


----------



## fredp

grog said:


> The good news is only FOX owned stations can be pulled and not all FOX stations are owned by FOX.
> 
> Bottom line is to check the local FOX ownership in your area. You might not be effected if the FOX stations are pulled.


This time around.... When contracts come up for renewal with the various media companies that o/o Fox stations, for sure they will see their rates requested jump and the cycle will continue. :nono2:


----------



## chum76

On our local FOX network they had a small segment and their argument is in order to compete with ESPN and offer more sports they need more money. I think FOX has the right to compete and they deserve the price increase which would be way below ESPN's current price.


----------



## scooper

jaymz said:


> As someone who doesn't want to read a zillion+ pages of replies on this topic, can anyone summarize the latest news on this issue? Does anyone know where things (negotiations) stand? Isn't there some Congressional committee that can put pressure on these two children to get this settled? What about the FCC? Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim


The summary - 
Fox wants X amount per sub plus moving some cable channels down a tier or 2. Dish has said no. Fox also wants more for their FSN regional sports (if not asked them to be put in "Dish's lowest tier" - that ain't happening (moving the Sports nets to AT120).

Negotiations sound like they are at a standstill for now.

No Congressional committee nor the FCC can force an agreement.


----------



## dakeeney

:nono:


scooper said:


> The summary -
> Fox wants X amount per sub plus moving some cable channels down a tier or 2. Dish has said no. Fox also wants more for their FSN regional sports (if not asked them to be put in "Dish's lowest tier" - that ain't happening (moving the Sports nets to AT120).
> 
> Negotiations sound like they are at a standstill for now.
> 
> No Congressional committee nor the FCC can force an agreement.


I see no light at the end of the tunnel. Look for O&O to be pulled by Fox on 11/1. Our local Fox is not O&O by Fox so I'm not sweating it.


----------



## gjh3260

dakeeney said:


> :nono:
> 
> I see no light at the end of the tunnel. Look for O&O to be pulled by Fox on 11/1. Our local Fox is not O&O by Fox so I'm not sweating it.


my local Fox is O & O so fortunately I can receive it via OTA with no problem...for those subs that can't I would expect a lot of people leaving DISH if this dispute with the RSN's isnt settled by then especially with NFL football and potential World Series games on FOX


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

gjh3260 said:


> my local Fox is O & O so fortunately I can receive it via OTA with no problem...for those subs that can't I would expect a lot of people leaving DISH if this dispute with the RSN's isnt settled by then especially with NFL football and potential World Series games on FOX


And I see a lot of people leaving Dish if it acquiesces to Fox today, Univision tomorrow (if Fox Broadcast channel merits 1 dollar a month, UVN, whose demos are arguably more attractive than Fox's, deserves more than that), and has to increase its monthly rates by 6%, against a backdrop of 0.5% inflation.


----------



## Geronimo

jaymz said:


> As someone who doesn't want to read a zillion+ pages of replies on this topic, can anyone summarize the latest news on this issue? Does anyone know where things (negotiations) stand? Isn't there some Congressional committee that can put pressure on these two children to get this settled? What about the FCC? Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim


Congress is in recess so there is no hope of any action on that front by 11/01.

In my case Fox owns both the local Fox station and the MyNetwork station so i may lose both come 11/01. FWIW I can watch MyNetwork programming on WWOR (as a superstation) and I have OTA but i expect some major disruption of timers.


----------



## Hoosier205

Geronimo said:


> Congress is in recess so there is no hope of any action on that front by 11/01.


Let's hope they find better uses for their time following the election as well.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Gloria_Chavez said:


> And I see a lot of people leaving Dish if it acquiesces to Fox today, Univision tomorrow (if Fox Broadcast channel merits 1 dollar a month, UVN, whose demos are arguably more attractive than Fox's, deserves more than that), and has to increase its monthly rates by 6%, against a backdrop of 0.5% inflation.


Since deregulation in the mid-1980's, there have been a few recessions. Those recessions didn't stop rates from rising. Therefore, I submit that that the entertainment value of pay-television is not tied to any inflationary concern. About 85 percent of the public have pay-television; it is their entertainment. So until those customers vote with their wallets and leave pay-television in droves, the model will not change.


----------



## Paul Secic

jaymz said:


> As someone who doesn't want to read a zillion+ pages of replies on this topic, can anyone summarize the latest news on this issue? Does anyone know where things (negotiations) stand? Isn't there some Congressional committee that can put pressure on these two children to get this settled? What about the FCC? Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim


Nothing has happened. Stay tuned.


----------



## EW800

I have to laugh at some of the lengths some of the Dish CSR's are going to in order to get subscribers to remain with them. I called a while ago to cancel (I switched to DirecTV) and the CSR went into a long explanation how she personally knows (ya right...) that the two sides were in the conference room together very last last night and back at it again early this morning. She said she can "feel it in the air" that an agreement is getting close. She almost made it sound like she could see the negotiating room from where she was at!!  I doubt the two sides are actually meeting, and if they were/are, I am certain that it is not in the same area as the phone bank of CSR's!


----------



## grog

Maybe I spoke too soon.

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/fox6anddish.html?23979



> OnMedia: Dish subscribers may lose Channel 6 after all
> 
> Although I wrote earlier this week that only Fox owned-and-operated TV stations could drop off the screen for Dish Network subscribers, it turns out that the owners of Milwaukee's Channel 6 are, indeed, part of the fight with the satellite company.
> 
> Channel 6, by the way, had been owned by Fox. It was sold in 2007, along with 17 other Fox affiliates, to a company called Local TV LLC. That company has its own negotiations going with Dish, and Channel 6 general manager Chuck Steinmetz tells me the group has given Fox its proxy to handle the talks.


*Stations owned by News Corp.*
http://www.newscorp.com/operations/tvstations.html

*Stations owned by 'Local TV LLC'*
http://www.localtvllc.com/ourstations/

It seems FOX is asking stations that are not owned by News Corp. to file proxies so Fox can speak for stations that otherwise would be not part of the mix. This means St. Louis FOX2 could also be removed if they have followed suit or plan to do so soon.

I know I am not effected since I am no longer with Dish but this is still a news item to follow.

I also had to know why http://getwhatipaidfor.com/home said I could lose St. Louis KTVI FOX2 soon. After all, if Local TV LLC owns that FOX station they were not part of the talks; but it appears they may be via FOX direct.


----------



## phrelin

OK, we now have confirmation of how Charlie is going to play the game with Rupert in As Fox, Cablevision Play With Fire, the Whole Cable Industry Could Get Burned:


> In many respects there's a third unseen player affecting the outcome of this latest flare up -- Dish Network. The satellite company is engaged in its own dispute with News Corp. over retransmission fees. Dish and its 14 million subscribers are racing to hammer out a new pact by Nov. 1. If News Corp. bows to Cablevision's demands, it could weaken its hand in a possible standoff against Dish.
> 
> "We are hopeful Fox's blackout of 3 million Cablevision customers this weekend will shed light on our own dispute with Fox and News Corp," Francie Bauer, a Dish spokesperson, said in a statement.
> 
> "We are pleased that so many consumers, political leaders, and public policy groups have recognized the need for government intervention to protect consumer rights."


This is the best article I've read to date as it also points out that the wild card in this coincidental time frame is the fact that each player has a "personality" controlling the outcome, all three billionaires, aggressive, and stubborn - Fox has News Corp head Rupert Murdoch, Cablevision has Charles Dolan, and Dish has Charles Ergen.


----------



## Hoosier205

phrelin said:


> OK, we now have confirmation of how Charlie is going to play the game with Rupert in As Fox, Cablevision Play With Fire, the Whole Cable Industry Could Get Burned: This is the best article I've read to date as it also points out that the wild card in this coincidental time frame is the fact that each player has a "personality" controlling the outcome, all three billionaires, aggressive, and stubborn - Fox has News Corp head Rupert Murdoch, Cablevision has Charles Dolan, and Dish has Charles Ergen.


What an absolutely ridiculous statement to be made by a representative of Dish Network:



> "We are pleased that so many consumers, political leaders, and public policy groups have recognized the need for government intervention to protect consumer rights."


----------



## kenglish

Hopefully, Congress will act soon to require that McDonald's share their "Special Sauce" recipe with their competitor, Burger King (at a "To Be Determined Later" price). 

_Don't they have anything better to do? These are competing business interests, negotiating their contracts._


----------



## TBoneit

chum76 said:


> On our local FOX network they had a small segment and their argument is in order to compete with ESPN and offer more sports they need more money. I think FOX has the right to compete and they deserve the price increase which would be way below ESPN's current price.


So those of us that have no interest in overpriced sports should be subsidizing those that are?


----------



## Hoosier205

TBoneit said:


> So those of us that have no interest in overpriced sports should be subsidizing those that are?


Yes....at least until you launch your own satellite television service provider. Then you can call the shots.


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> What an absolutely ridiculous statement to be made by a representative of Dish Network:


Hmmm. From a negotiating standpoint I thought it was perfect. It forewarns and reminds the public, Congress and the FCC that Rupert has plans to pull 27 FCC conditionally licensed Fox broadcast locals off Dish, including the locals in the areas he has already pulled them off the cable system.


----------



## JackBauer112

Still, I think Charles Ergen is nothing more but a cheapskate when it comes to playing hardball. At least the Cablevision president though he had problems of it's own, at least they try hard to play on a conservative level and doesn't go aggressive like Errrrrgen does. No wonder Dish seems to be digging and digging deeper into oblivion as a satellite service provider. I bet that SkyAngel whoever owns the company at least can be more sensible to compete with Direct and Dish can be absorbed by SkyAngel.


----------



## calgary2800

When this does get settled how do you know which side won? The $ numbers wont be known.


----------



## phrelin

JackBauer112 said:


> Still, I think Charles Ergen is nothing more but a cheapskate when it comes to playing hardball. At least the Cablevision president though he had problems of it's own, at least they try hard to play on a conservative level and doesn't go aggressive like Errrrrgen does. No wonder Dish seems to be digging and digging deeper into oblivion as a satellite service provider. I bet that SkyAngel whoever owns the company at least can be more sensible to compete with Direct and Dish can be absorbed by SkyAngel.


Charles Dolan isn't as aggressive as Charles Ergen. That's worth a headline in the _Wall Street Journal_.


----------



## JackBauer112

phrelin said:


> Charles Dolan isn't as aggressive as Charles Ergen. That's worth a headline in the _Wall Street Journal_.


But at least Cablevision provides YES, MLB and it's own MSG net while Dish gets shut out of all three for now that is. Ergen just needs to file for Chapter 7 and sell Dish outright to SkyAngel and go to the funny farm. That way he can retire with how much money he milked out to his customers with his dumbed down overly pulled channels. He deserves to get rid of Dish.


----------



## phrelin

From Broadcasting & Cable:


> FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski had not commented on the new retrans bill being proffered by Sen. John Kerry, but he took both Fox and Cablevision to task equally Monday on the same issue, essentially taking them on the regulatory equivalent of a trip to the woodshed.
> 
> Having phoned the CEOs of both companies, Genachowski said in a statement that he was "deeply troubled that Cablevision and Fox are spending more time attacking each other through ads and lobbyists than sitting down at the negotiating table. The time for petty gamesmanship is over."
> 
> In the calls, he said that he "reiterated the importance of reaching a deal, as many companies have done before." He also suggested the FCC would be trying to determine whether either side was not negotiating in good faith, a point at which the FCC is empowered to step in per the retransmission consent law.


And just a reminder that though Congress is in recess, committee work continues.


----------



## phrelin

JackBauer112 said:


> But at least Cablevision provides YES, MLB and it's own MSG net while Dish gets shut out of all three for now that is. Ergen just needs to file for Chapter 7 and sell Dish outright to SkyAngel and go to the funny farm. That way he can retire with how much money he milked out to his customers with his dumbed down overly pulled channels. He deserves to get rid of Dish.


Using a name from a character in a canceled Fox show doesn't gain you much credibility in discussing Dish and Cablevision against Fox.


----------



## Hoosier205

phrelin said:


> From Broadcasting & Cable: And just a reminder that though Congress is in recess, committee work continues.


Do you mean commission work, rather than committee? Federal agencies don't recess, so the FCC is still at work. Congressional committees are idle, with the exception of their staff.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Hoosier205 said:


> What an absolutely ridiculous statement to be made by a representative of Dish Network:


Why so ridiculous?

Just yesterday, a GP at Blackstone Partners, a buyout firm which has lamented government regulation during the Obama presidency, penned an op-ed in the WSJ calling for federal government legislation which would accelerate foreclosures nationwide.

If a buyout firm can ask for government help, so can Dish.

If I were Dish's CEO, I'd deliver a 5 slide presentation to Congress,

#1. A graph of cable channel carriage fees compared to inflation
#2. A graph of broadcast channel carriage fees compared to inflation
#3. A graph of median Income growth over past decade
#4. Quotes by industry analysts indicating that continued fee increases, citing 2Q10 net subscriber losses for PayTV market
#5. Graphics illustrating three options. (i) Govt acts; cable channels ask for reasonable (at inflation, which is running at 0.5%) rate increase, everyone happy. (ii) Govt doesn't act, Fox and Univision get 1.50 a month; rates increase 6% annually, many subscribers leave, "depriving" them of content, (iii) Govt doesn't act, Fox and UVN get 1.50 a month; rates continue to grow at the inflation rate, only because many channels are jettisoned, resulting in subscribers asking for government help.


----------



## SayWhat?

Hoosier205 said:


> Do you mean commission work, rather than committee? Federal agencies don't recess, so the FCC is still at work. Congressional committees are idle, with the exception of their staff.


But the Staff members are the ones who do all the work and write the bills to be presented later, so they can be ready when the session starts.


----------



## Hoosier205

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Why so ridiculous?


...so many reason I could give you, but I'll leave it alone as I don't want to make this a political discussion. You simply do not understand the differences between this situation and one you have cited. You also appear to be confused regarding the role of our federal government.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Again, I'll make this simple.

If pay-TV doesn't like the negotiations with their programmers regarding placement into their programming packages, pay-TV can simply do away with programming packages.

Until then, I don't want to see complaints about programming prices. We all subscribe to them.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

I have a degree from Stanford and a Harvard MBA. I've worked at both a management consulting firm and an investment bank. And I think that you fail to appreciate the similarities in the two scenarios.

In fact, I would argue that Dish has a stronger right to demand that Congress act than Blackstone.

As to the role of the federal government, if it can award people buying ill-fated electric cars 7,500 federal tax credits to stimulate an industry that will never ever be able to stand on its own, I think that it can at the very least hold hearings on the impact of PayTV price hikes on the consumer.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> ...so many reason I could give you, but I'll leave it alone as I don't want to make this a political discussion. You simply do not understand the differences between this situation and one you have cited. You also appear to be confused regarding the role of our federal government.


While you and I might possibly disagree on the role of the federal gov't, we do agree we don't want them in the middle of this. The gov't is in no small part, part of the problem we are seeing today. I worry more about them getting involved because all too often they make knee-jerk decisions without actually looking at the long term effects.

I say let this play out in the market place. While not perfect, it will get worked out. First at the level it is at now, corporate heads. Later we will get to tell them all what we think of the results with our checkbooks/credit cards. I'm perfectly willing to say to hell with all of them should the results of the negotiations going on result in prices/selections I find bad for me. Others should think the same, imo.


----------



## TulsaOK

Gloria_Chavez said:


> I have a degree from Stanford and a Harvard MBA.


Now your post makes sense.


----------



## Hoosier205

Gloria_Chavez said:


> I have a degree from Stanford and a Harvard MBA.


...and?
Thanks for sharing.



Gloria_Chavez said:


> In fact, I would argue that Dish has a stronger right to demand that Congress act than Blackstone.


You would be wrong.


----------



## Joe Diver

Hoosier205 said:


> ...and?
> Thanks for sharing.
> 
> You would be wrong.


LOL...lotta good them fancy shingles are doing her.


----------



## James Long

Please discuss the topic, not the posters ... thanks!


----------



## phrelin

lparsons21 said:


> While you and I might possibly disagree on the role of the federal gov't, we do agree we don't want them in the middle of this. The gov't is in no small part, part of the problem we are seeing today. I worry more about them getting involved because all too often they make knee-jerk decisions without actually looking at the long term effects


The federal government is involved up to it's neck and has been involved in regulating radio wave transmission since 1912.

By 1925 in many parts of the nation all you could hear was chaos, as the 1912 regulations were written when radio meant ship-to-shore broadcasting. Out of that chaos came the Radio Act of 1927 which required that the public's airwaves be used for "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

To that end, licenses were issued which created a pattern of stations that did not interfere with each other, but which were given exclusive territories in which they were to operate in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

Even at that time, nobody knew exactly what that phrase meant and there were many points of view. But at the time, no one that I ever thought one who lived within in a territory served by a broadcast station shouldn't be allowed to get that signal by whatever means possible.

Before radio legislation could be passed, competing Progressive factions debated who would control radio. Sen. Pittman and Rep. E.L. Davis of Tennessee represented the rural American voice of the common people. They believed that the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) conspired to turn radio into a monopoly. The monopoly would not only be worth millions, but to Pittman and Davis, RCA would use the voice of radio to gain great political power and to shape thought in America.

Their opponents narrowed down the scope of the bill by arguing for the _process_ of regulation. The two key provisions in the law were the creation of a new government commission and the commission's mandate to regulate radio in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

It is in that American traditional approach that I view everything that is going on today.

If you want the government to stay out of it, you should begin by explaining why you believe broadcast stations should be allowed to scramble their signals and require a box to receive the signal for a fee. If there isn't some definite public entitlement to that signal based on that conditional federal license, there is nobody entitled to OTA.

Again, IMHO the establishment of DMA rights for those stations should have established by geographic location who is entitled to receive the signal for free any way we can, including hiring a contract service to deliver that free signal.

Here's what Fox wants - retain an exclusive conditional federal license for transmitting network programming in the open within a DMA and the right to charge 85% of the people in the DMA for that signal.

How long do you think it will be before they want money from the remaining 15%? Maybe 10 years or 20 years or 5 years depending upon the pattern established in negotiations like these.


----------



## phrelin

And in the "gee what was your first clue?" department, from the AP:


> The contract dispute that has left 3 million Cablevision subscribers without Fox programming since the weekend may be just one move in a broader chess match between broadcast TV companies and subscription TV providers.
> 
> Industry experts say one reason Cablevision Systems Corp. is playing tough in negotiations is to draw action by federal regulators. Proposed rules backed by cable providers and some lawmakers could stop the broadcast companies that run Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS stations from pulling their channels during negotiations over the monthly fees a provider pays broadcasters to carry their channels on cable lineups.
> 
> A ban on pulling channels would deprive networks and local station owners of their most powerful bargaining chip in their push for higher rates.


----------



## Michael P

grog said:


> Maybe I spoke too soon.
> 
> http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/fox6anddish.html?23979
> 
> *Stations owned by News Corp.*
> http://www.newscorp.com/operations/tvstations.html
> 
> *Stations owned by 'Local TV LLC'*
> http://www.localtvllc.com/ourstations/
> 
> It seems FOX is asking stations that are not owned by News Corp. to file proxies so Fox can speak for stations that otherwise would be not part of the mix. This means St. Louis FOX2 could also be removed if they have followed suit or plan to do so soon.
> 
> I know I am not effected since I am no longer with Dish but this is still a news item to follow.
> 
> I also had to know why http://getwhatipaidfor.com/home said I could lose St. Louis KTVI FOX2 soon. After all, if Local TV LLC owns that FOX station they were not part of the talks; but it appears they may be via FOX direct.


Thank you for posting this. My local FOX is on the Local TV LLC list (WJW Cleveland). I asked FOX 8 via their feedback page on the FOX8 website last week weather or not they are a part of the E* retrans. dispute with FOX. They never replied to my question, even though their feedback page promised a quick reply.

No big deal here. I live in the shadow of the FOX 8 tower and I also get an OOM FOX from Youngstown. I just hope they continue to provide the EPG data on the OTA channels and not just mirror the "Important notice" that appears on FSN Ohio.

Speaking of sports, I wonder, if this drags on into the start of the NBA season will the games shown on ESPN that also are on one of the FSN nets will get blacked out? In previous seasons I was able to get the same local team games (The Cavs) on both ESPN & FSN Ohio. Several years ago when FSN Ohio had The Indians and E* only carried half of the games E* blacked out WGN when the Indians played The White Sox.

I did get to see one preseason Cavs game via NBA Network during the FOX dispute.


----------



## phrelin

From the Washington Post:


> Amid the impasse, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Tuesday introduced draft legislation that seeks to reform laws governing how broadcasters and cable/satellite providers conduct negotiations over fees to retransmit television signals.
> 
> The bill would require broadcasters to keep their signals up during a negotiation impasse. The Federal Communications Commission would then evaluate if the negotiations were being made in good faith. If they were not done in good faith, the FCC could then order binding arbitration or give the cable company two days to determine whether to accept the broadcaster's offer. If the company does not accept the offer, the broadcaster can request arbitration or pull its signal.
> 
> "It's not our job to take sides, but it is our responsibility to help find a better way forward," Kerry said. "The goal of this legislation is to offer a path towards resolution that reforms a broken system and protects the consumers who get caught in the middle."


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin's quote of Washington Post said:


> The bill would require broadcasters to keep their signals up during a negotiation impasse. The Federal Communications Commission would then evaluate if the negotiations were being made in good faith. If they were not done in good faith, the FCC could then order binding arbitration or give the cable company two days to determine whether to accept the broadcaster's offer. If the company does not accept the offer, the broadcaster can request arbitration or pull its signal.


No real difference than today.

The FCC is currently trying to find out if Fox and Cablevision have been negotiating in good faith. Under the proposed rules, I'd expect no one would know the FCC is involved.

This is getting ridiculous. Can someone get me an arbitrator when I go grocery shopping, pay my electric bill or sign-up for pay-tv service?


----------



## meStevo

Greg Bimson said:


> No real difference than today.
> 
> The FCC is currently trying to find out if Fox and Cablevision have been negotiating in good faith. Under the proposed rules, I'd expect no one would know the FCC is involved.
> 
> This is getting ridiculous. Can someone get me an arbitrator when I go grocery shopping, pay my electric bill or sign-up for pay-tv service?


Pretty much, especially if Fox is going from must carry to charging a fee, ratings dictate that they are one of the more popular stations relative to the rest of channels that are offered, if they try and get as much per subscriber as some of the more popular pay channels I don't see how it couldn't be seen as a good faith negotiation.

Even with these rules in place all we'd probably have is more information, and be in the same situation.


----------



## runner861

Gloria_Chavez said:


> I have a degree from Stanford and a Harvard MBA. I've worked at both a management consulting firm and an investment bank. And I think that you fail to appreciate the similarities in the two scenarios.
> 
> In fact, I would argue that Dish has a stronger right to demand that Congress act than Blackstone.
> 
> As to the role of the federal government, if it can award people buying ill-fated electric cars 7,500 federal tax credits to stimulate an industry that will never ever be able to stand on its own, I think that it can at the very least hold hearings on the impact of PayTV price hikes on the consumer.


Congress can hold hearings on the impact of pay tv price increases. Congress can regulate this area if it chooses to do so. In fact, the powers of Congress are pretty expansive, limited only when five members of the Supreme Court decide to limit the powers. Does anyone know if the courts have limited the ability of Congress to regulate cable and satellite? I think Congress is in a strong position to take action, if it chooses to do so. Party affiliation will mean very little in this area if the constituents get mad enough. The constituents want to receive the stations, and they don't want to pay more. Congress will get that message if enough people complain.


----------



## phrelin

I thought we established that the Oak Hill Capital Partners Local TV LLC stations purchased from Fox in 2008 were included in the list along with O&O. And isn't the list as follows?

Atlanta, GA market
Austin, TX market
Baltimore, MD market
Birmingham, AL market
Boston, MA market
Chicago, IL market
Cleveland, OH market
Dallas, TX market
Denver, CO market
Detroit, MI market
Gainesville, FL market
Greensboro/Winston Salem, NC market
Houston, TX market
Jonesboro, AR market
Kansas City, MO market
Los Angeles, CA market
Memphis, TN market
Minneapolis/St Paul, MN market
New York, NY market
Orlando, FL market
Philadelphia, PA market
Phoenix, AZ market
Salt Lake City, UT market
St Joseph, MO market
St Louis, MO market
Tampa, FL market
Washington, DC market


----------



## Greg Bimson

That list is correct, save Birmingham. I think Local TV traded the Birmingham FOX station for one in Richmond.


----------



## inazsully

FYI. I just received an e-mail from COX saying if I left "E" I would get a free HDDVR, 3 mo free HBO and Showtime, a free Wii, free installation, 270 channels, all for $39 for the first year. I assume every "E" customer in Arizona received this e-mail.


----------



## MilFan

I'm just hoping that by November 1 or soon after, the uproar over pulling local Fox results in all the stations (Fox + Fox Sports) being returned. My fear at this point is the local Fox getting resolved and then the Fox Sports taking forever, leaving a ton of sports fans in the dark.


----------



## cj9788

I am just pissed i am going to have to watch SOA on computer for another week. I wish they could settle this sooner rather than later.....


----------



## Quentin

If Dish caves, then Fox will charge them more. If Fox charges Dish more, then Dish will pass those costs along to their customers (for example, me). So I just hope that Dish holds the line against ever-increasing costs.

Given a choice between missing Fox stations for a few weeks, and paying an extra few dollars per month for as long as I keep satellite/cable TV, I'll stay without Fox for a bit. And every time one station raises rates, it encourages other channels to do the same.

I'm always unhappy when my TV rates go up. And I can't complain about how Dish always raises rates, and also demand that Dish should pay whatever Fox asks. So I'll live without Fox; it's only TV!


----------



## Davenlr

If Dish caves, then Comcast and DirecTv are next. I am already at the minimum package (except for the one you can get if you threaten to cancel). Cant drop much else.


----------



## Hoosier205

Davenlr said:


> If Dish caves, then Comcast and DirecTv are next. I am already at the minimum package (except for the one you can get if you threaten to cancel). Cant drop much else.


DirecTV is locked up for a while. They decided to avoid the scenario the time being apparently. Charlie attracts disputes like flies to dung.


----------



## Dave

I don't think COX is contacting everyone. I don't have cox internet. So no E-mail. Wouldn't take the deal anyway.


----------



## jclewter79

Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV is locked up for a while. They decided to avoid the scenario the time being apparently. Charlie attracts disputes like flies to dung.


When is D*'s contract up?


----------



## festivus

Quentin said:


> If Dish caves, then Fox will charge them more. If Fox charges Dish more, then Dish will pass those costs along to their customers (for example, me). So I just hope that Dish holds the line against ever-increasing costs.
> 
> Given a choice between missing Fox stations for a few weeks, and paying an extra few dollars per month for as long as I keep satellite/cable TV, I'll stay without Fox for a bit. And every time one station raises rates, it encourages other channels to do the same.
> 
> I'm always unhappy when my TV rates go up. And I can't complain about how Dish always raises rates, and also demand that Dish should pay whatever Fox asks. So I'll live without Fox; it's only TV!


I agree 100% with you. And the fact that I also get my local affiliates OTA really alleviates the issue for me. Although I can't think of a Fox show that I watch consistently. NFL football once in a while I guess.

I will miss my regional fox sports affiliates a bit but not enough to want Dish to cave to Murdoch's insane request.


----------



## lparsons21

Well the volume in this thread has tapered off a bit, I suppose that is because the next shoe to drop won't happen for a couple weeks or so (well, 11 days...). I'm finding that I'm not missing any of what is gone now so if others are like me, that isn't a good sign for Fox.

But in the meantime, I'll watch the channels I really care about and maybe observe the D* folks 'anticipating...'!!


----------



## MilFan

Quentin said:


> If Dish caves, then Fox will charge them more. If Fox charges Dish more, then Dish will pass those costs along to their customers (for example, me). So I just hope that Dish holds the line against ever-increasing costs.
> 
> Given a choice between missing Fox stations for a few weeks, and paying an extra few dollars per month for as long as I keep satellite/cable TV, I'll stay without Fox for a bit. And every time one station raises rates, it encourages other channels to do the same.
> 
> I'm always unhappy when my TV rates go up. And I can't complain about how Dish always raises rates, and also demand that Dish should pay whatever Fox asks. So I'll live without Fox; it's only TV!


If it's only a few weeks sure, but the problem is that nobody knows how long it could take. I don't know why anyone is happy paying the SAME amount of money for LESS programming though, especially when it is programming that you care about (at least in my case, and sports fans cases).

If there was legitimate progress being made or the public actually knew what the hell was being negotiated or where the two sides stood, then I'd feel a lot better about this. But Fox Sports could be out for months or permanently, and Dish/Fox can just keep saying "we're working on it". That doesn't help me.


----------



## MilFan

lparsons21 said:


> Well the volume in this thread has tapered off a bit, I suppose that is because the next shoe to drop won't happen for a couple weeks or so (well, 11 days...). I'm finding that I'm not missing any of what is gone now so if others are like me, that isn't a good sign for Fox.
> 
> But in the meantime, I'll watch the channels I really care about and maybe observe the D* folks 'anticipating...'!!


I don't think we'll hear much until NBA regular seasons starts and/or Fox local is pulled. There are a lot of NBA markets affected (including some very good teams like the Heat, Magic), and local Fox is obviously huge with NFL (and their shows like Idol) and the World Series (I believe game 5 of Texas/New York is affected by this).

There really isn't anything going on right now. NHL just started, NBA is preseason, and local Fox is still up and running.


----------



## lparsons21

MilFan said:


> If it's only a few weeks sure, but the problem is that nobody knows how long it could take. I don't know why anyone is happy paying the SAME amount of money for LESS programming though, especially when it is programming that you care about (at least in my case, and sports fans cases).
> 
> If there was legitimate progress being made or the public actually knew what the hell was being negotiated or where the two sides stood, then I'd feel a lot better about this. But Fox Sports could be out for months or permanently, and Dish/Fox can just keep saying "we're working on it". That doesn't help me.


Well, a couple of chats and I've gotten some things from E* because of this, here's what I've gotten so far:

1. 3 PPV coupons -even tho the CSR said not HD, they are working for HD PPV just fine.

2. one month multi-sports credit - $7

3. 3 months HD Platinum credit @$10/month

So I'm paying less for getting less.


----------



## MilFan

lparsons21 said:


> Well, a couple of chats and I've gotten some things from E* because of this, here's what I've gotten so far:
> 
> 1. 3 PPV coupons -even tho the CSR said not HD, they are working for HD PPV just fine.
> 
> 2. one month multi-sports credit - $7
> 
> 3. 3 months HD Platinum credit @$10/month
> 
> So I'm paying less for getting less.


#2 and #3 are not things everyone has though. If someone is paying just a flat rate for Top 200, I doubt they are getting any credits for anything. PPV coupons are pretty meh...


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> If there was legitimate progress being made or the public actually knew what the hell was being negotiated or where the two sides stood, then I'd feel a lot better about this. But Fox Sports could be out for months or permanently, and Dish/Fox can just keep saying "we're working on it". That doesn't help me.


Unfortunately only the parties at the bargaining table and those they report to know if progress is being made and the exact details of said negotiations. Both sides have made claims and counterclaims in public on the websites in post #1 of this thread.

When will they return? Not even DISH or Fox know a date. They will return within hours after a deal is signed. Both sides are likely hoping the other will come closer to the middle enough that a deal can be made. Not even the negotiators know on what day that move to the middle will happen (although educated guesses based on previous disputes can be made).


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Davenlr said:


> If Dish caves, then Comcast and DirecTv are next. I am already at the minimum package (except for the one you can get if you threaten to cancel). Cant drop much else.


What about the CSN deal to show FSN games and shows on CSN?

Is that soon to end as well?

If comcast drops fox will CSN lose the rights to show FOX / FSN highlights?

not able to show FSN games as well? (we seemed to have lost some FSN games last week)


----------



## GrumpyBear

MilFan said:


> If it's only a few weeks sure, but the problem is that nobody knows how long it could take. I don't know why anyone is happy paying the SAME amount of money for LESS programming though, especially when it is programming that you care about (at least in my case, and sports fans cases).
> 
> If there was legitimate progress being made or the public actually knew what the hell was being negotiated or where the two sides stood, then I'd feel a lot better about this. But Fox Sports could be out for months or permanently, and Dish/Fox can just keep saying "we're working on it". That doesn't help me.


This is way, all the Carriers are trying to get the FCC to impose binding arbitration, in this kind of disputes. Fox is the one fighting the Binding Arbitration. Binding arbitration, would be best in these kind of cases. Channels would still be on, once the agreement was in place, the broadcaster would be paid, from the date the arbitration started, would mean more money for them. If Charlie or any other Carrier was playing arrogant hardball over prices he/they would lose and a resolution would come about faster.


----------



## phrelin

JackBauer112 said:


> But at least Cablevision provides YES, MLB and it's own MSG net while Dish gets shut out of all three for now that is. Ergen just needs to file for Chapter 7 and sell Dish outright to SkyAngel and go to the funny farm. That way he can retire with how much money he milked out to his customers with his dumbed down overly pulled channels. He deserves to get rid of Dish.


And as these poor strategists :sure: at Cablevision and Dish deal with Fox, because of new information I posted this morning MSG Willing to Submit Dish Dispute to Arbitration.


----------



## olguy

I was talking to a CSR this am about an ongoing problem with my 922 and I could hear a CSR in the background talking about Dish vs Fox. I made the comment that I was amazed that people would call in and expect the first person they spoke with to know any more than anyone else on the matter. That got him in a good mood and during the call talking about some folks getting credit if they already had the 2 channels Dish substituted for FX and NatGeo I got HD Platinum, which I already subscribe to for free for 3 months. He also told me if you purchase Sons of Anarchy or Always Sunny in Philadelphia from iTunes you can call in and get credit for it.

Yeah, I know it doesn't replace the RSNs for the sports fans but for the rest of us that may watch either of those 2 plus Platinum HD it's something.


----------



## puckhead

runner861 said:


> Congress can hold hearings on the impact of pay tv price increases. Congress can regulate this area if it chooses to do so. In fact, the powers of Congress are pretty expansive, limited only when five members of the Supreme Court decide to limit the powers. Does anyone know if the courts have limited the ability of Congress to regulate cable and satellite? I think Congress is in a strong position to take action, if it chooses to do so. Party affiliation will mean very little in this area if the constituents get mad enough. The constituents want to receive the stations, and they don't want to pay more. Congress will get that message if enough people complain.


Do those that share this line of thinking believe that TV should now be considered a utility? Should we regulate the same as water or heat? Do we need our TV's to survive at this point?


----------



## zimm7778

puckhead said:


> Do those that share this line of thinking believe that TV should now be considered a utility? Should we regulate the same as water or heat? Do we need our TV's to survive at this point?


Agree entirely. The only way the government SHOULD be involved is in the case where an area would be subject to one service provider. This is why I agreed with their decision not to allow Dish to buy Directv. Many homes in rural areas would have really had no alternative as they cannot access OTA. I thought it was embarrasing that Congress dragged Bud Selig and co. to Capitol Hill in 2007 because they weren't making their out of market baseball package accessible to everyone. This is an area the US Government has NO BUSINESS.


----------



## runner861

puckhead said:


> Do those that share this line of thinking believe that TV should now be considered a utility? Should we regulate the same as water or heat? Do we need our TV's to survive at this point?


There is no advocacy or "line of thinking" in stating the fact that Congress can regulate this area, should it choose to do so. I did not advocate regulation. I am pointing out that it is a political question, not a constitutional question, as to whether Congress can regulate this area.


----------



## puckhead

runner861 said:


> There is no advocacy in stating the fact that Congress can regulate this area, should it choose to do so. I did not advocate regulation. I am pointing out that it is a political question, not a constitutional question, as to whether Congress can regulate this area.


Understood. I pose the questions to those that believe Congress needs to step into this dispute.


----------



## MysteryMan

puckhead said:


> Understood. I pose the questions to those that believe Congress needs to step into this dispute.


Congress is the opposite of progress!


----------



## GrumpyBear

Congress involved NO. FCC offering 3rd party binding arbitration, YES. 
Pricing, Tiers, discounts and everything else would still be handled between the companies invovled. Arbitration would force all those to be actively talking both in good faith and a involved manner, and would resolve these issues between the companies and not at the expense of the subs, no matter who the carrier is.


----------



## lparsons21

GrumpyBear said:


> Congress involved NO. FCC offering 3rd party binding arbitration, YES.
> Pricing, Tiers, discounts and everything else would still be handled between the companies invovled. Arbitration would force all those to be actively talking both in good faith and a involved manner, and would resolve these issues between the companies and not at the expense of the subs, no matter who the carrier is.


Regardless of how they come to a deal, arbitration or just make a deal without it, it will all be at the expense of the subs. Whatever the final deal is, it WILL cost us more money, you can bet on it.


----------



## GrumpyBear

lparsons21 said:


> Regardless of how they come to a deal, arbitration or just make a deal without it, it will all be at the expense of the subs. Whatever the final deal is, it WILL cost us more money, you can bet on it.


I didn't mean it wouldn't cost the subs more in CASH, down the road, not that naive or stupid. I meant it wouldn't be at the cost of Subs, no matter who the carrier was with blackouts, while the haggeling over the price was going on. It would end all the issues of subs paying for something they aren't getting anymore, just to get them back down the road again, once the price is settled on.

Yes all carriers can add and drop channels at will on the subs, not saying channels being dropped can't still happen or wont happen, as sometimes there will be no renewal period. Voom is a good example of a no renewal contract, a network that had a good idea, but was just to limited in content. Great HD shows, but even during the days when carriers were just looking for numbers, let alone HD content, Voom couldn't get picked up by anybody.

During the times of price talks though, subs wouldn't be held hostage, until it was final that there was NOT going to be a renewal.


----------



## runner861

GrumpyBear said:


> Congress involved NO. FCC offering 3rd party binding arbitration, YES.
> Pricing, Tiers, discounts and everything else would still be handled between the companies invovled. Arbitration would force all those to be actively talking both in good faith and a involved manner, and would resolve these issues between the companies and not at the expense of the subs, no matter who the carrier is.


How does the FCC offer third-party binding arbitration without the involvement of Congress? The FCC is an agency set up by Congress. The FCC has no authority to get involved in third-party binding arbitration absent authority of Congress. The FCC is not a private arbitrator.


----------



## GrumpyBear

runner861 said:


> How does the FCC offer third-party binding arbitration without the involvement of Congress? The FCC is an agency set up by Congress. The FCC has no authority to get involved in third-party binding arbitration absent authority of Congress. The FCC is not a private arbitrator.


HUGE difference between getting Congress members involved and the FCC and its people involved, HUGE difference. As for Binding Arbitration, it must be covererd already as Cablevision asked for it and the FCC offered binding arbitration service to both Cablevision and Fox. Fox declined the offer.

FCC offering arbitration or mediators has nothing to do with Congress, and Congressional panels being involved.


----------



## Hoosier205

I don't believe the arbitration directly involved the FCC. They merely recommended it.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Hoosier205 said:


> I don't believe the arbitration directly involved the FCC. They merely recommended it.


On cellphone, that could be true, don't have the time to look for the articles. Still thought it was the FCC that was going to do the Binding arbitration. Its an idea, All the cable companies, Direct and Dish all agree on.
You don't see that happening every day.


----------



## runner861

I am unaware of any authority of the FCC to enter into arbitration, either binding or advisory. The authority to do that must come from Congress. If the FCC already has that authority, I would be interested to know where in the United States Code it appears.


----------



## Hoosier205

runner861 said:


> I am unaware of any authority of the FCC to enter into arbitration, either binding or advisory. The authority to do that must come from Congress. If the FCC already has that authority, I would be interested to know where in the United States Code it appears.


I agree.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Hoosier205 said:


> I agree.


Here are a couple of Articles
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ossible-u-s-arbitration-over-programming.html

http://www.stockbloghub.com/2010/10...-from-federal-communications-commission/54738

Sounds like Direct knows about the FCC's arbirtation process

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/126742

Granted the FCC currently has no way of FORCING any kind of Arbitration at the moment. This latest spat with Fox and Cablevision, are changing the viewpoint of those in Congress now to give the FCC the power to force arbirtration and to keep channels on the air during on going negotations.

List of some of the arbitration cases
http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index...earch+request.x=10&Submit+search+request.y=10


----------



## bnborg

I just got an email from Dish saying *Tell FOX to Unblock Channels*.

There is a "Click Here" link on it that leads to http://www.whatacrockfox.com/.


----------



## phrelin

Over in my "keeping score" ratings thread, I just posted this:


phrelin said:


> Fox has only one time slot with over 10 million viewers - "Glee" - and though they spin their demo numbers, they have nothing else that interests 25±% of the viewers but the police procedural "Bones."


Maybe Fox stations are going to need those high fees?


----------



## Hoosier205

GrumpyBear said:


> Here are a couple of Articles
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ossible-u-s-arbitration-over-programming.html
> 
> http://www.stockbloghub.com/2010/10...-from-federal-communications-commission/54738
> 
> Sounds like Direct knows about the FCC's arbirtation process
> 
> http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/126742
> 
> Granted the FCC currently has no way of FORCING any kind of Arbitration at the moment. This latest spat with Fox and Cablevision, are changing the viewpoint of those in Congress now to give the FCC the power to force arbirtration and to keep channels on the air during on going negotations.
> 
> List of some of the arbitration cases
> http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index...earch+request.x=10&Submit+search+request.y=10


Content providers have every right to withhold their product when an agreement has not been reached. Congress has no business interfering.


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> Content providers have every right to withhold their product when an agreement has not been reached. Congress has no business interfering.


Correct. The FCC just needs to pull Fox's conditional licenses and sell them to someone else.


----------



## Greg Bimson

The arbitration process was used in the CSN-DirecTV dispute because when Comcast acquired Adelphia's assets, the FCC imposed arbitration for all Comcast-owned properties other than CSN Philly.

The FCC imposed that same requirement on Fox when they purchased DirecTV. Maybe some of the contracts couldn't be negotiated to a higher value a few years back because of arbitration hanging over Fox's head?


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> Correct. The FCC just needs to pull Fox's conditional licenses and sell them to someone else.


Under what guise?


----------



## phrelin

Greg Bimson said:


> Under what guise?


Under the same "guise" that makes one state that "Congress has no business interfering."

I keep trying to point out that since 1912 Congress has established laws regulating radio wave transmissions. And even in 1927, they worried about the problems of national broadcast networks having too much power through the exclusive grant of radio frequency use.

Maybe I haven't explained this well enough. In the mid-1920's every third guy was broadcasting a radio signal and in urban areas you couldn't hear anything. So Congress established regulations that turned off a majority of these transmitters, giving exclusive licenses to a few - a necessary government created monopoly.

Let's simply go back to letting anyone who can cobble together a transmitter jam up those broadcast TV frequencies. Free market and all.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Hoosier205 said:


> Content providers have every right to withhold their product when an agreement has not been reached. Congress has no business interfering.


Carriers should have the right to sell you any product they carry too. Granted the Broadcasters use the FCC to protect thier local markets from outside competition, and not allowing you to have any and every market a carrier can offer you. There should be no reason for congress interferring which TV Market I wish to watch. Broadcasters can't have thier cake and eat it too. Dish or Cablevision or any carrier should be able to offer you a in this case a Fox channel of your choice during the upcoming forced blackout.

With some of the upcoming mergers, sorry FCC needs to have exactly this kind of authority soon. Will be a proactive way to stop abuse of combined Broadcaster/Carrier companies.


----------



## domingos35

don't worry directv will be in this situation soon enough


----------



## xzi

domingos35 said:


> don't worry directv will be in this situation soon enough


You sure about that?


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> I keep trying to point out that since 1912 Congress has established laws regulating radio wave transmissions. And even in 1927, they worried about the problems of national broadcast networks having too much power through the exclusive grant of radio frequency use.


Uh, but Congress and the President did something in 1992 and Fox is well within it's right to ask Dish Network to wait until a carriage contract is signed. The FCC can't revoke the license if a broadcaster is well within its rights.


----------



## xzi

xzi said:


> You sure about that?


In case you aren't: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2610290#post2610290


----------



## lparsons21

xzi said:


> You sure about that?


D* is no more immune to the disputes than any other carrier. With Fox the best info is that they are contracted until sometime late next year. But you can bet that if Fox is successful with Cablevision and E* this year, it will be D* on the block next year.

Then the choice for D* will be the same as what E* and others see now, pay the piper or lose the channel.

Personally losing Fox altogether isn't such a bad prospect from my viewpoint, especially if they also take every Fox provided station off. But that's just me...


----------



## xzi

lparsons21 said:


> D* is no more immune to the disputes than any other carrier. With Fox the best info is that they are contracted until sometime late next year. But you can bet that if Fox is successful with Cablevision and E* this year, it will be D* on the block next year.
> 
> Then the choice for D* will be the same as what E* and others see now, pay the piper or lose the channel.
> 
> Personally losing Fox altogether isn't such a bad prospect from my viewpoint, especially if they also take every Fox provided station off. But that's just me...


I was referring more about the "soon" part, but yes I understand that part of it. Although, with DIRECTV willing to spend $1b/yr. for Sunday Ticket alone, I just assume they'll do better at negotiating contracts like this than E* does... after all, they don't tout themselves as the affordable alternative like E* so it would be silly of them to claim they were "fighting to keep our prices low" when they are clearly the more expensive alternative.

I'm just saying maybe they're more expensive for a reason.


----------



## Darcaine

phrelin said:


> Over in my "keeping score" ratings thread, I just posted this: Maybe Fox stations are going to need those high fees?


Fox has always been the little brother to ABC/CBS/NBC. So those numbers aren't really surprising.

They also don't have a 10 pm time slot any night of the week.


----------



## zimm7778

"bnborg" said:


> I just got an email from Dish saying Tell FOX to Unblock Channels.
> 
> There is a "Click Here" link on it that leads to http://www.whatacrockfox.com/.


So they have created yet ANOTHER website for this? If they spent the same energy on negotiating that they do on creating websites to complain about it, then maybe something could get done.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

zimm7778 said:


> So they have created yet ANOTHER website for this? If they spent the same energy on negotiating that they do on creating websites to complain about it, then maybe something could get done.


A couple of things...

So many of you continue to ignore the importance of Univision in our nation's media landscape. Yes, it's Spanish-language. But it recently managed to beat ALL the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) in the 18-49 demo.

-------------------
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...g-key-demographic-for-1st-time-102531854.html

Nielsen: Univision hits a TV ratings milestone, wins among key demographic for 1st time
By: DAVID BAUDER
Associated Press
09/09/10 11:05 AM EDT

NEW YORK - Univision was the most popular network among television viewers aged 18 to 49 years old last week, the first time a Spanish-language station has beaten English stations in this key demographic in the United States.
-------------------

And if Fox broadcast network manages to extract a dollar a month from PayTV providers, you can bet that Univision will demand just as much, if not more, next time it's up for renwal.

Also, have to mention the blockbuster Netflix 3Q10 results. Three months ago, it projected an EOY subscriber toal of 17.7 to 18.5M. Today, they upped that forecast to 19.0 to 19.7M.

The CEO also said something interesting...

"We are very proud to announce that by every measure we are now a streaming company, which also offers DVD-by-mail."


----------



## James Long

Gloria_Chavez said:


> A couple of things...
> 
> So many of you continue to ignore the importance of Univision in our nation's media landscape.


Rightfully so in this thread. Is Univision having a problem with DISH? Univision, Galavision and Telemundo are all carried in HD on DISH (as well as SD) and are available in "the most popular" English language package (AT200) ... not relegated to an extra charge Spanish language package. It seems that the relationship is fairly good.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Not disputing the current state of the relationship.

I am saying that Univision will demand at least a much as Fox broadcast channel next time it's contract is up for renewal.

That's why it's so important for Cablevision to hold out. It's not just the dollar that would go to Fox. It's the four other dollars, at the very least, that would eventually go to NBC, CBS and ABC and Univision.


----------



## meStevo

I don't see how Univision is relevant, for the most part it's a completely different demo, and like they pointed out in the article they were up "a desultory week of reality and reruns at the English broadcast networks made the milestone possible" while their soaps were hitting climaxes and stuff.

Meanwhile Fox is airing House, Glee, NFL football, etc and has enjoyed *years* of being the top rated network, not week(s) that are being boasted by that article.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Gloria_Chavez said:


> That's why it's so important for Cablevision to hold out. It's not just the dollar that would go to Fox. It's the four other dollars, at the very least, that would eventually go to NBC, CBS and ABC and Univision.


Welcome to the world of unintended consequences.

Many felt the need to create a competitor to incumbent cable companies in the early 1990's. Thus, DBS was born, to stop the monopoly cable companies.

But take a look what is happening. Prices have rose faster than inflation, but then again, the "entertainment industry" has been somewhat immune to the economy.

Now, Fox doesn't just sell it's programming to cable, it is basically auctioning to the highest bidders, and expecting the rest of the stragglers to fall in line, for fear of losing programming.

Also, within a year or so, the gorilla in the room is CBS. As Viacom and CBS split a couple years back, CBS is now only the network and it's owned affiliates. CBS has stated they expect to sign hefty retransmission fees from a new carriage agreement.

Sirius and XM competed for the right to broadcast sports leagues. Because there were two companies competing, they had to shell out major rights fees in order to out-do the other. Now that they are one company, it is a take-it-or-leave-it approach to the sports leagues. They've reduced their expenses.

I honestly expect pay-TV to continue to climb until some of the players merge, for the simple reason everyone wants to compete. Fox wants these rate increases to compete with ESPN for sports rights. I can't say I blame them; many are dissatisfied with ESPN being "the sports leader". CBS will want them because they'll need to compete and because they now stand alone from Viacom. Disney/ABC/ESPN is the top dog, and let's wait to see what Comcast has in store with NBC.

And sure, Univision and the like can be thrown into the mix. The point is that a "right-sizing" is occurring, and no one will like it much.


----------



## MilFan

NBA League Pass is in a Free Preview up until November 1, so people should be able to see if this is affected for free for the next week and a half. I haven't looked yet personally, because I'm screwed regardless being in a local market. 

And Dish needs to stop making websites. There are like five now. Everyone with a brain knows that you are not 100% blameless here, so take the effort being put into the websites and use it to get the f'ing dispute settled so I can watch my games.


----------



## lparsons21

Good points, Greg.

When this current situation is history, we'll all get to see how much our bills will go up so that these billionaires can keep their yachts. At that time we can decide just how much all these channels are worth. Hopefully a significant enough percentage of subscribers will speak with their wallets by either dropping or reducing the subscription level to get someone's attention.

Because so far, the parties involved don't seem to really be concerned about us for all their yammering. They want the most dollars they can get and seem to think that we really won't do more than ***** about the rates while writing the check! Somewhere along the line, we as consumers have to quit doing that!


----------



## tuck2694

My question through all this is: "Has there been progress towards settling things so I can watch by college football games this weekend?"


----------



## lparsons21

tuck2694 said:


> My question through all this is: "Has there been progress towards settling things so I can watch by college football games this weekend?"


None that any can see. It seems we're all having to wait for the other shoe to drop, that shoe being the Fox O&O locals dropping off. I think both sides see that as the tipping point.

Dish & Cablevision are probably hoping that they can force it into arbitration, Fox hoping that it doesn't make the gov't take a hard look at what is going on and attempting to come to a 'solution'.

In the meantime, we can moan and groan and no one seems to care...


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> And Dish needs to stop making websites. There are like five now. Everyone with a brain knows that you are not 100% blameless here, so take the effort being put into the websites and use it to get the f'ing dispute settled so I can watch my games.


Looking at the domain creation dates ... the "latest" website was created along with the others in late September. About the time that Fox's commercial campaign telling people to leave DISH began. Fox's anti-dish website was created in August ... six weeks before the contract expired.



tuck2694 said:


> My question through all this is: "Has there been progress towards settling things so I can watch by college football games this weekend?"


Unlikely. DISH and Fox made it through two weekends without an agreement. They can probably ride out a third and fourth. When the Fox O&O stations come into play on November 1st there will be more for both sides to deal with.


----------



## GrumpyBear

tuck2694 said:


> My question through all this is: "Has there been progress towards settling things so I can watch by college football games this weekend?"


No I don't see any movement happening, nor do I until Nov 1st week. If you have the MulitSports package, call in or do a online chat, tell them you upset, but be rational about it, that you are paying for something Dish is giving to everybody else for Free. You will be able to work a credit for MSP and end up getting NFL Redzone for free.


----------



## jayna_95

Why do Dish, Direct, Cablevision, Comcast, etc. pay to transmit Fox, Disney, etc. product in the first place? Shouldn't it be the other way around? How would Fox distribute it's products without cable and satellite companies?


----------



## Paul Secic

GrumpyBear said:


> Here are a couple of Articles
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ossible-u-s-arbitration-over-programming.html
> 
> http://www.stockbloghub.com/2010/10...-from-federal-communications-commission/54738
> 
> Sounds like Direct knows about the FCC's arbirtation process
> 
> http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/126742
> 
> Granted the FCC currently has no way of FORCING any kind of Arbitration at the moment. This latest spat with Fox and Cablevision, are changing the viewpoint of those in Congress now to give the FCC the power to force arbirtration and to keep channels on the air during on going negotations.
> 
> List of some of the arbitration cases
> http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index...earch+request.x=10&Submit+search+request.y=10


I wonder why the media hardly mentions Dish in these articles.


----------



## Paul Secic

domingos35 said:


> don't worry directv will be in this situation soon enough


And they'll just roll over and hike rates..


----------



## russ9

Greg Bimson said:


> Welcome to the world of unintended consequences....
> 
> Also, within a year or so, the gorilla in the room is CBS. As Viacom and CBS split a couple years back, CBS is now only the network and it's owned affiliates. CBS has stated they expect to sign hefty retransmission fees from a new carriage agreement....


I'm starting to think Dish made a fundamental error when they included locals for "free" when they raised the price of the packages this year. If the price of the packages goes up substantially due to forced network price increases from Fox, I am more likely to abandon Dish due to that rather than due to the usual cable increases. (I don't consider the 50% price demanded by Fox to be usual.)
Dish should de-couple the network prices.


----------



## Hoosier205

jayna_95 said:


> Why do Dish, Direct, Cablevision, Comcast, etc. pay to transmit Fox, Disney, etc. product in the first place? Shouldn't it be the other way around? How would Fox distribute it's products without cable and satellite companies?


OTA. If service providers want to transmit, they must pay to do so.


----------



## meStevo

jayna_95 said:


> Why do Dish, Direct, Cablevision, Comcast, etc. pay to transmit Fox, Disney, etc. product in the first place? Shouldn't it be the other way around? How would Fox distribute it's products without cable and satellite companies?


They are forced to because other providers carry those channels and consumers want them.

You don't carry them then consumers move to other services.

I really don't miss the days of some providers offering local channels while others didnt. I wonder how far Dish would (or could) go if/when ABC/NBC/CBS decide to waive must carry (assuming they don't already) and want to be paid like the top tier channels they are (ratings-wise).


----------



## James Long

meStevo said:


> I really don't miss the days of some providers offering local channels while others didnt. I wonder how far Dish would (or could) go if/when ABC/NBC/CBS decide to waive must carry (assuming they don't already) and want to be paid like the top tier channels they are (ratings-wise).


I read that 60% of stations choose "consent to carry" while only 40% choose "must carry". The current cycle ends December 31st, 2011, with stations making the election for the next cycle by October 1st, 2011. The last cycle ended December 31st, 2008.


----------



## kcolg30

kcolg30 is going to miss his Miami Heat.

I like pie.


----------



## srrobinson2

Has anyone successfully canceled without paying early termination fees? 

I am very frustrated by this situation, and my kids are still upset about the Disney HD channels. I've been a customer for 12 years, and I really like their technology, but I'm ready to switch. I would have already made the move, but am having trouble finding suitable technical alternatives (i.e. UHF remotes, TV1/TV2 type outputs, simultaneous output for HDMI & YPbR...it's tough!!!

If anyone has any success stories about terminating without Dish trying to charge you a fee, or if you have ideas about technical solutions that are comparable to the 622/722, I would love to hear about it. Thanks!!


----------



## inazsully

srrobinson2 said:


> Has anyone successfully canceled without paying early termination fees?
> 
> I am very frustrated by this situation, and my kids are still upset about the Disney HD channels. I've been a customer for 12 years, and I really like their technology, but I'm ready to switch. I would have already made the move, but am having trouble finding suitable technical alternatives (i.e. UHF remotes, TV1/TV2 type outputs, simultaneous output for HDMI & YPbR...it's tough!!!
> 
> If anyone has any success stories about terminating without Dish trying to charge you a fee, or if you have ideas about technical solutions that are comparable to the 622/722, I would love to hear about it. Thanks!!


That's a good question. I've read here several times where subs have bit the bullet and payed the fee. I would guess that if "E" thinks they are going to lose you anyway they may as well make some money off you.


----------



## Greg Bimson

I read elsewhere that the AG of Missouri is asking Dish Network to let Missouri subs out of their commitment, as it may violate the consent decree Dish Network signed with the state last year regarding deceptive business practices.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

inazsully said:


> That's a good question. I've read here several times where subs have bit the bullet and payed the fee. I would guess that if "E" thinks they are going to lose you anyway they may as well make some money off you.


That isn't always the case.

The SAC, is usually higher then then the prorated ETF.
Various situations the ETF may cover, the cost and be positive.
But more times than not, it won't.


----------



## Hoosier205

Greg Bimson said:


> I read elsewhere that the AG of Missouri is asking Dish Network to let Missouri subs out of their commitment, as it may violate the consent decree Dish Network signed with the state last year regarding deceptive business practices.


Which is ridiculous, but oh well. You agree to a commitment, you honor a commitment.


----------



## PhantomOG

I went online to chat and complain about missing the UT-IowaState football game this weekend on Foxsports SW. The first response was a really long canned response about the NHL and a center ice preview for free.  After explaining to the rep that NCAA FB != NHL, I got 3 pay per view movie coupon. I would have rather had a credit on my bill for however long this dispute drags out.

I know its an impossible situation, but what's to stop Dish from having a "dispute" with every network and charging customers monthly fees or ETF's for a glorified screensaver??


----------



## Michael P

James Long said:


> Rightfully so in this thread. Is Univision having a problem with DISH? Univision, Galavision and Telemundo are all carried in HD on DISH (as well as SD) and are available in "the most popular" English language package (AT200) ... not relegated to an extra charge Spanish language package. It seems that the relationship is fairly good.


Where is the HD version of the Spanish language channels on E*? So far al I see is SD, including the OTA version of my local Univision channel with an "HD" logo in the bottom of the screen


----------



## James Long

Michael P said:


> Where is the HD version of the Spanish language channels on E*? So far al I see is SD, including the OTA version of my local Univision channel with an "HD" logo in the bottom of the screen


Channels 270, 272 and 273 are in HD and included nationally in HD 200 and above (AT 200 w/HD).


----------



## EW800

Would I be correct in thinking that other than losing subscribers, Dish is saving a lot of money through this? I don't recall what folks have said that Dish has been paying Fox ($1.50-$2.00/subscriber?), but they would be saving a pretty good chunk of change during this dispute by not having to pay these fees....


----------



## runner861

Hoosier205 said:


> Which is ridiculous, but oh well. You agree to a commitment, you honor a commitment.


A consent decree is also a commitment.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Paul Secic said:


> I wonder why the media hardly mentions Dish in these articles.


Cablevision is in New York City, where the media lives and breathes. Dish has a very small presence in New York City, thus they are not nearly on top of mind when the media is reporting it. My two cents at least.


----------



## hiero4life

They are messing with my CI package and that is it. No DET feed no HD I'm done with E*. Hope E* stays strong with their dispute, but it is time for me to get D* . I was with E* for 4 years and had zero problems, hope D* is as good.


----------



## Satelliteracer

EW800 said:


> Would I be correct in thinking that other than losing subscribers, Dish is saving a lot of money through this? I don't recall what folks have said that Dish has been paying Fox ($1.50-$2.00/subscriber?), but they would be saving a pretty good chunk of change during this dispute by not having to pay these fees....


They would be saving money on a carriage fee to Fox but how much are they losing in terms of customers going to another platform? That's always the big question that surely they have calculated as has Fox.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Earl Bonovich said:


> That isn't always the case.
> 
> The SAC, is usually higher then then the prorated ETF.
> Various situations the ETF may cover, the cost and be positive.
> But more times than not, it won't.


Agree. The SAC is almost always higher than the ETF, especially a prorated one.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Greg Bimson said:


> Welcome to the world of unintended consequences.
> 
> Many felt the need to create a competitor to incumbent cable companies in the early 1990's. Thus, DBS was born, to stop the monopoly cable companies.
> 
> But take a look what is happening. Prices have rose faster than inflation, but then again, the "entertainment industry" has been somewhat immune to the economy.


True, but the next question should be has television become much better since the early 1990's to justify those increases?

DVRs
HD
A few channels in the 1990's to hundreds of channels today
More sports than ever before, including such products as NFL ST
Interactivity
Mobile television products
Etc, etc

It costs a ton of money to do all that in terms of infrastructure, development, R & D, rights fees, etc, etc.

I'm not sure comparing it to the inflation benchmark is necessarily fair. Has the cost to produce milk, butter, bread, etc, and other staples in life accelerated or gone up the way the television industry has in terms of technical and content advancements? Look at the costs of educating a kid now in college compared to the early 1990's, and that's without a whole ton of technological advancements. Many industries we can see these types of increases and there are a number of different reasons in each example to explain why.


----------



## GrumpyBear

PhantomOG said:


> I went online to chat and complain about missing the UT-IowaState football game this weekend on Foxsports SW. The first response was a really long canned response about the NHL and a center ice preview for free.  After explaining to the rep that NCAA FB != NHL, I got 3 pay per view movie coupon. I would have rather had a credit on my bill for however long this dispute drags out.
> 
> I know its an impossible situation, but what's to stop Dish from having a "dispute" with every network and charging customers monthly fees or ETF's for a glorified screensaver??


You could add the Multisports package, and then complain on Saturday saying you had no idea that this was going on, and why should you pay for something that your aren't getting. Explain that while you were looking for the game you watched Charlie talk about how everybody is getting all the Sports channels for free right now while the dispute is going on. You will get a $7 credit each month(or at least I am right now, and several others) and get the NFL Redzone for free that way. This is something that will be resolved, in the next 2 weeks, so once the Local Fox stations get involved in the blackout.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Satelliteracer said:


> True, but the next question should be has television become much better since the early 1990's to justify those increases?
> 
> DVRs
> HD
> A few channels in the 1990's to hundreds of channels today
> More sports than ever before, including such products as NFL ST
> Interactivity
> Mobile television products
> Etc, etc
> 
> It costs a ton of money to do all that in terms of infrastructure, development, R & D, rights fees, etc, etc.
> 
> I'm not sure comparing it to the inflation benchmark is necessarily fair. Has the cost to produce milk, butter, bread, etc, and other staples in life accelerated or gone up the way the television industry has in terms of technical and content advancements? Look at the costs of educating a kid now in college compared to the early 1990's, and that's without a whole ton of technological advancements. Many industries we can see these types of increases and there are a number of different reasons in each example to explain why.


Satelliteracer, you make some valid points, but, as my signature indicates, TV consumption is up only 13% since 1995, while the average PayTV bill much more.

Let's look at refrigerators. Prices have dramatically decreased (in real terms) over the past two decades, while efficiency has increased. How much did a MacSE cost in 1988 (2,200 1988 dollars). How much does a Mac cost today?

I do believe that we've arrived at an inflection point. Glance at Netflix's earnings and you'll see that it's increased its target for EOY subscribers. The CEO also said that Netlifx is today a streaming company with a side DVD business.


----------



## Hoosier205

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Satelliteracer, you make some valid points, but, as my signature indicates, TV consumption is up only 13% since 1995, while the average PayTV bill much more.
> 
> Let's look at refrigerators. Prices have dramatically decreased (in real terms) over the past two decades, while efficiency has increased. How much did a MacSE cost in 1988 (2,200 1988 dollars). How much does a Mac cost today?
> 
> I do believe that we've arrived at an inflection point. Glance at Netflix's earnings and you'll see that it's increased its target for EOY subscribers. The CEO also said that Netlifx is today a streaming company with a side DVD business.


Sure, go ahead and disagree with someone who actually works in the very industry being discussed.


----------



## sigma1914

Hoosier205 said:


> Sure, go ahead and disagree with someone who actually works in the very industry being discussed.


Then, compare TV to refrigerators...because they're so alike! :lol:


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Hoosier, fresh out of college and before B-School, I worked for a strategy consulting firm for two years. During that time frame, I worked for clients in many industries, advising SVPs and CFOs on strategic direction. You'd be surprised at the value that can be brought by a fresh set of eyes.


----------



## Davenlr

Satelliteracer said:


> True, but the next question should be has television become much better since the early 1990's to justify those increases?
> 
> DVRs
> HD
> A few channels in the 1990's to hundreds of channels today
> More sports than ever before, including such products as NFL ST
> Interactivity
> Mobile television products
> Etc, etc


DVRs are made by third party companies who did all the R&D. Shouldnt affect the cost of PayTv a bit. Now DirecTv branded them, and does their own software, but a mpeg4 chip in a Tivo would satisfy most.

Sports shouldnt increase the cost of basic PayTv, since its an ala carte option except for ESPNs, which used to be called Wild World of Sports among other names, and used to be free when there were only three or four channels available for free. DirecTv did the negotiating on those, but they should be in the sports pak, so basic tv viewers dont get saddled with the high costs of those.

Interactivity is used by what percentage of PayTv customers? Not enough to warrant increasing across the board costs.

Mobile Television? You are kidding right? Since the ATSC transition, the only mobile television Ive seen that worked, was streaming low res video with a cell phone.

The only thing that should warrant a 133% increase would be 133% more channels. And I dont mean the ones that PAY YOU guys to carry them.

There are really to many channels now. All most of them are repeats after repeats. Not much new content of the science channels, for instance. Same series repeated on different channels, one program shown all day (when you could watch it on netflix).

That is why you arent seeing me complaining about DirecTv not adding channels. There arent any that are not a close duplicate of something we already have. There are a couple I watch you dont carry, but I found other ways to get them.

I think this Fox 50% increase, and paytv annual increases, coupled with most peoples declining net worth, is going to blow up if things dont improve soon.

I have cut back almost 50% on my DirecTv bill in the past two months, and only added Netflix. I would cut back further, save for one channel Choice Select doesnt have that I cannot get anywhere else.

Obviously, since you are making a profit, there are enough people with disposable income to make things work, so keep doing what you are doing. When the numbers crash, if they do, then those of us who dont have $200 a month to spend on TV might be able to afford to watch everything on tv again.

And to add one more thing before I shut up... Id be willing to pay a lot more if I didnt have to put up with commercials. I find it odd paying for something I hate. That is why I love PBS, and its free (well, I pay them, but dont have to).


----------



## jerry downing

I am watching the NLCS. Besides having more ads than ever between innings, I am now seeing promos at the bottom of the screen during play. Is there any end to the greed?


----------



## sigma1914

jerry downing said:


> I am watching the NLCS. Besides having more ads than ever between innings, I am now seeing promos at the bottom of the screen during play. Is there any end to the greed?


It's just advertising...it's everywhere. I'm reminded of my first sociology class. My professor asked us, "What's the main goal of the newspaper?" It took 15 minutes of guessing to get the right answer. Most were convinced it's goal was to inform the people. The answer: To make money! It's all about selling ad space. The actual percentage of ad space dwarfed actual news space.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Before the internet, having a newspaper was a license to print money. 

Operating profits ranged from 20% to 30% of revenue. In the real world, a business can't maintain that high a margin for an extended period. But as Warren Buffet said when he bought into the Washington Post, "newspapers are a virtual monopoly". If you wanted to reach affluent educated customers in major cities and smaller towns, you paid what the newspaper asked. In many places, that was 40 dollars per CPM (thousand impressions of an ad). 

Then came the Web and even papers like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times were selling ad space on their Web editions for 1 dollar per CPM.

Party was over.


----------



## Davenlr

sigma1914 said:


> It's just advertising...it's everywhere.


So you wouldnt have a problem if they inserted advertisements every 30 minutes onto blu-rays, and disabled the transport functions so you couldnt skip over them?


----------



## sigma1914

Davenlr said:


> So you wouldnt have a problem if they inserted advertisements every 30 minutes onto blu-rays, and disabled the transport functions so you couldnt skip over them?


There's already ads cleverly in movies and shows. Didn't Earl have a topic on this?


----------



## Earl Bonovich

sigma1914 said:


> There's already ads cleverly in movies and shows. Didn't Earl have a topic on this?


I did... and I was about to update it...
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=183024&highlight=product+placement

And I am about to add to it....


----------



## Satelliteracer

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Satelliteracer, you make some valid points, but, as my signature indicates, TV consumption is up only 13% since 1995, while the average PayTV bill much more.
> 
> Let's look at refrigerators. Prices have dramatically decreased (in real terms) over the past two decades, while efficiency has increased. How much did a MacSE cost in 1988 (2,200 1988 dollars). How much does a Mac cost today?
> 
> I do believe that we've arrived at an inflection point. Glance at Netflix's earnings and you'll see that it's increased its target for EOY subscribers. The CEO also said that Netlifx is today a streaming company with a side DVD business.


I think a lot of people don't admit how much tv they watch in those surveys.

The number 1 cost of tv rate increases are programming costs. We can see it in this very thread. Netflix isn't delivering the local news, the local sports team, games on ESPN and even many shows. So since those costs are not absorbed by Netflix they won't have the same pricing fluctuations as a MSO, but then again they are delivering a lot less content, too. If people only want what Netflix offers, they should subscribe just to Netflix.

I don't follow the refrigerator analysis to be honest. Sure, they've become more efficient but the step up from TV's from the 1990's (tube tv, 480 pixels) to what we have today (LCD, LED, Plasma, 1080P, Blu Ray, Internet connected, etc, etc) is light years difference than the improvements in refrigerators. And even so, look at HD televisions 4 years ago vs today...prices have come down considerably and they are better, faster, bigger screens, etc. Hardware pricing tends to come down, but the cost of content goes up (sports rights fees, content development, SAG, etc, etc)


----------



## Rosco

It looks like the Missouri Attorney General is calling out Dish network over this.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=222873&catid=3


----------



## Satelliteracer

Davenlr said:


> DVRs are made by third party companies who did all the R&D. Shouldnt affect the cost of PayTv a bit. Now DirecTv branded them, and does their own software, but a mpeg4 chip in a Tivo would satisfy most.
> 
> Sports shouldnt increase the cost of basic PayTv, since its an ala carte option except for ESPNs, which used to be called Wild World of Sports among other names, and used to be free when there were only three or four channels available for free. DirecTv did the negotiating on those, but they should be in the sports pak, so basic tv viewers dont get saddled with the high costs of those.
> 
> Interactivity is used by what percentage of PayTv customers? Not enough to warrant increasing across the board costs.
> 
> Mobile Television? You are kidding right? Since the ATSC transition, the only mobile television Ive seen that worked, was streaming low res video with a cell phone.
> 
> The only thing that should warrant a 133% increase would be 133% more channels. And I dont mean the ones that PAY YOU guys to carry them.
> 
> There are really to many channels now. All most of them are repeats after repeats. Not much new content of the science channels, for instance. Same series repeated on different channels, one program shown all day (when you could watch it on netflix).
> 
> That is why you arent seeing me complaining about DirecTv not adding channels. There arent any that are not a close duplicate of something we already have. There are a couple I watch you dont carry, but I found other ways to get them.
> 
> I think this Fox 50% increase, and paytv annual increases, coupled with most peoples declining net worth, is going to blow up if things dont improve soon.
> 
> I have cut back almost 50% on my DirecTv bill in the past two months, and only added Netflix. I would cut back further, save for one channel Choice Select doesnt have that I cannot get anywhere else.
> 
> Obviously, since you are making a profit, there are enough people with disposable income to make things work, so keep doing what you are doing. When the numbers crash, if they do, then those of us who dont have $200 a month to spend on TV might be able to afford to watch everything on tv again.
> 
> And to add one more thing before I shut up... Id be willing to pay a lot more if I didnt have to put up with commercials. I find it odd paying for something I hate. That is why I love PBS, and its free (well, I pay them, but dont have to).


Well, Disney owns ESPN as well as ABC as well as the Disney channels. Simply put, if you want their channels you put them ALL in the broadest tier possible or you get none of them. That's the leverage they have. Other sports, sure it would be great to put them in certain tiers....should the Big Ten Network only be in a sports package? Sounds logical, but Fox owns 49% of the Big Ten Network and thus they have leverage because of all their other channels.

PBS isn't free, it's tax supported to some extent (about 30%). We all pay for it to a degree.

Disagree with you on the DVR costs for the following reasons. MSO's have to pay licensing fees to 3rd party companies to use that technology, plus they invest heavy dollars of their own to improve those services (think about all the software updates you get over the years adding functionality to your DVR...that costs money for engineers to develop, test, deploy, etc). It absolutely affects costs of tv. As people want more storage and more goodies (sharing content for example), that costs more money to develop, bigger hard drives, etc.

I admire your stance for not wanting to add more channels to the service, but as you can tell on this board that there is a constant clamor to add more more more, especially HD. What happens when that is achieved? More costs.

I completely understand your viewpoint and how you get there, but the fact of the matter is this business is complex in so many ways that are not found in 99% of other industries in this country. Increasing the cost 10% may get 10% more soda at the store...but 10% more channels to use your analogy, often isn't the case. It costs more and more to operate the existing channels each year because of the costs that MSO's are subjected to. In other words, do you think ESPN, HBO, Fox, etc, etc. are keeping their programing costs frozen or lowering them each year to Cablevision, Directv, Dish, Time Warner? Nope. Does the NFL get less money or the same money from DIRECTV each year for that product? Big nope.

Again, totally understand your viewpoint, but this is a very complex industry that should not be compared, in my opinion, to standard goods and services like buying a computer or whatever. Completely different animal.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Incidentally, here's a more recent survey of television consumption

http://www.socialmediatoday.com/SMC/174594


----------



## mdavej

Given the recent uplink activity related to RSN's and a few Fox locals, could it be that a compromise to carry only the SD versions of the disputed channels is in the works?


----------



## Davenlr

Yea, like he stands a chance in hell of winning. Dish didnt pull the channels, Fox did. He must be up for reelection.


----------



## Hoosier205

Rosco said:


> It looks like the Missouri Attorney General is planning to sue Dish network over this.
> 
> http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=222873&catid=3


What a crock. Subscribers are not promised particular channels and are notified that channel lineups are subject to change. No one should be let out of their commitment with any provider due to this or any other dispute. Thank the lord I don't live in Missouri.

EDIT: Not suing, but the AG still has more important issues to focus on.


----------



## Rosco

I misspoke, not suing, but letting them know they are in violation of a Voluntary Compliance aggreement asking Dish to allow the customers out of their contractual obligation


----------



## tampa8

Well, not quite so fast. It can be looked at that Dish _is choosing_ not to carry those channels by not paying the price. I posted what a retired Judge explained in a post on another forum who said what the Attorney General is saying. In a nut shell - (I am not saying this is, he is) Dish can indeed change packages etc... but the Court might look at it only when a channel no longer exists, or for technical reasons is not available, then even without adding any other channel, Dish would be within the contract. But they can't decide not to pay for channels, and not carry them. Why? Because where do you draw the line. If Dish were to lose the fox channels already in dispute, and then the Network Fox channel, and also continue not to carry the Disney channels, and throw in some other disputed channel, is that all still ok? If Dish carries a channel no one else has, gets subscribers because of it, then just drops it, is that ok? (Dish did not drop it, but this was a selling point when they had a channel almost no one else had that was going to carry the big Patriots/Giants final game a couple of years ago)
So the Court could decide that there are two choices. Dish could be ordered to pay the price, carry the channels, but under the order is not obligated to put them in any certain package. This would be a first step towards an A La Carte remedy by the court.
OR - They could tell Dish you don't have to carry the channels, but must release anyone who wants to be from their contract.

The Court remedy would probably be good for Dish - They would pay the price, put the channels in a package by themselves or A La Carte, charge whatever they need to and not worry about it. They would only pay for the channels for people who actually subscribe to them, exactly what Fox and the others don't want.


----------



## Davenlr

Satelliteracer said:


> Well, Disney owns ESPN as well as ABC as well as the Disney channels. Simply put, if you want their channels you put them ALL in the broadest tier possible or you get none of them.


Yea, I understand that. Strange that if any other business does that, its considered antitrust, and is illegal. Imagine if one oil company bought all the gas stations in LA, and then charged $8.00 per gallon.

So given the current situation with multiple channels owned by one corporation, does the MSO cling to the tiered method? Why not just offer "Fox channels", ABC channels, etc. Would seem to alleviate the high costs associated with some groups being foisted on people who dont want them. If you didnt have tiers, then how could the broadcast group demand all their channels be in the "low priced tier"?

Just some background:
I was an MCO for about 19 concurrent television stations on the overnight shift (two Fox, 5 Univision, a WB, and some UPNs...you might have seen them on the old Galaxy 10 Equity Mux. It was a hairy job, monitoring 19 stations at once, all running off a central server, while still recording shows off feeds for the next days shift. They often left me working alone, as the other two people would call in sick, etc. They didnt pay squat. But they manipulated the system to get must carry on cable and satellite systems. Greed city. Guess where they are now? Bankrupt. RTN is the only semblance left of the company, owned by someone Equity cheated and screwed over. He got the last laugh.

My point being, while I dont consider DirecTv to be greedy, nor do I consider Dish to be greedy, I do consider the content providers to be greedy. And hopefully the customers can see that, ride out the storm, and enjoy lower prices and better selection choices in the future.

I still disagree with you on the DVR thing tho. Respectfully, the DVR and MRV fees should more than cover the licensing and R&D costs. I wouldnt expect the shareholders would be happy knowing the programmers were making more than the DVR and MRV fee was bringing in.


----------



## runner861

The attorney general is sworn to uphold the law. Dish entered into a consent decree in Missouri. Dish is bound by that decree, which it voluntarily entered into but is now bound by. The attorney general will not ignore it, nor should he. I am not sure what the decree says, but Dish may have to make some adjustments for subscribers in that state. For the attorney general to simply ignore the consent decree would be irresponsible and a dereliction of duty.


----------



## inazsully

tampa8 said:


> Well, not quite so fast. It can be looked at that Dish _is choosing_ not to carry those channels by not paying the price. I posted what a retired Judge explained in a post on another forum who said what the Attorney General is saying. In a nut shell - (I am not saying this is, he is) Dish can indeed change packages etc... but the Court might look at it only when a channel no longer exists, or for technical reasons is not available, then even without adding any other channel, Dish would be within the contract. But they can't decide not to pay for channels, and not carry them. Why? Because where do you draw the line. If Dish were to lose the fox channels already in dispute, and then the Network Fox channel, and also continue not to carry the Disney channels, and throw in some other disputed channel, is that all still ok? If Dish carries a channel no one else has, gets subscribers because of it, then just drops it, is that ok? (Dish did not drop it, but this was a selling point when they had a channel almost no one else had that was going to carry the big Patriots/Giants final game a couple of years ago)
> So the Court could decide that there are two choices. Dish could be ordered to pay the price, carry the channels, but under the order is not obligated to put them in any certain package. This would be a first step towards an A La Carte remedy by the court.
> OR - They could tell Dish you don't have to carry the channels, but must release anyone who wants to be from their contract.
> 
> The Court remedy would probably be good for Dish - They would pay the price, put the channels in a package by themselves or A La Carte, charge whatever they need to and not worry about it. They would only pay for the channels for people who actually subscribe to them, exactly what Fox and the others don't want.


Tampa8 is 100% correct in my opinion. Many here place the blame on FOX for pulling the channels, as did I. But, by "E" choosing to not pay the rate increase the loss of channels was implemented. As tampa8 states, the allowance of "E" to change packages could be construed to mean in the situation of technical problems or if the channel no longer exists. But they cannot decide not to pay for channels and then no longer carry them. Of course this is only a judges opinion.


----------



## phrelin

inazsully said:


> Tampa8 is 100% correct in my opinion. Many here place the blame on FOX for pulling the channels, as did I. But, by "E" choosing to not pay the rate increase the loss of channels was implemented. As tampa8 states, the allowance of "E" to change packages could be construed to mean in the situation of technical problems or if the channel no longer exists. But they cannot decide not to pay for channels and then no longer carry them. Of course this is only a judges opinion.


Gee, I just can't imagine not listening to some judge's opinion.

Let's carry this stupidity out to its logical absurdity. If Fox wants $50 a month from every subscriber, Dish and Cablevision and ultimately everyone else has to pay it. If they do and pass it on to customers under contract, the customers have to pay for it.

Oh, well no, not $50. What then is too much? $40? $20? $10? $5? Would an increase from $1 to $5 be the number? Or would $1 to $0.98, in line with recent CPI changes (ask any Social Security Recipient), be a more proper arbitrary number that Dish and/or Fox would be required to swallow?

Or are we ok that the "American Idol" channel now becomes available in a package all by itself for $10?

What exactly is a fair number for an increase in the middle of The Great Recession? Anything, as long as the particular person expressing the opinion can watch a ballgame?

Who thinks like this?:nono2:


----------



## meStevo

Without real numbers, people are free to try and fabricate whatever they want to go along with the propaganda they've decided to believe. When we do see figures it's only percentages or some other distorted amount... like the bundling of channels Cabelvisions done. They're touting a huge increase but neglects to point out what they were paying per channel before... which if they're going from $0 to some relative standard for a popular channel they're certainly not going to tell us.

Recession ended 3 years ago btw.


----------



## James Long

meStevo said:


> Recession ended 3 years ago btw.


June 2009 (stated in the article) isn't three years ago ... and the debate over whether or not the economists' claims are right is not one for this thread or forum.

If you believe DISH must pay any increase to keep the channels then you must accept an increase that is unfairly high. Whether that is a nickle or a million dollars per sub. The actual increase is irrelevant if one believes the theory of "DISH must pay whatever is asked".

Pick your own threshold. How much should DISH pay Fox for their programming? How much would be too much to pay? If your number is less than infinity you don't agree with the premise that "DISH must pay whatever is asked". The difference between the nickle and a million is irrelevant once one accepts that there can be a limit to what Fox (or other programmers) can ask for their programming.


----------



## Eksynyt

10 days til the Downfall of Dish Network begins. Losing local Fox for an extended period will bankrupt the company as subs will bail in droves.


----------



## SayWhat?

Eksynyt said:


> 10 days til the Downfall of Dish Network begins. Losing local Fox for an extended period will bankrupt the company as subs will bail in droves.


Not even close dude. If anything Dish will come out stronger as people with ethics usually do.


----------



## MysteryMan

With less than ten days until the end of the month the serious negotiating should begin next week.


----------



## SayWhat?

Like people said on the bigger thread that got closed, if it wasn't for this board, I wouldn't have even known there was a dispute. Fox just isn't that important and it would be no loss if they were gone completely. Whatever sports would go back to ABC, NBC or CBS. The scripted shows people like would move to other networks as has happened in the past.

If people stand up to Fox they'll either learn or go away. TV will be better in the long run.


----------



## BillJ

I'm already resigned to losing my FOX affiliate. Reviewed their schedule and the only thing I'll miss is the NFL games. The way the Bears are playing this year that may not be much of a loss.

My DISH bill is $140 right now. If FOX and other content providers are allowed to charge whatever they want with no one standing up for consumers it will soon be over $200. I'm on the side of DISH and Cablevision on this one. Reasonable increases in line with inflation are okay. Doubling rates is robbery without a gun.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Here's my problem with this whole line of thinking...

Let's say Dish Network raises their rates on AT120 to the tune of $2 per year for the next ten years.

Let's also say that of a $40 bill, $20 goes to programming.

If you think that at the end of year ten that your $60 bill has $40 going to programming, there's this bridge I want you to buy.


SayWhat? said:


> If anything Dish will come out stronger as people with ethics usually do.


Taking a stand does not equal ethics. And maybe the court cases need to be reviewed to understand how "ethical" Dish Network is.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Satelliteracer said:


> Well, Disney owns ESPN as well as ABC as well as the Disney channels. Simply put, if you want their channels you put them ALL in the broadest tier possible or you get none of them.





Davenlr said:


> Yea, I understand that. Strange that if any other business does that, its considered antitrust, and is illegal. Imagine if one oil company bought all the gas stations in LA, and then charged $8.00 per gallon.


But the analogy fails because Disney doesn't own all of the programming.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> Not even close dude. If anything Dish will come out stronger as people with ethics usually do.


Ethics? Charlie? ....TiVo.


----------



## jayna_95

Why do Dish, Direct, Cablevision, Comcast, etc. pay to transmit Fox, Disney, etc. product in the first place? Shouldn't it be the other way around? How would Fox distribute it's products without cable and satellite companies?



meStevo said:


> They are forced to because other providers carry those channels and consumers want them.
> 
> You don't carry them then consumers move to other services.
> 
> I really don't miss the days of some providers offering local channels while others didnt. I wonder how far Dish would (or could) go if/when ABC/NBC/CBS decide to waive must carry (assuming they don't already) and want to be paid like the top tier channels they are (ratings-wise).


I think everyone missed my point. I think it's fascinating that a company like Fox or Disney has been able to get distribution companies to pay them for the privilege of distributing their product. How would we even know of the existence of FX or ESPN if no cable or satellite companies distributed them? This model seems totally backwards to me. As a producer of "content", wouldn't Fox/Disney want the largest audience possible? Therefore, shouldn't they be paying the satellite and cable companies to distribute their "content" to viewers' living rooms.

Satellite and cable companies look like giant suckers in this scheme.


----------



## PhantomOG

I don't really see that argument. Distributers are paying for content in hopes of generating income from subscribers. Content creators are paid for their content.

Take for instance books and publishing. In general, writers are paid by publishers for the right to distribute their work. But for television content, we have more than one "publisher" in this case (cable, satellite companies).

Now with new technology/internet, its is becoming much easier for content creators to reach end users without the huge costs that in the past have been paid for by distributers. Distributers are getting squeezed from both sides because of this. In the end, I'm hopeful it will work out to benefit everyone involved (except old model distributers obviously), but it really sucks for end consumers while the big companies duke it out over how the new business model will work.


----------



## altidude

SayWhat? said:


> Fox just isn't that important and it would be no loss if they were gone completely. Whatever sports would go back to ABC, NBC or CBS.


Fox is pretty important to the NFL. Fox is paying the NFL $4.27B to carry games through 2011. That's over half a billion dollars more than CBS or NBC pay the NFL. There is no way the NFL is going to say no to that kind of money.


----------



## speedlaw

I've had dish for over ten years now. I don't watch sports, or the Fox "News" channel. In short, I don't really care. I'd love to ditch ESPN too and get a rate cut for that......

I do feel bad for folks who can't get an OTA antenna outside.....I have one and don't pay the $5 month ota fee-working around the program guide with Manual timers is no big thing, and the $75 worth of antenna has been paid for a few years now......


----------



## tampa8

phrelin said:


> Gee, I just can't imagine not listening to some judge's opinion.
> 
> Let's carry this stupidity out to its logical absurdity. If Fox wants $50 a month from every subscriber, Dish and Cablevision and ultimately everyone else has to pay it. If they do and pass it on to customers under contract, the customers have to pay for it.
> 
> Oh, well no, not $50. What then is too much? $40? $20? $10? $5? Would an increase from $1 to $5 be the number? Or would $1 to $0.98, in line with recent CPI changes (ask any Social Security Recipient), be a more proper arbitrary number that Dish and/or Fox would be required to swallow?
> 
> Or are we ok that the "American Idol" channel now becomes available in a package all by itself for $10?
> 
> What exactly is a fair number for an increase in the middle of The Great Recession? Anything, as long as the particular person expressing the opinion can watch a ballgame?
> 
> Who thinks like this?:nono2:


With respect, I would say that misses the point. At _any_ price - even a lower price - Dish can _decide_ not to pay for channels and thus not carry them. But does that decision mean the customer has to go without those channels because Dish decided not to pay? Now look at the other side. The programmers can indeed charge what they want, that of course, as in the most current cases seems to mean they won't necessarily get that price. If Dish, Comcast etc don't carry their channels, in the long run the program providers lose. If they give sweet deals to, say, Charter and Direct, and not to others, I'm sure the courts and or Congress would get involved. You have already seen the concern of programmers also being owners or in bed with the Cable companies.

Don't lose sight what the Judge and the AG are addressing. Not that Dish has to or does not have to carry channels. The question is, does the contract unfairly give Carte Blanche to Dish when they decide not to carry channels. All Dish has to do is let people out of their contract and the Dish end of it goes away. If the programmers are holding the Cable/Sat companies hostage that would be a different fight. If it is found the programmers were doing something illegal and dish loses subs because of it, I'm sure that would end up in court also.

I'm not suggesting Dish is really at fault for all this. They may be victims here. But they have a contract that could be viewed as too one sided, with no remedy for the consumer until their contract is over. I suppose the court could decide the contract is valid, and what we signed is what we get.

I would add one more thing. I don't think anyone is saying when these disputes occur the contract is automatically void. Remember the court looks for a remedy when they feel one is needed. They might have to be convinced there will not be a resolution to fulfilling the contract and at that point make the decision.
Congress could step in at some point and make a neutral arbitrator mandatory when two sides can't come to an agreement. There are many things that could take place. These are actually bigger issues that it appears are going to have to be addressed. The other is a contract issue and I'm guessing that is what the Judge and the AG are focusing on.


----------



## inazsully

BillJ said:


> I'm already resigned to losing my FOX affiliate. Reviewed their schedule and the only thing I'll miss is the NFL games. The way the Bears are playing this year that may not be much of a loss.
> 
> My DISH bill is $140 right now. If FOX and other content providers are allowed to charge whatever they want with no one standing up for consumers it will soon be over $200. I'm on the side of DISH and Cablevision on this one. Reasonable increases in line with inflation are okay. Doubling rates is robbery without a gun.


As you say, your bill is $140 now. It was also $140 prior to Oct 15. Are you getting the same channels now that you were getting prior to Oct. 15th? Same bill but less product. Is "E" saving money now? are you saving money now? Seems a bit unbalanced to me.


----------



## James Long

inazsully said:


> Are you getting the same channels now that you were getting prior to Oct. 15th?


Yes. Not the same channels one got on September 30th but there was nothing special about Oct 15th unless one is a Cablevision subscriber.

I don't expect that the channels will be off "forever". If they were then I'd look for a more "forever" compensation. When the channels return I expect DISH will work out some compensation for the outage (other than the replacement programming already in place). I don't expect much but it will likely cost DISH more than they "saved" by not having the Fox feeds.


----------



## runner861

From what I read in the news, the Missouri AG is asking that Dish either give refunds to customers or allow customers to cancel their contract without penalty. That is apparently the AG's reading of what the consent decree requires in that state. Most likely the dispute will not reach a court. Dish and the Missouri AG will work it out. However, if it does go to court, a judge will look at the equities involved. The AG can assert some leverage on behalf of consumers that an individual customer could not assert.


----------



## grog

Technically Dish could drop all the stations other than shopping network and still be within the spirit of the contract we signed. :eek2:

I don't think that would be a good idea but I see many here don't see the logic from that perspective.

At what point does a customer consider the removal of stations equal to just having shopping channels? For many the removal of FOX was that big a deal. I know of a few at work who are still under contract and they are willing to pay the price to change carriers. When I saw the article from the Missouri Attorney General I passed it on. I live in Missouri and for my friend he would not have to pay for the year left on his contract if this pans out. He was set to change either way. He is going to DirecTV next week.

I changed as well but I was not under contract. Still the move was not without some cost. If nothing else there was time involved.

In the end I just wish we had changed to DirecTV long ago. The value for dollar is greater in our book due the overall programming experience and channel selection. As a new customer with 2 HD-DVR's and 2 HD Receivers right out of the gate. And each is only $5.00 a month on the bill. I had to pay $397 but well worth it. I could have gone with a few SD receivers and the cost would have been $0.00. As with Dish the first unit lease is waved. So I am paying $15.00 a month for my equipment. That savings makes up for the cost difference in programming. It really is about the same!

For someone with a SD receiver who only wants to watch the shopping network I think they will do better with Dish. 



tampa8 said:


> With respect, I would say that misses the point. At _any_ price - even a lower price - Dish can _decide_ not to pay for channels and thus not carry them. But does that decision mean the customer has to go without those channels because Dish decided not to pay? Now look at the other side. The programmers can indeed charge what they want, that of course, as in the most current cases seems to mean they won't necessarily get that price. If Dish, Comcast etc don't carry their channels, in the long run the program providers lose. If they give sweet deals to, say, Charter and Direct, and not to others, I'm sure the courts and or Congress would get involved. You have already seen the concern of programmers also being owners or in bed with the Cable companies.
> 
> Don't lose sight what the Judge and the AG are addressing. Not that Dish has to or does not have to carry channels. The question is, does the contract unfairly give Carte Blanche to Dish when they decide not to carry channels. All Dish has to do is let people out of their contract and the Dish end of it goes away. If the programmers are holding the Cable/Sat companies hostage that would be a different fight. If it is found the programmers were doing something illegal and dish loses subs because of it, I'm sure that would end up in court also.
> 
> I'm not suggesting Dish is really at fault for all this. They may be victims here. But they have a contract that could be viewed as too one sided, with no remedy for the consumer until their contract is over. I suppose the court could decide the contract is valid, and what we signed is what we get.
> 
> I would add one more thing. I don't think anyone is saying when these disputes occur the contract is automatically void. Remember the court looks for a remedy when they feel one is needed. They might have to be convinced there will not be a resolution to fulfilling the contract and at that point make the decision.
> Congress could step in at some point and make a neutral arbitrator mandatory when two sides can't come to an agreement. There are many things that could take place. These are actually bigger issues that it appears are going to have to be addressed. The other is a contract issue and I'm guessing that is what the Judge and the AG are focusing on.


----------



## Paul Secic

SayWhat? said:


> Like people said on the bigger thread that got closed, if it wasn't for this board, I wouldn't have even known there was a dispute. Fox just isn't that important and it would be no loss if they were gone completely. Whatever sports would go back to ABC, NBC or CBS. The scripted shows people like would move to other networks as has happened in the past.
> 
> If people stand up to Fox they'll either learn or go away. TV will be better in the long run.


+1


----------



## phrelin

tampa8 said:


> With respect, I would say that misses the point. At _any_ price - even a lower price - Dish can _decide_ not to pay for channels and thus not carry them. But does that decision mean the customer has to go without those channels because Dish decided not to pay? Now look at the other side. The programmers can indeed charge what they want, that of course, as in the most current cases seems to mean they won't necessarily get that price. If Dish, Comcast etc don't carry their channels, in the long run the program providers lose. If they give sweet deals to, say, Charter and Direct, and not to others, I'm sure the courts and or Congress would get involved. You have already seen the concern of programmers also being owners or in bed with the Cable companies.
> 
> Don't lose sight what the Judge and the AG are addressing. Not that Dish has to or does not have to carry channels. The question is, does the contract unfairly give Carte Blanche to Dish when they decide not to carry channels. All Dish has to do is let people out of their contract and the Dish end of it goes away. If the programmers are holding the Cable/Sat companies hostage that would be a different fight. If it is found the programmers were doing something illegal and dish loses subs because of it, I'm sure that would end up in court also.
> 
> I'm not suggesting Dish is really at fault for all this. They may be victims here. But they have a contract that could be viewed as too one sided, with no remedy for the consumer until their contract is over. I suppose the court could decide the contract is valid, and what we signed is what we get.
> 
> I would add one more thing. I don't think anyone is saying when these disputes occur the contract is automatically void. Remember the court looks for a remedy when they feel one is needed. They might have to be convinced there will not be a resolution to fulfilling the contract and at that point make the decision.
> Congress could step in at some point and make a neutral arbitrator mandatory when two sides can't come to an agreement. There are many things that could take place. These are actually bigger issues that it appears are going to have to be addressed. The other is a contract issue and I'm guessing that is what the Judge and the AG are focusing on.


I suppose that there is a possible fairness remedy. It does appear that Dish is reluctantly giving discounts from the posts in this forum. But....

IMHO either this whole subject is entirely a federal issue or it isn't a federal issue at all. It most certainly an interstate commerce issue. And that brings up my gripe. We need to get rid of the mish-mash of decision-making processes that make it "every broadcast station for itself", every media conglomerate free to pull channels, and every cable/satellite carrier trying to get the advantage by negotiating a lower fee for a channel than their competition pays.

The cable/satellite carriers should be competing in the marketplace based on the quality and cost of the service they provide. They shouldn't have to include in that competition price differentials based on when Fox's or Disney's or NBCU's or whoever's recent decisions about pricing are to be negotiated in a carrier's agreement. And they really, really shouldn't have to be in this position in a situation where the federal government has exempted the entertainment from normal anti-trust regulations - that includes the broadcast channels and major league sports.

Something has to be done to create at least some semblance of order here.


----------



## SayWhat?

grog said:


> For many the removal of FOX was that big a deal.
> 
> In the end I just wish we had changed to DirecTV long ago.


And for others Fox is irrelevant fluff.

But this thread isn't an advertisement for Direct, is it?


----------



## SayWhat?

phrelin said:


> IMHO either this whole subject is entirely a federal issue or it isn't a federal issue at all. It most certainly an interstate commerce issue. And that brings up my gripe. We need to get rid of the mish-mash of decision-making processes that make it "every broadcast station for itself", every media conglomerate free to pull channels, and every cable/satellite carrier trying to get the advantage by negotiating a lower fee for a channel than their competition pays.
> 
> Something has to be done to create at least some semblance of order here.


Like I said before, no retrans fees for OTA channels anywhere. Only a nominal fee to cover getting the signal to the uplink or head-end, maybe a buck or two per month per DMA.

And I still think we should be able to choose DMAs nationwide although I'm not sure how that would work out with spot beams.


----------



## Greg Bimson

SayWhat? said:


> And for others Fox is irrelevant fluff.
> 
> But this thread isn't an advertisement for Direct, is it?


No, but...


SayWhat? said:


> Fox just isn't that important and it would be no loss if they were gone completely. Whatever sports would go back to ABC, NBC or CBS. The scripted shows people like would move to other networks as has happened in the past.


Please remember that Fox is important to others.

And "waxing poetic" about the way things used to be? I recall on the FSN RSN's, the programming is replaced by someone remembering that "when I was a kid, sports used to be on networks". I was under the impression that pay-TV was moving us forward, yet many are asking to return to the "glory days" of three channels, including the CEO of a company that would no longer exist if we went back to the "glory days"?


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> And that brings up my gripe. We need to get rid of the mish-mash of decision-making processes that make it "every broadcast station for itself", every media conglomerate free to pull channels, and every cable/satellite carrier trying to get the advantage by negotiating a lower fee for a channel than their competition pays.


But isn't that the free-market?


SayWhat? said:


> Like I said before, no retrans fees for OTA channels anywhere. Only a nominal fee to cover getting the signal to the uplink or head-end, maybe a buck or two per month per DMA.


Nah. Just take the networks off of satellite and cable. They are obviously not needed if you don't want anyone to retransmit them.


----------



## inazsully

How about if all ESPN's and RSN's and the four national channels (CBS, FOX, NBC, ABC) are all removed from all packages. Offer them as an extra cost option to whoever wants them. Leave all the other channels in the multitude of packages currently offered from the different providers.


----------



## ggotch5445

James Long said:


> Yes. Not the same channels one got on September 30th but there was nothing special about Oct 15th unless one is a Cablevision subscriber.
> 
> I don't expect that the channels will be off "forever". If they were then I'd look for a more "forever" compensation. When the channels return I expect DISH will work out some compensation for the outage (other than the replacement programming already in place). I don't expect much but it will likely cost DISH more than they "saved" by not having the Fox feeds.


I agree wholeheartedly with your comments James.

Based on what you are aware of, however, how much of this article would you say is true?

http://lakingsnews.com/2010/10/10/the-origins-of-the-fox-dish-dispute/


----------



## SayWhat?

inazsully said:


> How about if all ESPN's and RSN's and the four national channels (CBS, FOX, NBC, ABC) are all removed from all packages. Offer them as an extra cost option to whoever wants them. Leave all the other channels in the multitude of packages currently offered from the different providers.


Works for me, but then we get into the same kind of discussion that got the last thread closed.


----------



## TulsaOK

speedlaw said:


> I've had dish for over ten years now. I don't watch sports, or the Fox News channel. In short, I don't really care. I'd love to ditch ESPN too and get a rate cut for that......
> 
> I do feel bad for folks who can't get an OTA antenna outside.....I have one and don't pay the *$5 month ota fee*-working around the program guide with Manual timers is no big thing, and the $75 worth of antenna has been paid for a few years now......


What is the "$5 month OTA fee" of which you speak?


----------



## inazsully

SayWhat? said:


> Works for me, but then we get into the same kind of discussion that got the last thread closed.


Maybe, but I'm trying to offer a solution that doesn't end up hurting "E" or any of the other providers $$$ wise if they wish to follow suit.


----------



## Ghostwriter

Kent Taylor said:


> What is the "$5 month OTA fee" of which you speak?


If you have an OTA antenna plugged into your receiver you will not get the program guide unless you sign up for the locals. For me it comes in handy having locals also through Dish as many times I have multiple timers at the same time on OTA channels.


----------



## James Long

inazsully said:


> How about if all ESPN's and RSN's and the four national channels (CBS, FOX, NBC, ABC) are all removed from all packages. Offer them as an extra cost option to whoever wants them. Leave all the other channels in the multitude of packages currently offered from the different providers.


Sorry. The programmers won't agree to that. They want to be sold to millions of people who don't want their content. It improves the bottom line.



ggotch5445 said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with your comments James.
> 
> Based on what you are aware of, however, how much of this article would you say is true?
> 
> http://lakingsnews.com/2010/10/10/the-origins-of-the-fox-dish-dispute/


Not very much. In the original assignments DISH had transponders on 119 and DirecTV on 101. Both ConUS coverage locations. Cablevision and Dominion SkyAngel got part of 61.5. Over the years DISH and DirecTV bought licenses from the other players to get to the transponders they control today. The FCC has a chart and I have a copy somewhere ... the "history" given on that page is very revisionist.



Ghostwriter said:


> If you have an OTA antenna plugged into your receiver you will not get the program guide unless you sign up for the locals. For me it comes in handy having locals also through Dish as many times I have multiple timers at the same time on OTA channels.


Locals are now available in every market and are included in all the regular packages. There are likely customers grandfathered without locals but locals are now part of the regular price.


----------



## Dave

Yes locals are included in the packages now. Before the locals were included the cost of the seperate packages was $ 5 cheaper. The At 200 and At 250 packages went up $ 7 for new sign ups. The regular $ 2 for everyone, and then a separate $ 5 for the locals you have to take now. To me this is Dish saying must carry, no option to opt out of the locals. Dish is collecting $ 5 from every new sign on for locals. It does not matter how you spin it, it is a $ 5 add on increase in cost besides the regular $ 2 price increasde.


----------



## AVJohnnie

*Associated Press: FCC demands information from Cablevision, Fox*

"WASHINGTON - With a contract dispute still keeping Fox programming off Cablevision systems, federal regulators are demanding information from both companies about the details of their negotiations."

Full article can be viewed here:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_CABLEVISION_FOX_DISPUTE?SITE=NYONI&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Or here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39800409/ns/politics/


----------



## Dave

But if they just sent the letter today. This means FOX will probably say they got the letter on Monday. So no playoffs for New York or Philly. But this is a private corp. They can say Cablevision does not want to make a deal for the new fees. Cablevision will say they got the letter early Sat. morning and tried to make a deal. But the real question is why the FCC is not worried about the 8+ million customers of Dish Network. You talk about the FCC being one sided. Does the FCC hate Dish this bad to not inquire about there negoiations with FOX? I mean Cablevision only has 3+ million customers to fight over.


----------



## speedlaw

Thanks for pointing that out to the other poster. Since most DVR is recurring shows it's not really too much, and zapit.com will allow you to come up with a customized TV sked if you need one. OTA is free, but for that one time antenna cost for most folks. (I realize some folks live in apartments-no OTA,and some live in rural areas-OTA is a huge antenna) OTA gets me two PBS outlets, in HD.

For a lot of folks, a small UHF antenna on the roof is a one shot install which can last ten or more years with no maintenance.


----------



## dakeeney

Dave said:


> But if they just sent the letter today. This means FOX will probably say they got the letter on Monday. So no playoffs for New York or Philly. But this is a private corp. They can say Cablevision does not want to make a deal for the new fees. Cablevision will say they got the letter early Sat. morning and tried to make a deal. But the real question is why the FCC is not worried about the 8+ million customers of Dish Network. You talk about the FCC being one sided. Does the FCC hate Dish this bad to not inquire about there negoiations with FOX? I mean Cablevision only has 3+ million customers to fight over.


I've been saying for weeks that Fox will feel the effects of their greed and now I've read where indeed they are. November is sweeps month and if Fox pulls the newtworks off Dish on 11/1 their ratings will tank. It's all about money and the lower your ratings the less advertisers will want to spend. The loser in the end will be Fox.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Ghostwriter said:


> If you have an OTA antenna plugged into your receiver you will not get the program guide unless you sign up for the locals. For me it comes in handy having locals also through Dish as many times I have multiple timers at the same time on OTA channels.


I picked up a 722k for just that reason. Being able to record to OTA Tuner channels at one time and sometimes adding a 3rd Sat Tuner recording at the sametime, and having the 4th tuner for surfing has come in handy way to many times. I had thought about dropping locals before they were figured into the price, several times, but having the recording flexiblty has proven to be worth the cost.

Its going to be interesting for Fox soon, being off of 2 carriers at the sametime at a critical time of the year, and in key markets, will really hurt them in ad dollars.


----------



## SayWhat?

> News Analysis
> Fox vs. Dish, Cable: When Will It End?
> By Swanni
> 
> Washington, D.C. (October 19, 2010) -- In my view, Fox's programming blackouts on Dish Network and Cablevision could extend until November, or later. And here's why:
> 
> Since Friday at midnight, Cablevision viewers have been blacked out from watching the Fox Network because the companies can't reach a new carriage agreement. The impasse has prompted a dozen or so elected officials (and many Cablevision viewers) to urge Fox to either modify its demands or accept third-party, binding arbitration.
> 
> Considering the political pressure, you would think that Fox would be ready to compromise, right?
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Since October 1, Dish Network subscribers have been blacked out from watching Fox's regional sports channels, FX and National Geographic Channel. And Fox is threatening to deny Dish access to Fox's local channels on November 1 if it does not reach a new pact for those as well.


http://www.tvpredictions.com/cablefoxdish101910.htm


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> Locals are now available in every market and are included in all the regular packages. There are likely customers grandfathered without locals but locals are now part of the regular price.


I don't know if that's true in all cases. I never had locals - never wanted to pay the fee. They also said I'd need another dish for them which I didn't want. That may not be necessary any more, don't know, don't care. My Annual subscription rate has changed every year, but they don't itemize it, so I don 't know if they ever adjusted for locals or not.



speedlaw said:


> Thanks for pointing that out to the other poster. Since most DVR is recurring shows it's not really too much, and zapit.com will allow you to come up with a customized TV sked if you need one. OTA is free, but for that one time antenna cost for most folks.


OTA antenna to a Windows 7 PC with an internal tuner card and Windows Media Center. Gives me an updated customizable guide, show synopsis, cast and one-touch record with full DVR type functions. Added a second 1Tb HDD dedicated to recorded content.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Greg Bimson said:


> But isn't that the free-market?


It is not. The stations have a monopoly on the networks within their DMA. If you were able to get out of market stations then there would be a real free market.


----------



## James Long

HobbyTalk said:


> It is not. The stations have a monopoly on the networks within their DMA. If you were able to get out of market stations then there would be a real free market.


The seller of the content (the network) has decided to sell that content on a market exclusive basis. That is where the "free market" begins.


----------



## SayWhat?

I put a link on the Fox/Cablevision thread regarding doubts about the Comcast/NBCU deal as a result of these disputes and the attempts to restrict streaming content on the web.


----------



## GrumpyBear

James Long said:


> The seller of the content (the network) has decided to sell that content on a market exclusive basis. That is where the "free market" begins.


Since the Networks have been able to enforce DMA's. A government regulation, the Free Market doesn't exist.
Networks love Federal Regulations to force a monopoly of having them as the only choice and blocking out all others. Networks are dead set against a Free Market.

One thing that would be nice is for dish to give a 1% or 2% discount to all those that lost a channel during these kinds of disuptes


----------



## dakeeney

:icon_cof: As someone stated on Sat guys, we could just put a hold on this thread until 11/1 when the real fun starts..drink your coffee and wait.


----------



## James Long

GrumpyBear said:


> Since the Networks have been able to enforce DMA's. A government regulation, the Free Market doesn't exist.


See the closed thread for more discussion of that topic. Or the Legislative and Regulatory Issues forum where such things have been discussed for years. We need to stay closer to the issue this thread is about.



> One thing that would be nice is for dish to give a 1% or 2% discount to all those that lost a channel during these kinds of disuptes


DISH is still paying for the rest of the channels customers are receiving. Most customers are receiving replacement programming that they are not already paying for. I suspect that when this is over there will be some other compensation.


----------



## inazsully

dakeeney said:


> :icon_cof: As someone stated on Sat guys, we could just put a hold on this thread until 11/1 when the real fun starts..drink your coffee and wait.


Are you kidding me???? This thread is more entertaining then anything I'm missing on the FOX channels. Also pretty informative.


----------



## ggotch5445

I am truly sympathetic to anyone who is missing their Fox-related programming, and/or feels cheated by not presently receiving the Fox programming that they had a few weeks ago.

But service interuptions have occurred, and annoyed, all of us before, and will continue to, long after the Fox-Dish-Cablevision dispute has been resolved.

It is simply a fact of modern life, that disruptions in any kind of service industry will continue as contracts run out, and negotiations are conducted. One could easily substitute the names of Fox and Dish with the names of other companies, who have, and/or will be negotiating for their companies/employees.

Who was it that said that he was upset when he got home from union strike duty, only to find that a favorite Fox sports-related channel was missing from his Dish programming? And how disappointed he was that Dish didn't just sign the agreement to keep his channel up and running?

 Well OK I made up that last paragraph, but I just wanted to make the point that our indignations over all of this are relative. Depends on your side of the fence. 

These contractual things will continue to occur. In the case of this dispute, we simply hope that Dish's particular strategy benefits our side of the fence. I am optimistically believing it will.


----------



## James Long

James Long said:


> We need to stay closer to the issue this thread is about.


See the new thread for the off this topic conversation that followed my request.

Broadcast networks and copyright issues. (Spin off conversation.)

DISH vs Fox in this thread please!


----------



## MilFan

So it's appearing this is going to go on well into November now? Awesome.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> So it's appearing this is going to go on well into November now? Awesome.


Now? Into November has been said for at least two of the three week that the Fox cable channels have been off.

"Well in to November" needs a better definition. Stated by someone who saw the first weekend as the end of the world "well in to November" could be November 2nd. What is "well in to November" for you?


----------



## inazsully

James Long said:


> Now? Into November has been said for at least two of the three week that the Fox cable channels have been off.
> 
> "Well in to November" needs a better definition. Stated by someone who saw the first weekend as the end of the world "well in to November" could be November 2nd. What is "well in to November" for you?


To me I would say mid November would be a disaster point. I think that the two weeks between Nov. 1 and Nov. 15 would see a increasing number of ship jumpers and after the 15th any left on the fence will reject "E". Of course plenty of non sports folks and those that never watch FOX will hang in there.


----------



## Jon W

I think our bill cycles on 11/16 so we will probably hang in until then. I have to play with my indoor antenna to see if I can peak FOX which will buy us some time. However I have started to look at DirecTV and will definitely switch if we are not getting FOX sports North by baseball season.


----------



## phrelin

I've started a thread in the Sports Programming and Events with the post below as a place to discuss how to do something about the situation:


phrelin said:


> The current disputes between News Corp (Fox) and Cablevision plus News Corp and Dish have given a chance in the spotlight for a one year old group of sports fans trying to become an effective lobby in Washington.
> 
> From the New York Times:
> 
> 
> 
> ..."We're fighting to give fans a voice in public policy issues," [Brian] Frederick said.
> 
> That is part of his stump speech as the newly named executive director of a year-old nonprofit interest group, the Sports Fans Coalition. Frederick's mission: to find (the easy part) and organize (the hard part) a diverse and unwieldy group of dedicated but often disenfranchised people known as American sports fans and turn them into a unified, political power.
> 
> As Brad Blakeman, a founder of the Sports Fans Coalition, put it: "The fan gets treated like a fumbled pigskin, instead of like the source of all wealth, which it is."
> 
> He consistently recited the group's primary targets: television blackouts (especially at taxpayer-funded stadiums), the Bowl Championship Series and the ballooning cost of attending games. Looming is the possibility of a lockout in the N.F.L. next year.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are serious about solving these problems (beyond grumbling here and moving from one signal carrier to another) you should consider the Sports Fans Coalition.
> 
> It has the chance to become "the NRA" for sports fans because there are a lot of sports fans including members of Congress.
Click to expand...

Rather than respond to this here, go to the Sports Fans Coalition - Your Voice in Washington thread.


----------



## projectorguru

on a good note, I again, contacted the online chat and complained about loosing all the channels, especially the Disney ones as of now, anyway, I ended up getting all the starz channels for 3 months


----------



## slikkrock

I'm moving to a new apartment at the end of the month and don't know whether to bring Dish with me. I've been happy with them so far, but wondering if this is a sign of things to come with other broadcast providers? Anyone know when Directv's contract with Fox expires? I really don't know what to do here...i'm not one to play "chicken," especially with 2 yr commitments.


----------



## phobos512

Not sure if this question has been answered - probably has, so sorry in advance - but has anyone succeeded in getting out of a contract without an ETF due to the Fox blackout? Once Nov 1st hits I'm going to lose pretty much every show I watch on a regular basis save what I have DVR'd up...There'll be little point for me to even have TV then as this continues.


----------



## James Long

slikkrock said:


> I'm moving to a new apartment at the end of the month and don't know whether to bring Dish with me. I've been happy with them so far, but wondering if this is a sign of things to come with other broadcast providers? Anyone know when Directv's contract with Fox expires? I really don't know what to do here...i'm not one to play "chicken," especially with 2 yr commitments.


All we know semi-officially about Fox's DirecTV contract is "not soon". There is a thread over in the DirecTV forum if you want to get in to the banter over that issue.

If you like DISH Network service take it with you. The current outage is temporary.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> All we know semi-officially about Fox's DirecTV contract is "not soon". There is a thread over in the DirecTV forum if you want to get in to the banter over that issue.


And it will not end in 2010 and well beyond that


----------



## Joe Diver

phobos512 said:


> Once Nov 1st hits I'm going to lose pretty much every show I watch on a regular basis save what I have DVR'd up...There'll be little point for me to even have TV then as this continues.


Just find a provider who carries your channels.


----------



## SayWhat?

Getting down to the wire. It'll be interesting to see who blinks first, or if anybody does, and of course, how much it will cost us as customers.


----------



## phrelin

I'm still not entirely convinced Rupert will risk pulling the O&O and/or managed Fox broadcast network affiliates on November 1.

According to the available statistics, about 70% of the "TV homes" in NYC and Philadelphia have had their Fox channel pulled from cable by its owner News Corp. As November 1 comes around, another 600,000± homes (or 1.5± million viewers) may lose their Fox channel if News Corp pulls it off of Dish Network.

I know that among those who can't or choose not to get the channel OTA some will go to Fios and others to DirecTV. But many won't.

While viewers in the Cablevision region are already screaming, the impact of News Corp pulling Fox off of Dish stretches across the nation to 27 DMA. Dallas, TX for instance may "become the first top-10 market where satellite households pass cable homes. In 2009, cable was at 45% of pay-TV homes, but satellite came in at 41%."

Assuming that Dish only has a fourth of the Dallas-Ft. Worth DMA satellite subscribers, that's 10% of 2.6 million homes or 260,000 homes with 650,000± viewers.

Since this involves the 5th Game of the World Series right before election day, whatever political good will News Corp has purchased will be exhausted rapidly if 1% of those viewers gets angry enough to contact their Congressional representatives. By simply waiting two weeks to November 15, News Corp could reduce the political damage.

I know it's Rupert Murdoch whose arrogance matches the two Charlie's but up to now his political savvy has been reasonably good.


----------



## dakeeney

I'm not jumping ship. Fox is the one that's being unreasonable with their price increase. Hope Charlie holds out.


----------



## Eksynyt

James Long said:


> The current outage is temporary.


Just like Dish not having the YES Network and losing ESPNews HD and never having ESPNU HD is only temporary.

Don't throw your money away, get out while you still can and switch to the better satellite provider, or you can go down with the ship as Charlie is apparently going to do. You'll all be D* customers within a few years at this rate.


----------



## James Long

Eksynyt said:


> Just like Dish not having the YES Network and losing ESPNews HD and never having ESPNU HD is only temporary.


Life is only temporary ... I'm not sure which provider offers what services in the afterlife. 

This isn't about YES, a cable channel that made carriage demands that no other regional sports channel has been granted on DISH. This isn't about HD versions of channels (such as the 20-30 general entertainment and movie HD channels that DISH carrys that the other satellite provider has not agreed to carry).

This is about Fox's channels ... cable channels that have been off for just over three weeks and OTAs that will likely get pulled November 1st. There is a difference.

The last dispute like this one (DISH vs Fox) was six years ago (Viacom) and it ended after two days of the CBS O&O stations being off DISH Network.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> The last dispute like this one (DISH vs Fox) was six years ago (Viacom) and it ended after two days of the CBS O&O stations being off DISH Network.


I don't know how much like Rupert Murdoch Viacom owner Sumner Redstone was/is. After all Redstone is way down the Forbes Billionaire List to #400.:sure:

And we didn't yet have the level of demands regarding retrans fees for broadcast networks that we do today. To some degree the broadcast stations weren't as financially pushed.

And finally, Redstone wasn't looking across two tables at billionaires named Charles.

On the other hand, my CBS station is an O&O so anyone know how long that contract was good for?


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> Life is only temporary ... I'm not sure which provider offers what services in the afterlife.


Isn't there a christian satellite provider? I can't remember their name. I'm sure they are already working on it. if Dish and DirecTV think carriage agreements are difficult to negotiate...try doing it via prayer!


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Isn't there a christian satellite provider? I can't remember their name. I'm sure they are already working on it. if Dish and DirecTV think carriage agreements are difficult to negotiate...try doing it via prayer!


SkyAngel left satellite a few years ago, selling their licenses to DISH and continuing subscription services via IPTV. GloryStar remains as a free-to-air satellite system. They might be able to work out a deal for Heaven. For hell there's always Time Warner and Comcast.


----------



## SayWhat?

Eksynyt said:


> Just like Dish not having the YES Network and losing ESPNews HD and never having ESPNU HD is only temporary.
> 
> Don't throw your money away, get out while you still can and switch to the better satellite provider, or you can go down with the ship as Charlie is apparently going to do. You'll all be D* customers within a few years at this rate.


I have no interest in those and don't feel I should have to pay higher rates to subsidize those that do. Make those channels an optional subscription along with Fox and drop the base package rates. It's really going to have to come down to a sports package and non-sports package solution at some point.

Dish will suffer bigger losses if they kowtow to Fox's outrageous demands and have to raise rates. I can only barely afford it now. A significant rate increase will make me have to drop out.


----------



## inazsully

SayWhat? said:


> I have no interest in those and don't feel I should have to pay higher rates to subsidize those that do. Make those channels an optional subscription along with Fox and drop the base package rates. It's really going to have to come down to a sports package and non-sports package solution at some point.
> 
> Dish will suffer bigger losses if they kowtow to Fox's outrageous demands and have to raise rates. I can only barely afford it now. A significant rate increase will make me have to drop out.


I'd like to agree with you that "E" will suffer bigger loses if it kowtows to FOX's demands, but I'm not so sure. If we get halfway through November and no contract is in sight you may see the current fence sitters finally give up and jump ship. There are some pretty lucrative incentives being offered right now. Like $39 for the first year with a free HDVDR and a free Wii.


----------



## domingos35

dakeeney said:


> I'm not jumping ship. Fox is the one that's being unreasonable with their price increase. Hope Charlie holds out.


+1


----------



## Kevin Brown

inazsully said:


> I'd like to agree with you that "E" will suffer bigger loses if it kowtows to FOX's demands, but I'm not so sure. *If we get halfway through November and no contract is in sight you may see the current fence sitters finally give up and jump ship.* There are some pretty lucrative incentives being offered right now. Like $39 for the first year with a free HDVDR and a free Wii.


I am already pricing DirecTV with 2 DVRs, HD, etc ... Been with Dish about 4 years now.

I don't care who's asking for what. I just want all the TV channels that I want. And I don't care if I have to pay a little more for them either. I want the channels that I want, it's that simple.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> All we know semi-officially about Fox's DirecTV contract is "not soon". There is a thread over in the DirecTV forum if you want to get in to the banter over that issue.
> 
> If you like DISH Network service take it with you. The current outage is temporary.


You dont know that. You suspect that like the rest of us but we dont really know.


----------



## slickshoes

Then congrats, you are doing exactly what FOX wants you to do, including paying more for their crap.


----------



## joshjr

SayWhat? said:


> I have no interest in those and don't feel I should have to pay higher rates to subsidize those that do. Make those channels an optional subscription along with Fox and drop the base package rates. It's really going to have to come down to a sports package and non-sports package solution at some point.
> 
> Dish will suffer bigger losses if they kowtow to Fox's outrageous demands and have to raise rates. * I can only barely afford it now. A significant rate increase will make me have to drop out*.


So what are your plans when the rates increase again in Feb. like they have the last few years? The increase is coming one way or another. How do you think us D* customers felt when we paid another rate increase but lost VS? I was disappointed in losing VS but would be really upset about losing FOX. I would probably just get a large antenna and call it good though. It will take a lot for me to leave D*. Then again if they were like E* (crappy sports coverage & in channel disputes all the time ) I would drop them like a bad habbit tomorrow.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

All of you siding with Fox, I say the following. Be prepared to pay four dollars a month, at the very least, for CBS, NBC, ABC and Univision, as each comes up for renewal. UVN has at times beat the other major networks in the 18-49 demo, and, given the growth of the Hispanic audience, will do so regularly within a couple of years.

My point is that Fox will become the benchmark, and that all the other major OTA broadcasters will demand at least as much as Fox is getting. And even in arbitration, UVN will get as much as Fox.

So, if you're comfortable with your monthly bill increasing 8% or so a year when the median CPI is increasing 0.5% annually, support Fox.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Here is what some need to do...

Enjoy your programming
Get a rate increase
Complain about the rate increase and demand some form of intervention
Enjoy your programming

_repeat ad nauseum_

All I can tell everyone is to keep on complaining and subscribing. It's worked so far!


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> You dont know that. You suspect that like the rest of us but we dont really know.


Are you saying that FX, NatGeo, FoxSports and Fox O&O (if removed) will _*NEVER*_ return to DISH? That would be a bold statement.

The last issue with a major O&O was six years ago. The channels returned two days after the O&Os were removed. This issue is at best the same as the problem with CBS/Viacom. Major channels removed come back.


----------



## SayWhat?

Kevin Brown said:


> I don't care who's asking for what. I just want all the TV channels that I want. *And I don't care if I have to pay a little more for them either. I want the channels that I want, it's that simple.*


And that's a big part of what's wrong with the economy and why inflation happens. It doesn't stop until consumers fight back.

As some have said, maybe the FCC will pull Fox's licenses and pull them off the air (OTA also) completely until they decide to be fair about pricing.


----------



## fredp

James Long said:


> The last issue with a major O&O was six years ago. The channels returned two days after the O&Os were removed. This issue is at best the same as the problem with CBS/Viacom. Major channels removed come back.


Six years ago in these turbulent financial times might as well be a million years ago. I think its going to take several quarters before one or the other sees their bottom line eroding and decides its time to settle.


----------



## feets

wish i wouldn"t of switched 3 bad boxes and now i'm not getting what i paid for......switched in june just seems to be getting worse.......live and learn


----------



## paja

SayWhat? said:


> And that's a big part of what's wrong with the economy and why inflation happens. It doesn't stop until consumers fight back.
> 
> As some have said, maybe the FCC will pull Fox's licenses and pull them off the air (OTA also) completely until they decide to be fair about pricing.


Don't believe that the FCC has that authority. And who says FOX isn't fair about their pricing? Maybe DISH doesn't want to pay what the FOX product is worth? Don't pay. Let FOX pull the network channel off . Then see who blinks first.


----------



## SayWhat?

feets said:


> now i'm not getting what i paid for.


You're getting a signal to your boxes and a choice of multiple channels, right?

As has been said many times above, channel lineups change. There are no guarantees about WHICH channels.


----------



## GrumpyBear

paja said:


> Don't believe that the FCC has that authority. And who says FOX isn't fair about their pricing? Maybe DISH doesn't want to pay what the FOX product is worth? Don't pay. Let FOX pull the network channel off . Then see who blinks first.


Nobody can say if Fox is being fair or not with thier pricing. Funny how Fox is having problems with Dish, Cablevision, and on the Horizon in Dec, TimeWarner. You would think if Fox was being so fair with thier pricing, they wouldn't be having all the issues they are having. Add in the fact that Fox wasn't nothing to do with Binding arbitration. Sure looks like more and more, like Fox might not be being that fair with thier pricing.


----------



## BillRadio

You're missing the real future. Fox is a non-issue. When Comcast takes control of the NBC networks and O+O's, they will block them from all satellite distributors. No problem, consumers won't switch to cable, they will access programming over the Internet. Even if you pay for programming, it will only be for the programming you want.

You think it can't happen? There are cars now equipped with audio systems that play "stations" that are downloaded on your broadband phone...goodbye terrestrial and satellite radio. TV, both OTA & Pay, will be next.


----------



## phrelin

BillRadio said:


> You're missing the real future. Fox is a non-issue. When Comcast takes control of the NBC networks and O+O's, they will block them from all satellite distributors. No problem, consumers won't switch to cable, they will access programming over the Internet. Even if you pay for programming, it will only be for the programming you want.
> 
> You think it can't happen? There are cars now equipped with audio systems that play "stations" that are downloaded on your broadband phone...goodbye terrestrial and satellite radio. TV, both OTA & Pay, will be next.


And I thought I was a super-pessimistic doom predictor....


----------



## James Long

BillRadio said:


> When Comcast takes control of the NBC networks and O+O's, they will block them from all satellite distributors.


That is one of the issues being dealt with in the merger ... making sure that NBC Universal deals fairly with all rebroadcasters and doesn't give Comcast a better deal than other carriers.

The same issue is one of the reasons why Fox wasn't as much of a problem when they had ownership ties to DirecTV. Refusing to agree to a contract would have raised a lot more red flags back then.


----------



## dakeeney

GrumpyBear said:


> Nobody can say if Fox is being fair or not with thier pricing. Funny how Fox is having problems with Dish, Cablevision, and on the Horizon in Dec, TimeWarner. You would think if Fox was being so fair with thier pricing, they wouldn't be having all the issues they are having. Add in the fact that Fox wasn't nothing to do with Binding arbitration. Sure looks like more and more, like Fox might not be being that fair with thier pricing.


I couldn't agree more. When the O&O's are pulled on 11/1 then you might see the FCC start putting their two cents in. Goodbye to Fox's ratings in November and they can kiss their ad revenue goodby also.


----------



## tsmacro

Well this should be interesting how this all plays out. If we go into November which is a sweeps month with Fox being off of Dish in some major markets and off of Cablevision in NY & Philly areas how much is that going to affect their ratings, enough to make Fox squirm? Hopefully this all gets resolved before too long, sooner or later my wife is going to start complaining about missing her Pacers games.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> The same issue is one of the reasons why Fox wasn't as much of a problem when they had ownership ties to DirecTV. Refusing to agree to a contract would have raised a lot more red flags back then.


Besides the fact that NewsCorp/Fox had to agree to binding arbitration for any disputes. The arbitration rules were lifted last year at Fox's request, since Fox no longer owned a distribution system.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

dakeeney said:


> I couldn't agree more. When the O&O's are pulled on 11/1 then you might see the FCC start putting their two cents in. Goodbye to Fox's ratings in November and they can kiss their ad revenue goodby also.


I am pretty sure that all involved in the raiting system, know what is going on. and a "*" would apply in this case.

While it will have an impact on raiting numbers, I doubt it will have that massive of a swing in the bigger picture.


----------



## paja

BillRadio said:


> You're missing the real future. Fox is a non-issue. When Comcast takes control of the NBC networks and O+O's, they will block them from all satellite distributors. No problem, consumers won't switch to cable, they will access programming over the Internet. Even if you pay for programming, it will only be for the programming you want.
> 
> You think it can't happen? There are cars now equipped with audio systems that play "stations" that are downloaded on your broadband phone...goodbye terrestrial and satellite radio. TV, both OTA & Pay, will be next.


Don't make me laugh. Until the government can guarentee internet access tand a computer to each and every citizen in this country, you won't ever see the end of OTA. Can you imagine the furor if seniors , poor people, minorities, etc. could not get any programming??


----------



## Joe Diver

SayWhat? said:


> As some have said, maybe the FCC will pull Fox's licenses and pull them off the air (OTA also) completely until they decide to be fair about pricing.


Right....and while we're at it, let's have the FTC stop Walmart until the Mom & Pop shops can compete with their pricing as well. Let's just go ahead and let the government decide how businesses operate and price their product.


----------



## mdavej

Public airwaves are a shared resources, like it or not. The only way to manage that reasonably is to have some governing body do it. The FCC requires that the parties in question engage in "good faith" negotiations, which means they have to try to negotiate. When one party demands a 50% increase (or 100% in the case of Comcast) and refuses to budge, that kind of shuts the door on all negotiations. 

That being said, I have no problem at all with Fox pricing themselves completely out of the market, which is what they've done. If their content is so valuable, it should be packaged and sold like Sunday Ticket or HBO.


----------



## TulsaOK

I hate losing my regional sports channels and, possibly, my Fox affiliate after November 1st. But, let the two sides work it out without government interference. Fox may rethink their position now that the World Series doesn't include the Yankees or the Phillies. Advertising revenue will probably drop as will the demand from viewers.


----------



## sigma1914

Kent Taylor said:


> I hate losing my regional sports channels and, possibly, my Fox affiliate after November 1st. But, let the two sides work it out without government interference. Fox may rethink their position now that the World Series doesn't include the Yankees or the Phillies. Advertising revenue will probably drop as will the demand from viewers.


Dallas' DMA is pretty big (#5?) & the Rangers popularity has skyrocketed here. And the Dallas Fox is on the drop list.


----------



## feets

SayWhat? said:


> You're getting a signal to your boxes and a choice of multiple channels, right?
> 
> As has been said many times above, channel lineups change. There are no guarantees about WHICH channels.


had to buy the higher priced programing package to get fx and fox sports channels........so no i'm not getting what i paid for.....got bunch of useless bs channels..... why do they (dish) wait till last minute to inform people that they are pulling channels? their boxes thats another story


----------



## Hoosier205

feets said:


> had to buy the higher priced programing package to get fx and fox sports channels........so no i'm not getting what i paid for.....got bunch of useless bs channels..... why do they (dish) wait till last minute to inform people that they are pulling channels? their boxes thats another story


That was your decision. The channels included in various packages have always been subject to change. You aren't subscribing to specific channels.


----------



## bjb236

I have a 722 with OTA channels set up. If the fox dish feed is pulled, will I still receive guide data for my OTA channel and my new show timers, or will I need to set up manual timers?


----------



## sigma1914

bjb236 said:


> I have a 722 with OTA channels set up. If the fox dish feed is pulled, will I still receive guide data for my OTA channel and my new show timers, or will I need to set up manual timers?


According to Mr. Long, you'll lose guide data.


----------



## paja

mdavej said:


> Public airwaves are a shared resources, like it or not. The only way to manage that reasonably is to have some governing body do it. The FCC requires that the parties in question engage in "good faith" negotiations, which means they have to try to negotiate. When one party demands a 50% increase (or 100% in the case of Comcast) and refuses to budge, that kind of shuts the door on all negotiations.
> 
> That being said, I have no problem at all with Fox pricing themselves completely out of the market, which is what they've done. If their content is so valuable, it should be packaged and sold like Sunday Ticket or HBO.


I can't wait to see what happens the first wekend in a major market when the football fans can't get their NFL. I wonder how many DISH subs will bail. Actually I spoke to a young man who does DirecTV installs in this area. He told me his company is literally swamped with people changing over from DISH. People calling for D service now are being told 2 weeks for an install.


----------



## CoolGui

Well tonight is the night... NBA opening night. My game is actually on TNT tonight, so I won't be missing anything. I've already priced and looked at things. My options: DirecTV price is not bad, but I don't know if I want to give up BBCA HD and RedZone... with Comast I would lose BBCA HD and Bravo HD (my wife loves top chef) and multiroom DVR. There is not a good decision honestly, but I'm thinking DirecTV probably has the edge since I would finally be able to upgrade to HD in the bedroom.


----------



## Hoosier205

CoolGui said:


> Well tonight is the night... NBA opening night. My game is actually on TNT tonight, so I won't be missing anything. I've already priced and looked at things. My options: DirecTV price is not bad, but I don't know if I want to give up BBCA HD and RedZone... with Comast I would lose BBCA HD and Bravo HD (my wife loves top chef) and multiroom DVR. There is not a good decision honestly, but I'm thinking DirecTV probably has the edge since I would finally be able to upgrade to HD in the bedroom.


You don't have to lose RedZone with DirecTV.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> You don't have to lose RedZone with DirecTV.


DirecTV does not air NFL RedZone with Scott Hanson, but they do have a similar channel. It is part of the $unday Ticket offering. Are they giving it to new customers for free or just long term customers in good standing? Calling up and threatening to leave to get something for free doesn't work as well when one has two years left on their commitment.


----------



## CoolGui

Hoosier205 said:


> You don't have to lose RedZone with DirecTV.


Right and I'm not going to pay $300+ for sunday ticket in order to get directv's red zone channel. I'm only interested in my local team games and only highlights of the rest.


----------



## TBoneit

Eksynyt said:


> Just like Dish not having the YES Network and losing ESPNews HD and never having ESPNU HD is only temporary.
> 
> Don't throw your money away, get out while you still can and switch to the better satellite provider, or you can go down with the ship as Charlie is apparently going to do. You'll all be D* customers within a few years at this rate.


Despite what you would like to happen.

If I had to leave Dishnetwork for some reason My first choice would be FIOS, followed by Cable. Distant third wouyld be an Antenna followed by a very remote Fourth which would be going back to DirecTV.

Short story: I was talking to a customer and asked who is your TV provider, Cablevision he answered. He also said he was (&*^$%^# off by losing FOX and his football games. I mentioned he could go to DirecTV and he said he had them before and he would do without before going back to them.

DirecTV has built up a pile of ill will towards them that one day will come back and bite them where the live.

I should mention that not having those highly important channels, In your view, not in my view is a non starter.


----------



## TBoneit

Kent Taylor said:


> I hate losing my regional sports channels and, possibly, my Fox affiliate after November 1st. But, let the two sides work it out without government interference. Fox may rethink their position now that the World Series doesn't include the Yankees or the Phillies. Advertising revenue will probably drop as will the demand from viewers.


Interesting thing I saw today on News 12 a NJ Cable only channel.

Cablevision is asking FOX to allow the World series fans to view the games on their system.


----------



## tsmacro

TBoneit said:


> Interesting thing I saw today on News 12 a NJ Cable only channel.
> 
> Cablevision is asking FOX to allow the World series fans to view the games on their system.


Savvy PR technique there. Ask and when FOX says no they look like the bad guy.


----------



## Hoosier205

CoolGui said:


> Right and I'm not going to pay $300+ for sunday ticket in order to get directv's red zone channel. I'm only interested in my local team games and only highlights of the rest.


Then don't. Many people are getting it as a standalone. Tell them that you require it when you subscribe. Easy problem, easy solution.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> DirecTV does not air NFL RedZone with Scott Hanson, but they do have a similar channel. It is part of the $unday Ticket offering.


DirecTV airs the original RedZone. They created the channel, the NFL simply used that idea and gave it a new host. They are identical in content and service. It is available as part of Sunday Ticket and as standalone option to those who qualify.



James Long said:


> Are they giving it to new customers for free or just long term customers in good standing?


Both categories of customers have been able to obtain a standalone version of it.


----------



## CoolGui

Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV airs the original RedZone. They created the channel, the NFL simply used that idea and gave it a new host. They are identical in content and service. It is available as part of Sunday Ticket and as standalone option to those who qualify.
> 
> Both categories of customers have been able to obtain a standalone version of it.


The host is actually a guy who has been on the NFL network for quite a while. I think he does a pretty good job considering he has to sit there for over 6 hours and do a quick narration of the games switching all around. I don't care that much, I would settle for DirecTV's version, but I already asked and they said they weren't offering it. I'm not going to beg for it. I'll just do without it if I have to make the decision to go with them. Comcast is still an option, I'm just still in "wait and see" mode.


----------



## SayWhat?

Hoosier205 said:


> You don't have to lose RedZone with DirecTV.





Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV airs the original RedZone.


But this thread is not an advertisement for Direct.


----------



## CoolGui

SayWhat? said:


> But this thread is not an advertisement for Direct.


Everything is an advertisement opportunity for DirecTV for him. I have a good laugh when I see these fanboys so loyal to these companies that could care less about you other as long as they get their money. I was actually just discussing alternatives that I might have to resort to, I think it's pertinent to this discussion honestly.


----------



## feets

Hoosier205 said:


> That was your decision. The channels included in various packages have always been subject to change. You aren't subscribing to specific channels.


so give me what i want not some 2nd rate channels that no one watches.had to sign up for 2yrs of programing so i guess i can dump this p.... poor outfit like they dumped the programing i thought i was paying for oh well i just dumped them........and i feel better


----------



## inazsully

Hoosier205 said:


> That was your decision. The channels included in various packages have always been subject to change. You aren't subscribing to specific channels.


There is more than one interpretation to "subject to change". Some, as mentioned in this thread earlier, more than once, read that to mean "if a channel goes out of business or has a technical problem causing the signal transmission to become impossible". "subject to change" should not include a decision not to pay the bill. Dish's contract, because of the different package prices IMPLIES specific content. It may take a court ruling to determine whose interpretation is correct but at this point both are certainly viable.


----------



## SayWhat?

> so give me what i want not some 2nd rate channels that no one watches.


That could be why they took Fox off and left the good channels.


----------



## pez2002

time to kick charile out and bring in a new ceo

i bet you this dispute would be over if they brought in someone new


----------



## phrelin

The results of News Corp v Dish (and Cablevision) will impact on every other carrier sooner or later. The results will also impact on the cost of every other channel sooner or later. It may be that subsequent negotiations with other cable and satellite companies will not result in a signal loss. But to the extent that Dish (and Cablevision) respond to the pressure from subscribers abandoning them, prices will go up for everyone.

This situation is the first time that O&O broadcast stations and cable channels are being leveraged effectively together. As this unfolds, in mind the fact that there are only four players with significant interests in broadcast TV stations and cable channels* as follows (my lists are not up-to-date, but close enough):

News Corp owns:

Fox broadcast network and O&O stations serving 35-40% of homes
My Network TV broadcast network and O&O stations
Fox Business Network
Fox Classics
Fox Movie Channel
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox College Sports
Fox Soccer Channel
Fox Soccer Plus
Fox Sports en Español 
FX Networks
Speed Channel
FUEL TV
Big Ten Network, cable and satellite channel dedicated to The Big Ten Conference, launched Aug 2007 (49%)
National Geographic Channel (joint venture with National Geographic Magazine) (67%)
a bunch of other miscellaneous cable channels
HULU (31%)

Disney owns:

ABC broadcast network and O&O stations serving 23-25% of homes
Disney Channel and its various offspring
ABC Family
SOAP Net
A&E Networks (42%)
ESPN and its various offspring (80%)
HULU (27%)

NBCU (soon to be 51% owned by Comcast which will add Comcast's regional channels, regional sports networks, the Golf Channel, and Versus to the group) owns:

NBC broadcast network and O&O stations serving 25-30% of homes
USA Network
Syfy
Bravo
CNBC
MSNBC (82%)
Oxygen
Universal HD
Telemundo
mun2
Chiller
Sleuth
HULU (32%)

National Amusements controls the CBS Corporation and Viacom which owns:

CBS broadcast network and O&O stations serving 30-35% of homes
The CW broadcast network (50%) and O&O stations
The Showtime Networks including Showtime and its offspring and The Movie Channel and its offspring
Comedy Central
Logo
BET and its offspring
Spike
TV Land
Nickelodeon and its offspring
MTV and its offspring
VH1 and its offspring
Tr3́s
CMT
Palladia

These are the media conglomerates that prevent a la carte offerings and would prefer all their channels in one package in the lowest tier except perhaps the premium packages.

If Dish (and Cablevision) blink too soon, consider what these media conglomerates will be charging by 2020 on every cable and satellite system in the nation. As indicated three out of the four together own HULU, so don't think there is going to be some cheaper internet option. The price will be the price.

___________________________
*Time Warner (not the cable company) which owns the other 50% of The CW also owns a bunch of cable channels (HBO, Cinemax, TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, CNN, etc.) but no network affiliated broadcast stations though they do own the unaffiliated Atlanta station WPCH.


----------



## scooper

pez2002 said:


> time to kick charile out and bring in a new ceo
> 
> i bet you this dispute would be over if they brought in someone new


THat will NEVER ( and I mean NEVER) happen.


----------



## feets

SayWhat? said:


> That could be why they took Fox off and left the good channels.


Thats your opinion and opinions are like b.......holes everybody has one


----------



## SayWhat?

pez2002 said:


> time to kick charile out and bring in a new ceo
> 
> i bet you this dispute would be over if they brought in someone new


I would say the same about Murdoch.


----------



## CoolGui

phrelin said:


> ...NBCU (soon to be 51% owned by Comcast which will add Comcast's regional channels, regional sports networks, the Golf Channel, and Versus to the group) owns:...


Don't forget Comcast also owns E!, Style and G4. My wife wouldn't know what to do without the first two. Sad, I know.


----------



## tcatdbs

If Dish takes Fox off Nov.1, my wife will "force" me to switch back to cable... she pushes that idea every time it goes out during a thunderstorm... usually just an hour or two. I'll have no argument if she loses Glee


----------



## James Long

tcatdbs said:


> If Dish takes Fox off Nov.1, my wife will "force" me to switch back to cable... she pushes that idea every time it goes out during a thunderstorm... usually just an hour or two. I'll have no argument if she loses Glee


Good news! Glee does not air next Tuesday!

Fox and DISH have until November 9th.


----------



## CoolGui

tcatdbs said:


> If Dish takes Fox off Nov.1, my wife will "force" me to switch back to cable... she pushes that idea every time it goes out during a thunderstorm... usually just an hour or two. I'll have no argument if she loses Glee


haha... Thank god my wife hasn't gotten into watching that one. She has hinted at it, but it's not going to happen if I'm in the room. :nono: Honestly I am not a fan of any of fox's programming. She watches Hell's kitchen, but it annoys me too. Really the only thing I get from fox that I really *need* is the sports that they have exclusives contracts to carry. I know that one video is a little cheezy that the dish exec complains that sports used to be free on broadcast tv, but I miss those days too.


----------



## tcatdbs

I normally don't watch it, but there was a good Rocky Horror Show one tonight, even had Meatloaf as a guest. I can see the appeal.



CoolGui said:


> haha... Thank god my wife hasn't gotten into watching that one. She has hinted at it, but it's not going to happen if I'm in the room. :nono: Honestly I am not a fan of any of fox's programming. She watches Hell's kitchen, but it annoys me too. Really the only thing I get from fox that I really *need* is the sports that they have exclusives contracts to carry. I know that one video is a little cheezy that the dish exec complains that sports used to be free on broadcast tv, but I miss those days too.


----------



## GrumpyBear

tcatdbs said:


> I normally don't watch it, but there was a good Rocky Horror Show one tonight, even had Meatloaf as a guest. I can see the appeal.


In Austin, getting OTA should be real easy, if Fox gets extra greedy, Nov 1st and pulls its feeds from Dish, like they have from Cablevision.


----------



## RAD

GrumpyBear said:


> In Austin, getting OTA should be real easy, if Fox gets extra greedy, Nov 1st and pulls its feeds from Dish, like they have from Cablevision.


Some will have problems, KTBC-DT is on ch 7, VHF-hi.


----------



## grog

Here is a twist.

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?...on-cablevision&catid=57:television&Itemid=122



> The battle over carriage rights between News Corp.'s FOX Television Station, Inc. and Cablevision took a personal turn on the eve of Game 1 of the World Series as Cablevision President and CEO James Dolan sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in which Dolan said, "In the interest of ending the impasse with New Corp. and ensuring that our customers are not deprived of the World Series, I am writing to reconfirm our commitment to a mediation process and to let you know I will be in your office tomorrow, Wednesday, October 27, to meet with New Corp.'s Chase Carey should you call a meeting."


Thing is there is no news on the Dish Network / Fox carriage that I can find other than the usual the FOX stations are at risk and you may lose them.

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/dishvsfox.html?24157

Is it possible that CableVision could see FOX back on the air in time to see the World Series on the 1st while at the same time Dish Network FOX locals get pulled? :eek2:


----------



## James Long

grog said:


> Thing is there is no news on the Dish Network / Fox carriage that I can find other than the usual the FOX stations are at risk and you may lose them.
> 
> Is it possible that CableVision could see FOX back on the air in time to see the World Series on the 1st while at the same time Dish Network FOX locals get pulled? :eek2:


The World Series begins at 7:30pm Wednesday night (19 1/2 hours away).
Game 5 (if needed) will be Monday, November 1st.

In order to carry the World Series, Fox and Cablevision would need a deal in less than 19 1/2 hours.
Based on the FCC letters in the Fox vs Cablevision thread I do not see that deal as likely.


----------



## mikepd

tcatdbs said:


> If Dish takes Fox off Nov.1, my wife will "force" me to switch back to cable... she pushes that idea every time it goes out during a thunderstorm... usually just an hour or two. I'll have no argument if she loses Glee


I may be wrong about this but I believe the matter is that Fox canceled Dish's retransmission rights once their current contract expired. On November 1, the retransmission contract for the Fox stations are up and if a settlement is not reached by then, they too will most likely be cutoff.

The loss of channels is all on Fox since Dish did not cancel the stations rather Fox cut the retransmission rights.


----------



## Satelliteracer

phrelin said:


> If Dish (and Cablevision) blink too soon, consider what these media conglomerates will be charging by 2020 on every cable and satellite system in the nation. As indicated three out of the four together own HULU, so don't think there is going to be some cheaper internet option. The price will be the price.
> 
> [/SIZE]


I just read a few days ago they are likely to drop the price of HULU Plus because sales have been weak.


----------



## phrelin

Satelliteracer said:


> I just read a few days ago they are likely to drop the price of HULU Plus because sales have been weak.


In a literal sense you are right. But examining the letters that Fox sent to the FCC we find that the broadcast network economic model is too weak to survive.

From Fox's letter of October 25:


> Today, the broadcast business is facing new challenges and it is apparent that without creating a second revenue stream, broadcasters will no longer be able to acquire major sports events and the popular entertainment programming that consumers value and to produce local news.


From Fox's letter of October 26:


> Based on ratings, Fox could command more than twice the price that it is asking.


What these two statements say is that the national-network-local-broadcast-channel-affiliate model cannot make it on advertising. If they could, "based on ratings" they would make enough from advertising.

The particular broadcast station being discussed in the letters is in the largest market in the nation, the New York City DMA. What hope is there for any of the other markets Fox has threatened to pull from Dish?

We know that cable channel TBS carried half the MLB playoff games. We know that ESPN carries Monday Night Football. It appears that the cable channel economic model for both these enterprises works.

What I believe also would work is a national cable feed of Fox.

What won't work is to continue the 1958 model of affiliated local broadcast stations. It's that simple.

So what do we cable and satellite subscribers do? Prop up an economically unworkable system of local broadcast channels by pretending the local station offers as much value to subscribers as TBS or ESPN?

Do we agree to this without requiring OTA signals to be scrambled to be received via subscription fee boxes so that every viewer pays? In other words, do we abandoned the free broadcast channel model completely or half-assed?

Why can't we face up to the fact that it is 2010, not 1958, and plan a phase out of the local affiliate broadcast channel arrangement? This is just corporate featherbedding - we don't need these guys but they are not only still on our payroll, they want a raise.


----------



## SayWhat?

> and plan a phase out of the local affiliate broadcast channel arrangement?


Not gonna happen.


----------



## BillJ

Don't expect any flexibility from FOX until well after they lose DISH viewers. 

My saga with another Murdock property illustrates their tactics. 3 months before my Wall Street Journal subscription expired they informed me the price would more than doubled to renew. I emailed expressing my shock and dissatisfaction after 40+ years as a WSJ reader. They replied that they were sorry to lose me as a subscriber....period. In the last 6 months they have repeatedly sent the same renewal offer of more than double the price. I did not renew and the subscription expired in mid July. They continued to send the same offer but also kept sending the newspaper until last week when it stopped. 

Last night I got a phone call saying how sorry they were to lose me and offering to renew for one year at 25% of the price they've been demanding for six months. I told the woman they'd had 6 months to make that offer and I was no longer interested.

My point is FOX won't back down until they endure some economic loss. I do not believe they are negotiating in good faith. I'm prepared to do without FOX local on Monday. I have no plans to jump to another TV provider that will probably be in the same situation as DISH in a year or two. I hope DISH holds the line on price gouging like this. Modest price increase is reasonable. Doubling the price is extortion.


----------



## Greg Bimson

mikepd said:


> I may be wrong about this but I believe the matter is that Fox canceled Dish's retransmission rights once their current contract expired. On November 1, the retransmission contract for the Fox stations are up and if a settlement is not reached by then, they too will most likely be cutoff.
> 
> The loss of channels is all on Fox since Dish did not cancel the stations rather Fox cut the retransmission rights.


Playing devil's advocate...

Dish Network had a carriage contract for FX, NatGeo and 19 FSN's. Dish Network did not renew that contract, and because they cannot carry channels without a contract, Dish Network had to "cancel the stations".

The problem is that it takes two to tango.

As a programming supplier, Fox wants certain things to change in order for Dish Network to continue carrying the programming. As an agregator and distributor, Dish Network would prefer everything remain the same so they can continue carrying programming. Neither party could agree to a compromise, so both are responsible for letting the channel carriage lapse.


----------



## paja

Here is an interesting article in todays Chicago Tribune. First time I've seen an actual number as to the number of local DISH subs:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-1027-phil-col-20101027,0,3307677.column


----------



## tsmacro

paja said:


> Here is an interesting article in todays Chicago Tribune. First time I've seen an actual number as to the number of local DISH subs:
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-1027-phil-col-20101027,0,3307677.column


That's definitely one of the better articles i've seen. Actually seems like the reporter did his homework and presented the concerns of both parties involved in the dispute. Nice to see some actual reporting as opposed to trying to spin it one way or the other or even worse just repeating one of the press releases of the parties involved which we all know are spun to the maximum advantage of the company releasing it.


----------



## kariato

Given the cablevision war in New York and the possibility of a similar situation with Dish soon, Fox has problems, given that this season broadcast ratings are horrible. See
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/27/fox-now-17-behind-last-years-adults-18-49-ratings/69859 which shows that FOX has lost a significant number of viewers this year to poor programming choices. They want more money whiles loosing ground to CBS makes no sense.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

Satelliteracer said:


> I just read a few days ago they are likely to drop the price of HULU Plus because sales have been weak.


I've looked hard into all the streaming platforms, and it's just not where it needs to be for someone like me, who records over 30 hours a week. I've decided to keep my two HR's on MRV, drop the tivo, and just beef up and enjoy my directv service. I'll check back with hulu and the likes in a couple of years. Now that I own and iPad, I'm eagerly awaiting nomad.

Hopefully directv can continue to avoid excessive channel disputes.


----------



## Paul Secic

slickshoes said:


> Then congrats, you are doing exactly what FOX wants you to do, including paying more for their crap.


+! Quit and pay 50% on all providers, down the road! Go on!


----------



## chum76

BillJ said:


> Don't expect any flexibility from FOX until well after they lose DISH viewers.
> 
> My saga with another Murdock property illustrates their tactics. 3 months before my Wall Street Journal subscription expired they informed me the price would more than doubled to renew. I emailed expressing my shock and dissatisfaction after 40+ years as a WSJ reader. They replied that they were sorry to lose me as a subscriber....period. In the last 6 months they have repeatedly sent the same renewal offer of more than double the price. I did not renew and the subscription expired in mid July. They continued to send the same offer but also kept sending the newspaper until last week when it stopped.
> 
> Last night I got a phone call saying how sorry they were to lose me and offering to renew for one year at 25% of the price they've been demanding for six months. I told the woman they'd had 6 months to make that offer and I was no longer interested.
> 
> My point is FOX won't back down until they endure some economic loss. I do not believe they are negotiating in good faith. I'm prepared to do without FOX local on Monday. I have no plans to jump to another TV provider that will probably be in the same situation as DISH in a year or two. I hope DISH holds the line on price gouging like this. Modest price increase is reasonable. Doubling the price is extortion.


Yeah but the WSJ is doing very well while other newspapers are sinking. If FOX wants more money to give us better programming then so be it. I for one would like to see more sports/programming on their channel.


----------



## phrelin

kariato said:


> Given the cablevision war in New York and the possibility of a similar situation with Dish soon, Fox has problems, given that this season broadcast ratings are horrible. See
> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/27/fox-now-17-behind-last-years-adults-18-49-ratings/69859 which shows that FOX has lost a significant number of viewers this year to poor programming choices. They want more money whiles loosing ground to CBS makes no sense.


Fox has made some bad choices this year. Ironically, Disney has taken some heavy losses in theme parks located in places like China. Both want to squeeze more money out of Dish customers to make up for their lost income by increasing rates in the middle of The Great Recession, ironically both claiming to be American family supportive.

But, and this is a big issue with me, they don't want to be identified as the source of the increase or allow you to choose to drop the channel because of the increase. Instead they want us to blame Dish when the price goes up.

If, instead of tiers, we had to choose between the News Corp (Fox) package, the Disney/ABC package, the NBCU/Comcast package, and the CBS/Viacom package (see this post for details), along with all the others like Time Warner, Discovery, etc., then we would have competition creating price levels.

Instead we have to rely on Dish Network to try to keep the cost down.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Greg Bimson said:


> Playing devil's advocate...
> 
> Dish Network had a carriage contract for FX, NatGeo and 19 FSN's. Dish Network did not renew that contract, and because they cannot carry channels without a contract, Dish Network had to "cancel the stations".


Incorrect. Fox could have allowed Dish to continue to rebroadcast those channels under the expired contract and once a new agreement is reached they could have collected back fees if owed.


----------



## Greg Bimson

HobbyTalk said:


> Incorrect. Fox could have allowed Dish to continue to rebroadcast those channels under the expired contract and once a new agreement is reached they could have collected back fees if owed.


Incorrect. If Fox "allowed Dish to continue to rebroadcast under the expired contract", that would mean the expired contract would have been extended. No extension, no contract, no carry.

Case in point:

Dish Network carried four HD channels from Disney for 25 months. They weren't under contract. Disney has not been paid.

No contract, no carry.


----------



## Michael P

All the news is with Cablevision. What about E*? Is there any news yet? Tonight is the first time this dispute is going to hurt me. The first game of the NBA season for the Cavs. I can see the listing blacked out in the NBALP free preview. My only hope is to see the end of the game up in the 9600's should it run past the allotted time (NBALP blocks out more time than the originating RSN). I did see a Celtics post game listed in the clear at 9:30 so that is where I plan to be watching.


----------



## MysteryMan

Michael P said:


> All the news is with Cablevision. What about E*? Is there any news yet? Tonight is the first time this dispute is going to hurt me. The first game of the NBA season for the Cavs. I can see the listing blacked out in the NBALP free preview. My only hope is to see the end of the game up in the 9600's should it run past the allotted time (NBALP blocks out more time than the originating RSN). I did see a Celtics post game listed in the clear at 9:30 so that is where I plan to be watching.


There's good news and bad news. The bad news is there isn't any good news!


----------



## CoolGui

I'm going to miss my first regular season rockets game tonight. I hate to reward DirecTV for this argument between fox and dish, but honestly I just want to watch the games. 

By the way, I'm pretty sure I'm out of my commitment with Dish, but I don't have any evidence. Do you any of you know how I can find out when I signed up last? I upgraded to a 722 shortly after they came out, I think that was when they renewed my commitment.


----------



## hoophead

CoolGui said:


> I'm going to miss my first regular season rockets game tonight. I hate to reward DirecTV for this argument between fox and dish, but honestly I just want to watch the games.
> 
> By the way, I'm pretty sure I'm out of my commitment with Dish, but I don't have any evidence. Do you any of you know how I can find out when I signed up last? I upgraded to a 722 shortly after they came out, I think that was when they renewed my commitment.


Chat with/call them.


----------



## James Long

A reminder:

Broadcast networks and copyright issues. (Spin off conversation.) is in the Legislative and Regulatory Issues forum.

Cablevision drops fox in ny and phi is in The OT forum.

There is also a Dish Retrans Dispute with MSG over Fuse thread for those interested in that dispute.

This thread is for DISH vs Fox ... Thanks!


----------



## sherriebythesea

When are Fox advertisers going to start adding up all the lost viewers and start demanding to pay LESS for their ads on Fox ?


----------



## meStevo

sherriebythesea said:


> When are Fox advertisers going to start adding up all the lost viewers and start demanding to pay LESS for their ads on Fox ?


Hard to say, and we'll never know, so hard to say it's even relevant. Dish is just a percentage and likely nowhere near a majority of potential eyeballs in any given market for these stations. As the link above stated, Fox had a very good year last year, with the Yankees in the world series and whatnot, pinning ratings dips on disputes is just a sexy headline more than anything at the moment.


----------



## phrelin

sherriebythesea said:


> When are Fox advertisers going to start adding up all the lost viewers and start demanding to pay LESS for their ads on Fox ?


During the past two years some "regular advertising" placement pricing has been tied, at least partially, to what is known as the Nielsen C+3 ratings having to do with eyes on commercials within 3 days of the day the show and ads run.

The ad pricing for the NFL playoffs and the Superbowl and for the MLB playoffs and world series, however, is sold without regard to who's watching. Regarding MLB Fox might feel the pain next year with paranoid advertisers, but not this year.

My guess is they would see a significant drop in ad revenue for "American Idol" if the broadcast channel in places like NYC and Philadelphia were still off of Cablevision plus off of Dish. But that would be short term and only problematic in the short term.

The reality is that Cablevision and Dish will have lost customers in droves by the end of the January-May season. That will not be short term and Rupert Murdoch knows it.

It appears that late last year Time Warner blinked agreeing to what I feel are unconscionable fee demands but no real information was available. Fox is simply leveraging that with Cablevision and Dish who may very well blink. Fox will then leverage those results with other cable companies and DirecTV and U-Verse and Fios. Within 5 years everyone will be paying those high prices.

NBC, CBS, and ABC will not find the concept of higher fees interesting at all. And the viewers will think a $10-15 a month increase in all tiers on all systems an outstanding result. Or more likely, the viewers will have no idea how that happened.

For the media companies, that will set the "per view" value of streaming which will then determine the licensing costs incurred by Netflix, Google TV, etc. which will determine future pricing to their customers.

And it's all Dish's fault for not capitulating immediately, if not sooner. I wouldn't be missing "Sons of Anarchy" and "Terriers" which, since I'll be dead in a few years, is far more important than standing with Dish on behalf of my grandchildren.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> Within 5 years everyone will be paying those high prices.
> 
> NBC, CBS, and ABC will not find the concept of higher fees interesting at all. And the viewers will think a $10-15 a month increase in all tiers on all systems an outstanding result. Or more likely, the viewers will have no idea how that happened.


Over time the rate carriers charge customers will go up. It has to to cover normal rate increases (the 23c this year, 24c next year kind of increase) plus the always increasing cost of paying people to keep everything running.

Whatever is overpaid to Fox will just have to come off of something else. Perhaps less new HD channels (until the SD contract expires and the programmer says no SD without HD). Perhaps less development of receivers. The bean counters at each carrier will have to figure out the cost/benefit of each decision.



> And it's all Dish's fault for not capitulating immediately, if not sooner. I wouldn't be missing "Sons of Anarchy" and "Terriers" which, since I'll be dead in a few years, is far more important than standing with Dish on behalf of my grandchildren.


An interesting "bucket list" ...


----------



## SayWhat?

Well like I said (but it was moved), I watch Dish, but I don't watch Fox, so any ad dollars paid to Fox are lost on me.

I'm not sure I'll watch FX or NetGeo if and when they return to Dish, so those ad dollars may be lost on me in perpetuity.

Nice goin' Murdoch!


----------



## jerry downing

sherriebythesea said:


> When are Fox advertisers going to start adding up all the lost viewers and start demanding to pay LESS for their ads on Fox ?


They'll make up for it by putting in even more commercials.


----------



## Paul Secic

SayWhat? said:


> Well like I said (but it was moved), I watch Dish, but I don't watch Fox, so any ad dollars paid to Fox are lost on me.
> 
> I'm not sure I'll watch FX or NetGeo if and when they return to Dish, so those ad dollars may be lost on me in perpetuity.
> 
> Nice goin' Murdoch!


I don't watch FX, GSM. In fact I'm boycotting FOX!


----------



## sigma1914

Paul Secic said:


> I don't watch FX, GSM. In fact I'm boycotting FOX!


Not even watching your local Giants in the WS?


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> And it's all Dish's fault for not capitulating immediately, if not sooner. I wouldn't be missing "Sons of Anarchy" and "Terriers" which, since I'll be dead in a few years, is far more important than standing with Dish on behalf of my grandchildren.
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting "bucket list" ...
Click to expand...

I assumed everyone understood that the comment was sarcasm.

My basic point of view is that the issue is not Fox v Dish or Cablevision or Time Warner. I view it as TV broadcasters (media conglomerates) v viewers. And it appears the most vocal viewers are more than willing to accept Fox's view of the future of home entertainment rather than lose any sports programming today or "American Idol" in January.

I cannot imagine anything good coming from accepting a future home entertainment structure in America based on Rupert Murdoch's point of view. And that view is expressed honestly in the first letter to the FCC which offers this opinion:


> ...Based on established rates for cable programming services that do not approach the performance of the Fox stations...it would be reasonable for us to seek a rate between $5 and $6 per subscriber.


Since Fox's total viewer ratings this fall are well behind CBS and ABC and really not so much better than NBC, that opinion represents $20 to $24 a month for those four networks.

He's also demanding similar amounts for the Fox owned MyNetworkTV channels which run far behind The CW and PBS.

So extrapolating, Rupert sees those seven broadcast channels costing every subscriber in the nation $30 a month before you get any cable channels. And he wants you paying for his cable channels along with the broadcast channel.

Remember that prior to this period in TV history, no fees were paid for broadcast stations. So that number is more or less on top of anything you're paying now.

So I'm very comfortable standing side by side with the two Charlies against Rupert.


----------



## DodgerKing

Wait until Monday. By then many of you MAY be very pleasantly  (good) surprised when you turn on your TV.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Phrelin, that's what so many people don't get. Fox is establishing the benchmarks off of which everything else will be priced.

Univision will demand a dollar a sub (assuming Fox Broadcast gets that) + carriage of another Spanish-language channel (UVN just inked a new agreement with Mexico's Televisa that's going to cost it 600M a year in licensing fees, up from about 120M today) on the basic tier.

Point is, unless we want PayTV bills to continue increasing by 8% a year against the backdrop of 0.5% annual inflation, we should be supporting Congressional intervention.


----------



## Hoosier205

Gloria_Chavez said:


> we should be supporting Congressional intervention.


No.


----------



## James Long

> ...Based on established rates for cable programming services that do not approach the performance of the Fox stations...it would be reasonable for us to seek a rate between $5 and $6 per subscriber.


I took that as a total for Fox Sports, FX, NatGeo and the broadcast stations. Similar to ABC/ESPNs charges for ESPN with the extra dollars going toward their other channels.

Fortunately that money for ESPN buys more than one channel per region. The ESPN suite of channels is worth more than FoxSports. They get the big bucks because they deliver the goods. Fox isn't there yet.

$1 per sub per month for OTAs is the direction they are heading ... and next contract $2? That is where it could add up if other networks follow suit. Not $5-6 to everyone because not everyone has an ESPN suite or FoxSports RSN to boost the "value".


----------



## inazsully

It's difficult to compare sports programing to regular produced half hour and one hour shows. The network presents a specific show (Outlaws) to the public and if they like it more viewers watch and the show continues on, perhaps for many years. If it is not accepted by the subs then the show (Outlaws) is canceled. It's a crap shoot every year with every network. Not so with sports broadcasts. Take football, college or NFL. The games shown are decided upon by pre sub interest. Very little risk because the number of viewing subs is easily predicted. That's why FOX wants a bigger piece of the sports pie. Guaranteed profits. That's why CBS, NBC, ESPN offer billion dollar contracts to the NFL. Big bucks and little risk.


----------



## Wilf

SayWhat? said:


> Well like I said (but it was moved), I watch Dish, but I don't watch Fox, so any ad dollars paid to Fox are lost on me.
> 
> I'm not sure I'll watch FX or NetGeo if and when they return to Dish, so those ad dollars may be lost on me in perpetuity.
> 
> Nice goin' Murdoch!


Whether you watch or not, you will be paying Fox through Dish. The same for any us that don't watch the sports channels. We are subsidizing those that do! Is that fair?


----------



## EW800

Can anyone tell me when we would likely know if Dish is going to lose the additional Fox channels? Would I be correct that it would be the morning of the Nov 1?


----------



## James Long

EW800 said:


> Can anyone tell me when we would likely know if Dish is going to lose the additional Fox channels? Would I be correct that it would be the morning of the Nov 1?


The only additional Fox channels at risk are the local channels that are owned and operated by Fox (and a few represented by Fox) ... which are Fox and MyNetwork affiliates in several major markets. Other broadcast stations not owned by Fox are not affected and other Fox cable channels are not affected.

Most likely we'll find out when they actually go off ... although there might be some final statements in the press about it as Sunday night approaches. The FX/NatGeo/FoxSports contract expired at 3am ET so it is likely the Fox O&Os will expire at the same time.


----------



## bnborg

I'll have to upgrade my OTA antenna if I want to get KMSP, MyFox9 in HD. It is on actual channel 9 (9.1).

I can still get it in SD on 9.2 (actual channel 29.2). But I do enjoy some of the FOX shows in HD.


----------



## Davenlr

bnborg said:


> I'll have to upgrade my OTA antenna if I want to get KMSP, MyFox9 in HD. It is on actual channel 9 (9.1).
> 
> I can still get it in SD on 9.2 (actual channel 29.2). But I do enjoy some of the FOX shows in HD.


If you already have a UHF antenna that works, add a VHF/UHF combiner and one of these:
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.as...tenna-(YA1713)&c=TV Antennas&sku=615798304867


----------



## Eksynyt

Hope people in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas don't watch Glee, House, NFL on Fox, Family Guy, Simpsons, American Idol, and other top rated shows or Dish is going bye bye if they hold out for too long on this.

Every single person in NFC East markets losing their teams if they have Dish...if Charlie digs his feet in then he is going to sink to the center of the earth and take the company with him.


----------



## HDlover

DodgerKing said:


> Wait until Monday. By then many of you MAY be very pleasantly  (good) surprised when you turn on your TV.


If my bill is going up, I won't be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## HDlover

Eksynyt said:


> Hope people in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas don't watch Glee, House, NFL on Fox, Family Guy, Simpsons, American Idol, and other top rated shows or Dish is going bye bye if they hold out for too long on this.
> 
> Every single person in NFC East markets losing their teams if they have Dish...if Charlie digs his feet in then he is going to sink to the center of the earth and take the company with him.


They can just get an antenna, works for most people.


----------



## nmetro

KWGN the CW affiliate in Denver is duopoly with KDVR FOX 31. While Tribune seems to still own the station, the newscasts are from FOX 31. But, it is quite possible, depending on what FOX does, Denver may lose the CW, as well as FOX. Also, Superstation subscribers may lose a channel. FYI, the MyTV affiliate is owned by KUSA 9, the NBC affiliate in Denver.

As for this dispute, apparently, according to The Denver Post, FOX is suing Cablevision over the dispute. So, at least it looks like Cablesvision subscribers are in for the long haul. And it looks like DISH subscribers may also be in for a long wait. I like to see how FOX handles "NFL RedZone" and DISH's carriage of it (especially those segments they show that originate from FOX). The NFL could be put in a rather awkward position come November 6th.

In my opinion, I hope the carriers show a strong backbone here. If not, then subscribers will have to live through these disputes ab naseum for many years to come. If FOX wins, then CBS/Viacom, NBC/Universal/Comcast, ABC/Disney, Time-Warner will then try to do the same thing and it will never end. Caught in the middle are subscribers who are paying for channels which cannot be viewed.

As for losing FOX, I only watch two shows regularly and there are alternatives. I watch NFL RedZone, because of Broncos blackouts. So, FOX will not be missed. I rarely watch FX. I do like National Geographic, but there is always any of the Discovery Networks. FOX may be the third ranked network by ratings, but they are certainly no CBS or ABC. I wonder why they don't threaten to remove FOX News and FOX Business Channel; maybe they will, we'll see on Monday. And losing these is also no loss to me.


----------



## bnborg

Davenlr said:


> If you already have a UHF antenna that works, add a VHF/UHF combiner and one of these:
> http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.as...tenna-(YA1713)&c=TV Antennas&sku=615798304867


Good idea.

It does involve the work of putting antennas on the roof though.

My current homemade four bay bowtie is inside.


----------



## HDlover

You don't have to put it on the roof. You can attach it to the side of the roof or in the attic. Lots of options. 

Since Dish isn't charging for locals anymore, I don't see how Fox can stop Dish from giving them to us. Maybe this is the "surprise" DodgerKing is talking about.


----------



## scooper

HDlover said:


> You don't have to put it on the roof. You can attach it to the side of the roof or in the attic. Lots of options.
> 
> Since Dish isn't charging for locals anymore, I don't see how Fox can stop Dish from giving them to us. Maybe this is the "surprise" DodgerKing is talking about.


That theory is so full of holes you could drive an M1 Abrams Main Battle tank through them


----------



## HDlover

I hope you're wrong and I'm right. Since dish is getting the channels from free OTA what is Fox going to do, turn off the stations. Fox would have to go to court. Now we have government involved, with elected officials.


----------



## scooper

HDlover said:


> I hope you're wrong and I'm right. Since dish is getting the channels from free OTA what is Fox going to do, turn off the stations. Fox would have to go to court. Now we have government involved, with elected officials.


I don't think the courts would allow that argument as the "Retransmission consent" not being required any more.


----------



## HDlover

Well Dish is good at prolonging court arguments and then there are all the mad voters if the government turns them off..


----------



## SayWhat?

HDlover said:


> You don't have to put it on the roof. You can attach it to the side of the roof or in the attic. Lots of options.
> 
> Since Dish isn't charging for locals anymore, I don't see how Fox can stop Dish from giving them to us. Maybe this is the "surprise" DodgerKing is talking about.


Or you could not do that and show solidarity by not watching Fox at all.


----------



## James Long

nmetro said:


> KWGN the CW affiliate in Denver is duopoly with KDVR FOX 31. While Tribune seems to still own the station, the newscasts are from FOX 31. But, it is quite possible, depending on what FOX does, Denver may lose the CW, as well as FOX.


As long as DISH has a contract to carry KWGN they can continue to carry KWGN. Pulling that feed would be a violation of the carriage contract.

KWGN is not listed as one of the stations that Fox says is at risk of being pulled. KDVR could pull their news off of KWGN, if the contract between the two stations allows. There will likely be heavy coverage of how much people miss Fox KDVR so why pull the news?



> Also, Superstation subscribers may lose a channel. FYI, the MyTV affiliate is owned by KUSA 9, the NBC affiliate in Denver.


Superstations do not require carriage agreements. DISH can continue to carry the superstations everywhere except their own market without consent of the station. (In market it would be considered a local.) Compensation for superstations is by statutory license, not carriage agreement.



> I like to see how FOX handles "NFL RedZone" and DISH's carriage of it (especially those segments they show that originate from FOX). The NFL could be put in a rather awkward position come November 6th.


The NFL owns the rights to the game and allows NFL Network's RedZone to transmit the excerpts. If there was a problem we would have already seen it (offering RedZone without Sunday Ticket).


----------



## Dave

The real story is if Dish will reduce there bill to the customers. I hope it will happen. But I will not count on it. I know the contract says channels are subject to change. But I am still paying for something I am not getting right now. I do and will continue to get my local FOX channel OTA. But the other channels are a different matter. Could the same thing happen to Dish that is getting ready to happen to Cablevision. Lawsuits are getting ready to be filed against Cablevision for $ 450 million. All we need is for one state attorney general to start the proccess against Dish.


----------



## HobbyTalk

I just got an email from Comcast that their Xfinity TV service is now on-line. Xfinity is their version of TV Everywhere. I have Comcast for internet but do not have Comcast for cable TV. I went to logged into Xfinity and I can watch almost any program that is on the major networks, including Fox. Many of the programs being offered were on today. While I don't have to worry about losing the Fox local channels on the 1st, with Xfinity who cares if they go off?


----------



## HDlover

Fox isn't going to know if I'm not watching. The government doing something is the only way money grabs are going to stop.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> Or you could not do that and show solidarity by not watching Fox at all.


Solidarity? They wouldn't even notice. They reach well more than 100 million homes.


----------



## mnassour

The overnights are in...and it's bad news for FOX. From Media Daily News:



> The Cablevision blackout led to slashed ratings in New York for Fox drama Glee this week, with the Halloween-themed hour down 29% compared to the previous original episode. On Tuesday on WNYW, Glee posted a 2.84 in the 18-to-49 demo, down 29% from a 4.01 on Oct. 12. Nationally, ratings were up 4% in the key demo. With WNYW off the air in 43% of the New York market, its late local news continues to suffer ratings drops at much higher percentages than that.


More at:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=138539


----------



## RasputinAXP

"mnassour" said:


> The overnights are in...and it's bad news for FOX. From Media Daily News:
> 
> More at:
> 
> http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=138539


I love it. Bring it on, Fox. Watch your revenues decline.

Although I wonder if they may cry about material harm?


----------



## MysteryMan

HDlover said:


> Fox isn't going to know if I'm not watching. The government doing something is the only way money grabs are going to stop.


We need more government involvement like Custer needed more indians!


----------



## jclewter79

Dave said:


> The real story is if Dish will reduce there bill to the customers. I hope it will happen. But I will not count on it. I know the contract says channels are subject to change. But I am still paying for something I am not getting right now. I do and will continue to get my local FOX channel OTA. But the other channels are a different matter. Could the same thing happen to Dish that is getting ready to happen to Cablevision. Lawsuits are getting ready to be filed against Cablevision for $ 450 million. All we need is for one state attorney general to start the proccess against Dish.


In the past, if you were in a short market or had locals pulled you were given a dollar discount for each missing local channel. Now that local are included I don't know if a discount will be given at all.


----------



## GrumpyBear

RasputinAXP said:


> I love it. Bring it on, Fox. Watch your revenues decline.
> 
> Although I wonder if they may cry about material harm?


With the potential of DishNetwork going dark in all the O&O markets Nationwide in a few days, and TimeWarner in Dec, Fox is going to have lots of show and money issues, with advertisers. 
Fox is the Superbowl carrier this year, and the last 10% of the ad space hasn't been sold yet. CBS had to work hard to get all ad space sold last year, Fox could have even more issues, if they are not being carried by 3 major carriers in large markets. Lots of blacked out markets, lots of advertisers will be looking for a price discount.

Be really hard for Fox to not look like the bad guy by avoiding binding arbitration, from all 3 seperartely in trying to end the dispute. Hope this turns off even more viewers not even effected.


----------



## lparsons21

The rumors are stronger today that Dish and Fox will come to an agreement by Monday. Couple that with the fact that the Dish home page no longer shows the Fox feud in the news block and it appears the rumors may be true.


----------



## Hoosier205

RasputinAXP said:


> I love it. Bring it on, Fox. Watch your revenues decline.
> 
> Although I wonder if they may cry about material harm?


The same is happening to Dish. Love that as well?


----------



## siwsiw

lparsons21 said:


> The rumors are stronger today that Dish and Fox will come to an agreement by Monday. Couple that with the fact that the Dish home page no longer shows the Fox feud in the news block and it appears the rumors may be true.


Dish'd website still has the news headlines about the dispute
http://www.dishnetwork.com/news/fox.aspx


----------



## lparsons21

siwsiw said:


> Dish'd website still has the news headlines about the dispute
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/news/fox.aspx


But not at the main page news block as it has been for so long. Maybe I'm reading more into that, but what the heck, it beats 'anticipating' like the D* guys are doing...


----------



## Hoosier205

lparsons21 said:


> But not at the main page news block as it has been for so long.














lparsons21 said:


> Maybe I'm reading more into that, but what the heck, it beats 'anticipating' like the D* guys are doing...


Anticipating new HD channels with DirecTV, when you already have more HD channels than Dish Network, is better than losing HD multiple channels.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> Anticipating new HD channels with DirecTV, when you already have more HD channels than Dish Network, is better than losing HD multiple channels.


That depends on what channels you want in HD. Regardless of who has the BS 'most HD' count, if you don't have what I want, it matters little.

For my viewing choices, even with the stuff that is currently not on Dish from Fox, I get more from Dish than I would with Direct.

Hopefully the Fox stuff will all settle out this weekend, but I for one, won't be missing any of it if it doesn't. FX has a couple shows I like, but nothing compelling and the rest of the 'cable channels' from Fox are of no interest. My local Fox isn't corporate owned, so it isn't in danger. But even if it were, my OTA setup gets it just fine and is usually the way I view it anyway.

All of that said, regardless of which SAT provider I might be with, I wouldn't be switching because of anything going on right now. I would grumble a bit though!


----------



## jayna_95

I find it interesting that Fox pulled F/X but not FoxNews. Is it because they know that no one watches FoxNews, thus its absence would go unnoticed?


----------



## Hoosier205

jayna_95 said:


> I find it interesting that Fox pulled F/X but not FoxNews. Is it because they know that no one watches FoxNews, thus its absence would go unnoticed?


Actually, it's the most popular cable news network in the country but a decent margin.


----------



## mnassour

Hoosier205 said:


> The same is happening to Dish. Love that as well?


I certainly do. Anything that hurts *both* sides so they'll think twice about this kind of crap in the future is welcome.


----------



## SayWhat?

MysteryMan said:


> We need more government involvement like Custer needed more indians!


It wasn't the indians, it was Custer's arrogance that did him in.

Apparently Murdoch hasn't realized that yet.


----------



## scooper

SayWhat? said:


> It wasn't the indians, it was Custer's arrogance that did him in.
> 
> Apparently Murdoch hasn't realized that yet.


Yep, Custer's ego wrote a check his body couldn't cash. Unfortunately, he took a good number of good men with him...


----------



## EW800

lparsons21 said:


> The rumors are stronger today that Dish and Fox will come to an agreement by Monday. Couple that with the fact that the Dish home page no longer shows the Fox feud in the news block and it appears the rumors may be true.


I have not heard the Monday rumors, however I would agree that if either side is removing all the feud comments, that is a good sign!


----------



## SayWhat?

I just thought of a question regarding Fox O&Os. I was wondering if the government could require a station not be blocked under Homeland Security rules about keeping the public informed. Then I began to wonder if Fox O&Os even run local news at all. ABC, NBC & CBS might be required to stay available, but Fox might not be if they don't normally run local news.

But then the question came to mind. Fox only runs a few hours in the evening of actual Fox programming. The rest of the day is usually filled with syndicated talk shows, game shows, reruns, paid programming, religious programming and so on. What happens there? Is Fox still paying those syndicators and charging infomercial sponsors even though they're witholding programming? I know they're still on OTA, but we've seen the numbers so far showing decreases in viewership in NY which will only continue to drop next week if Fox witholds programming nationwide from Dish.


----------



## DodgerKing

jayna_95 said:


> I find it interesting that Fox pulled F/X but not FoxNews. Is it because they know that no one watches FoxNews, thus its absence would go unnoticed?


It is because Fox News carriage agreement is under a different contract than FX, NatGeo, FSNs, and local Fox networks. And local Fox networks are under a different carriage agreement than the other mentioned.

Plus, Fox news is not only the most watched cable news channel, it is also one of the most watched cable channels period


----------



## DodgerKing

DodgerKing said:


> Wait until Monday. By then many of you MAY be very pleasantly  (good) surprised when you turn on your TV.


Told yah...

http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-story-dish-network-101029,0,7034093.story


----------



## RAD

DodgerKing said:


> Told yah...
> 
> http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-story-dish-network-101029,0,7034093.story


And Scott told you on his site


----------



## beachmonkey

From Sports Business Daily
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/143235


----------



## DodgerKing

RAD said:


> And Scott told you on his site


My first post was prior to me reading it from Scott as I got the info from someone else. But yes, you are correct. Scott said so prior to me posting this and I did hear it from him as well


----------



## olguy

Okay, so the O & O stations will probably not get pulled by Fox. But what about FX, NatGeo and RSNs? I haven't seen anything about them coming back. And the only thing I watch from Fox is on FX.


----------



## Hoosier205

I guess they decided they had lost enough subs. On to the next dispute...


----------



## phrelin

According to Variety's article this morning this is an agreement on the broadcast station retransmission. The way it's written implies that it may not involve the cable channels though it isn't clear. All I know is that my FX isn't back on yet.


----------



## DodgerKing

phrelin said:


> According to Variety's article this morning this is an agreement on the broadcast station retransmission. The way it's written implies that it may not involve the cable channels though it isn't clear. All I know is that my FX isn't back on yet.


Monday...

Just a rumor, and that is not from Scott


----------



## phrelin

DodgerKing said:


> Monday...
> 
> Just a rumor, and that is not from Scott


Hmmm. That would imply that there are no retroactive payments back to October 1.


----------



## dennispap

Plus, Dishnetwork.com no longer has the dispute link on the home page.:hurah:


----------



## Paul Secic

Hoosier205 said:


> No.


I agree with you there.


----------



## mnassour

Hoosier205 said:


> I guess they decided they had lost enough subs. On to the next dispute...


Absolutely correct! At least one Belo station (KVUE Austin) has posted an expected Dish shutoff notice on its website.

Maybe Dish didn't want to fight both Fox _*and*_ Belo at once!


----------



## Jhon69

mnassour said:


> Absolutely correct! At least one Belo station (KVUE Austin) has posted an expected Dish shutoff notice on its website.
> 
> Maybe Dish didn't want to fight both Fox _*and*_ Belo at once!


The easy way to see is if AT 120 disappears to be replaced by AT120+,only then will you know for sure.


----------



## Paul Secic

HobbyTalk said:


> I just got an email from Comcast that their Xfinity TV service is now on-line. Xfinity is their version of TV Everywhere. I have Comcast for internet but do not have Comcast for cable TV. I went to logged into Xfinity and I can watch almost any program that is on the major networks, including Fox. Many of the programs being offered were on today. While I don't have to worry about losing the Fox local channels on the 1st, with Xfinity who cares if they go off?


You can do the same thing with HULU. I'm not a Comcast customer, & I tried to sign on for fun. No go.


----------



## Paul Secic

RasputinAXP said:


> I love it. Bring it on, Fox. Watch your revenues decline.
> 
> Although I wonder if they may cry about material harm?


Of course they will!


----------



## Jhon69

Hoosier205 said:


> I guess they decided they had lost enough subs. On to the next dispute...


Or Fox was losing too many viewers?.


----------



## RAD

mnassour said:


> Absolutely correct! At least one Belo station (KVUE Austin) has posted an expected Dish shutoff notice on its website.
> 
> Maybe Dish didn't want to fight both Fox _*and*_ Belo at once!


http://www.kvue.com/home/A-message-for-DISH-Network-customers-105184709.html



> Posted on October 29, 2010 at 12:11 PM
> 
> Updated today at 12:11 PM
> 
> Dear valued KVUE viewer,
> 
> I want you to know that we are in the process of negotiating a program carriage agreement with DISH Network. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts to move forward with DISH, little progress has been made to this point. In the interest of completing a fair deal and avoiding viewer disruption, KVUE has decided to extend the deadline for continued carriage of our programming to Sunday, November 7th at midnight. Our hope is that the extra time will allow for additional dialog resulting in a mutually fair agreement.


----------



## Paul Secic

SayWhat? said:


> I just thought of a question regarding Fox O&Os. I was wondering if the government could require a station not be blocked under Homeland Security rules about keeping the public informed. Then I began to wonder if Fox O&Os even run local news at all. ABC, NBC & CBS might be required to stay available, but Fox might not be if they don't normally run local news.
> 
> But then the question came to mind. Fox only runs a few hours in the evening of actual Fox programming. The rest of the day is usually filled with syndicated talk shows, game shows, reruns, paid programming, religious programming and so on. What happens there? Is Fox still paying those syndicators and charging infomercial sponsors even though they're witholding programming? I know they're still on OTA, but we've seen the numbers so far showing decreases in viewership in NY which will only continue to drop next week if Fox witholds programming nationwide from Dish.


That's a real stretch.:eek2:


----------



## Paul Secic

beachmonkey said:


> From Sports Business Daily
> http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/143235


Let's hope this is true.


----------



## Paul Secic

Hoosier205 said:


> I guess they decided they had lost enough subs. On to the next dispute...


G4 is in danger on your side.


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> Told yah...
> 
> http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-story-dish-network-101029,0,7034093.story


Odd ... a search of their site comes up with the same reference but no story. The search page results:
*Dish Network and FOX Reach Deal*
Oct 29, 2010 at 6:49 AM PST
Dish Network and FOX reached a deal on Friday meaning FOX8 will remain on the company's lineup.​


----------



## Hoosier205

Paul Secic said:


> G4 is in danger on your side.


Which is SD only and won't be missed either way.


----------



## James Long

Paul Secic said:


> G4 is in danger on your side.


Yes. But as it is a network DirecTV is losing it is a piece of crap that needs to be flushed from the lineup. There seems to be a lot more excitement over the addition of ShortsHD ... a channel DISH Platinum HD subs have had since April. I'd rather watch AMC HD or BBCA HD myself, but I digress ...

The "local take down" temporary channels still exist for all the Fox broadcast stations and this looks like a temporary reprieve. In all of the silence something was going on. I'll be happy when the "our side of the issue" websites are taken down or modified to acknowledge a deal, or a press release announcing the new multi-year contract is put out.

At least this takes the World Series off of the table ... just in case Game 5 is needed.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> Odd ... a search of their site comes up with the same reference but no story. The search page results:
> *Dish Network and FOX Reach Deal*
> Oct 29, 2010 at 6:49 AM PST
> Dish Network and FOX reached a deal on Friday meaning FOX8 will remain on the company's lineup.​


They probably had to take it down???


----------



## epokopac

"At least this takes the World Series off of the table ... just in case Game 5 is needed."

With the way Texas is playing, there are two chances of a Game 5 on Monday:

1 - Fat
2 - Slim


----------



## domingos35

Hoosier205 said:


> I guess they decided they had lost enough subs. On to the next dispute...


don't worry,your day WILL come:lol:


----------



## domingos35

Hoosier205 said:


> Which is SD only and won't be missed either way.


excuses,excuses:nono2:


----------



## mdavej

James Long said:


> Odd ... a search of their site comes up with the same reference but no story. The search page results:
> *Dish Network and FOX Reach Deal*
> Oct 29, 2010 at 6:49 AM PST
> Dish Network and FOX reached a deal on Friday meaning FOX8 will remain on the company's lineup.​


That WAS the whole story originally.


----------



## mdavej

It's a done deal! It says all Fox programming will be immediately restored.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/DISH-Network-and-Fox-Networks-prnews-1518587753.html?x=0&.v=1


----------



## slickshoes

Yep, this was just posted on Facebook from FOX's smear campaign...

_Get What I Paid For GOOD NEWS DISH NETWORK CUSTOMERS! FOX, FX, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL AND YOUR REGIONAL FOX SPORTS NETWORKS ARE ON DISH NETWORK. Now you can enjoy all of the popular entertainment and sports programming on FOX, FX, National Geographic Channel and your regional FOX Sports Networks. Thanks being a loyal viewer!_


----------



## phrelin

mdavej said:


> It's a done deal! It says all Fox programming will be immediately restored.
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/DISH-Network-and-Fox-Networks-prnews-1518587753.html?x=0&.v=1


That, of course, was the joint news release which stated: "Financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed."

We will indirectly find out what they are February.


----------



## James Long

DISH Network and Fox Networks Reach Comprehensive Programming Agreement
Press Release and discussion


----------

